The Secret Of Gravity Revealed - Scientific Experiment Included

page: 25
52
<< 22  23  24    26  27 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 12:40 AM
link   
So what are you trying to say exactly? bring it down to earth for my pea brain.




posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by catinthebox
how the hell does the earth spin around the sun, how do scientists figure out accurate orbital patterns, predict eclipses, predict comet flybys, alot of current knowledge is based on the rules that gravity has established, and if you switch it to an electromagnetic force, YOU MESS # UP


Try reading
Gravitational Force of the Sun
by Pari Spolter

www.thelivingmoon.com...



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 02:23 AM
link   
I don't know about the rest of you, but I enjoyed that philosophy lecture.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 02:43 AM
link   
I'm just pleased we have the learned folks of ATS around to helpfully discredit centuries of hard work by thousands of the brighest minds on the planet. Whew!



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Has2b
Obviously there is a different motive.


There is another motive, but its pretty complex. The main part of it was that I wanted to meet some new people that have similar interests, but are in better positions than I, and can do more experiments than I. I also wanted to use this forum as a practice session, so that when ever I find myself having to explain this again, I know what questions and information people will ask about.

Also, this thread covers more than just gravity. If you read between the lines on some of my posts, it pretty much is a "theory of everything". I even covered how our brainwaves (electromagnetic radiation) is being emitted from our heads, and effecting the world around us. I sorta described ghosts, and life and death. I described the direct relationship between light and dark, and how our minds learn everything from light and dark. I even talked about human and animal behavior. It's all about magnetic interactions. You just got to read between the lines of some of my posts.


Originally posted by Has2b
If you acknowledge you will not disclose the answers in detail, then either you don't have them or everything you say has to be assessed as misinformation to intentionally mislead!

Thanks anyway I found the subject interesting theory... pity it seems it has no practical value!


I'm sorry you feel this way. Because of that, I will explain a little more.


Look at this image below from Rense. Right in the center of the image is Ed Leedskalnin's 30 ton block. Right in the center of the block is a hole all the way through it.


You will not read what I am about to tell you anywhere else. Not even my website:

The hole in the center of the 30 ton rock is the best place to slide an iron bar all the way through. Then with electricity/magnetism, or what Ed would call it "magnetic current", you do something special to the rock.


Now, look at this video I made:


I am holding the spray can with two fingers. Imagine an invisible iron bar between the tips of my two fingers, and imagine the iron bar is passing through the spray can.



Just some hints...

-note-
Likes repel, opposites attract. Magnets want to flip naturally when they feel even the slightest repulsion. They naturally desire attraction.

[edit on 23-7-2008 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by XL5
That demo with the magnets an the large ball bearing is not free energy and the magnet is not spinning anything. You could do the same by glueing a tiny thread to the ball and moving the thread like you would with the magnet.


I was not trying to show "free energy". I was showing how a ring of magnets makes another round magnet spin. And I was relating it to the Solar System, and how the Earth spins by force.

Also, you are wrong, the ring of magnets is making the magnet spin. If you watch videos of David Hamel, or you study Ed Leedskalnin's electric generator, or you read about Henry FORD's original Model T engine, that had V magnets in a circular ring that was basically perpetual motion, you will know that the magnets can naturally spin other magnets.

When you give the magnets a slight "off center axis", and spin them, magnetic force will/can perpetually move them. It's a lame example compared to the Solar System, but its all I can show you from my chair.

Magnetic force loves to travel in loops, this is why electricity has to be a closed loop to work. Once you have the magnetic force traveling in a loop, you can use the movement of the force to your benefit to spin things.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Promecus
The only joke here is that you believe gravity is magnetism. Sorry to tell you, but they are two very different things.


Or maybe you meant, "magnetic inclination"? I was waiting for you to correct me.
Mission failed.

Have you herd of a DIP NEEDLE?

physics.kenyon.edu...

Notice the angles on some of them!

I like this part:



The needle must be accurately balanced so that only magnetic torques are exerted on it. Some texts suggest that the dip angle be measured twice, with the poles of the needle reversed by remagetization between trials, and the results averaged.


You don't get the same reading every time, and the reading is different depending on how you magnetize the needle. If the needle was truly dipping with the "lines of force" from Earth, you would think you would get the same reading every time, but they say to "average the results".


Isn't it great how the magnetism from Earth could make 0ne side of a balanced needle more heavy then the other side?




Originally posted by Promecus
I'd put more references here for you to read...but we both know it would be like casting pearls before swine.


Please, list your references.

[edit on 23-7-2008 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
I'm just pleased we have the learned folks of ATS around to helpfully discredit centuries of hard work by thousands of the brighest minds on the planet. Whew!


Nobody is discrediting anyone. Actually everything that is true about "gravity" can be easily migrated over to my theory, and still hold true. Everything that gravity can't explain can easily be explained by knowing that everything is electromagnetic.

Light is electromagnetic, matter/mass is electromagnetic, EVERYTHING is electromagnetic.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 04:36 AM
link   
CRACKPOT CHECKLIST

does anyone care to tally this dudes points up?



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 04:54 AM
link   
I believe all the posited Scientific theories that have been addressed in the entire history of Humankind in each moment of time and place would hit the Jackpot Score with that Crackpot Score sheet indeed.
Remember;
Last years heresy more often than not eventuates to become this years belief.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by catinthebox
 

LOL!

Funny, I'm glad I am in a laughing mood today.

---

So, now that I revealed that a Djed is actually similar to a Voltaic pile, do you now understand why they tilt the Djed at an angle like a Dip needle, and like to feel the heat with their hands?







D.K.S.





[edit on 23-7-2008 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by catinthebox
CRACKPOT CHECKLIST

does anyone care to tally this dudes points up?


It's going to take a few days to calculate that number. He's made himself applicable to several items on that list.


Ok, AllisOne, riddle me this.

Look at the equation for calculating gravity.
F = GMm/R²

and then look at the equation for magnetism.
F(sub B) = qv × B (1)

NOW, please tell us why these two are not interchangeable?

If gravity and magnetism are one in the same, then both equations should explain both gravity and magnetism. But yet then don't.


And yes, yes, yes... We ALL know that with the proper electromagnetic field one can defeat gravity. That hasn't been a secret sense the mid 1930's when Tesla came out with his anti-gravity machine. So you read a history book ( wow, you can read books
). But that does not mean that gravity = magnetism.

I'm sure all the great minds of physics are spinning in their graves right now.

[SNIP]

(1) - Sorry, can't make a little "B" in this forum. But anyone with any basic math skills should know what 'sub B' means.


Mod Edit: Removed Insult.
Mod Edit: Civility and Decorum are Required


[edit on 23-7-2008 by Gemwolf]



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Promecus
 


Back to school time for you Promecus, class is now in session. Please take a seat, I will be your teacher for this session....


Since you didn't read the thread, I will start from the beginning just for you, because you are "special". You can consider this the "special kids class"....


Magnetism


In physics, magnetism is one of the phenomena by which materials exert attractive or repulsive forces on other materials.


When a material(mass) attracts or repels another material(mass), the force responsible is called magnetism. Oddly enough, "gravity" is the force responsible for a material(mass) attracting another material(mass).



Some well-known materials that exhibit easily detectable magnetic properties (called magnets) are nickel, iron, cobalt, and their alloys; however, all materials are influenced to greater or lesser degree by the presence of a magnetic field.


Look at the underlined text. This proves that wood, plastic, dirt, water, and basically all materials(mass) are influenced by magnetism. This supports my theory...




Every electron, on account of its spin, is a small magnet (see Electron magnetic dipole moment).


Wikipedia, and many physics experts agree, electrons are basically small magnets. This supports my theory too...


Please note, all materials(mass) are made of electrons and protons (magnets). This is the main point of my theory.


Originally posted by Promecus
Ok, AllisOne, riddle me this.

Look at the equation for calculating gravity.
F = GMm/R²

and then look at the equation for magnetism.
F(sub B) = qv × B (1)

NOW, please tell us why these two are not interchangeable?


The problem with Newtons equation F = Gm1m2/R² is that it is entirely based on "G" which is the "gravitational constant". The "gravitational constant" was measured by Henry Cavendish using a highly inaccurate measuring device. The tool used was a torsion balance that was constructed with materials that are greatly effected by electrostatics!

en.wikipedia.org...


The apparatus constructed by Cavendish was a torsion balance made of a six-foot wooden rod suspended from a wire, with a 2 inch diameter 1.61 pound lead sphere attached to each end. Two 12 inch 348 pound lead balls were located near the smaller balls, about 9 inches away, and held in place with a separate suspension system.


As shown in the underlined text, the main part of the torsion balance was made of a mix of WOOD, and LEAD. If you read about the triboelectric effect, you will see that in the triboelectric series, lead is known to give up electrons, just as much as cat fur. Now look at wood, wood is known to collect electrons!

www.school-for-champions.com...

What this means, is that the smaller lead balls that were attached to the wood rod were actually giving away electrons to the wood. This would make them more attracted to the larger lead balls which contain more electrons. This means that the Cavendish experiment was actually measuring ELECTROSTATIC EFFECTS, and NOT GRAVITY. The basic design of all torsion balances are highly effected by electrostatic effects. Actually all objects in the entire universe are highly effected by static electricity, and the triboelectric effect.

This in a way explains why Coulomb's law of electrostatic force is so similar to Newton's law of the force of gravity.

Newton...gravity....................F = Gm1m2/R²
Coulomb...electrostatic......... F = q1q2/R²

Both gravity and electrostatic force follow an inverse square law where the force (F) is proportional to the product of the sizes of the two objects/charges (m1, m2, q1, q2), divided by the square of the distance between the objects/charges (R²).

This almost identical behavior of the 2 forces supports my theory. Electrostatics is phenomena created by electric charges, mainly from electrons(magnets). All the laws of electricity and magnetism, like Coulomb's law, are linked together in a single theory of electromagnetism. That's where Maxwell's equations on electromagnetism come in.

F(sub B) = qv × B

The equation above represents moving electric charges (electron "magnets"). q is the charge, and v is the velocity(movement) of the charge.

Key words: Moving Electric Charges.

As we all know, the Earth is spinning, and all matter on Earth is spinning, and moving. And Earth itself is moving around the Sun. Nothing is at rest. All objects are made of electric charges (electrons and protons). This means all objects are moving electric charges, which means all objects are MAGNETS.

This is why I call electrostatic force, electromagnetic force, and gravitational forces the same thing, MAGNETISM. Because no matter what, all things are moving electric charges. This is why Ed Leedskalnin says electricity and magnetism are the same thing, and calls it "magnetic current", instead of "electric current".

It is very well known that gravity is depended on mass. All mass is held together by electromagnetic force. Not all objects have external magnetic fields, but all mass is a magnetic field itself because of electron spin, and the movement of the mass through space.

A larger object has more electric charge then a smaller object.

------------

Class dismissed.

D.K.S.


[edit on 23-7-2008 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Was curious AllIsOne, you said you've made some of these devices. Considering the generator...

- Is it sufficient to use just one"primer" for the EM generator array, or do you have to use a "primer" on every spoke to create individual magnetic loops?

- And considering a mini version, (in order to demonstrate the effect of PM) would a 9v suffice, or do I need something with more current for charging?

- I imagine there needs to be a considerable number of coils on the spokes and sufficient mass of iron or steel, but again, can the basic effect be achieved on a smaller scale with less of each?

I'm at the testing stage and I can't get the sucker to keep spinning...



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   
I've always been taught that the earths magnetic field was a result of its rotating iron core. However it would seem that the heat at the core would negate or cancel out the ferro-magnetic properties.

Is the magnetic field a by product of a rotating body? The strength of the field being proportional to it's mass?

Would a planet size chunk of brass, if spun fast enough, develop a magnetic field?

Professor Patrick Maynard Stuart Blackett of Manchester University put forth this idea in the late 1940's. I think he failed to develop an experiment to prove it though.

Here is his Equation:

P=ß (G½/2c) U, where P is the strength of the magnetic field; ß is a constant near unity; G is the gravitational constant (6.670 X 10^-8); c is the speed of light; U is the angular momentum (spin) of a revolving body.
www.time.com...

Have fun with this one.

Another interesting difference between Gravity& Magnetism is that as two objects get far apart, the gravity between them goes down by a factor of four when you double the distance, but the magnetism goes down by (at least) a factor of eight.

[edit on 23-7-2008 by Sparky63]



[edit on 23-7-2008 by Sparky63]


XL5

posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Nope the magnet does not spin the ballbearing, even if its off center. What spins it is the spin axis of the ball being off center from the face of a flat surface the ball is spinning on. Try putting the ball in a toy boat and try it in the tub or try using a top with a point at the end in place of the ball.

If you move the top magnet to the right and toward you, the ball will spin clockwise. Move it to the right and away from you, it will spin counterclockwise. If it only spun one way, then maybe there's something to it. I just tested a ballbearing with thread and it spun.

I have looked at hamels drum setup and many free energy/AG stuff and the only things that seem to have unbias supporting claims and seem to make sense are toroidal helixes.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Look at this image below from Rense. Right in the center of the image is Ed Leedskalnin's 30 ton block. Right in the center of the block is a hole all the way through it.
external image

You will not read what I am about to tell you anywhere else. Not even my website:

The hole in the center of the 30 ton rock is the best place to slide an iron bar all the way through. Then with electricity/magnetism, or what Ed would call it "magnetic current", you do something special to the rock.
originally posted by Allis0ne

and THEN apply a gyroscopic motion to the object via magnetism ( alike poles of magnets repel) simple as that

Millner



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


Thanks

You understand fulcrum points! LOL

Your theory involves some form of magnetic change to either the rock material or appling some form of repulsive to gravity charge on an iron bar or a series of leverl type arrangements?

BUT here in reply in your to another


Or maybe you meant, "magnetic inclination"? I was waiting for you to correct me. Mission failed.


You virtually destroy the premise of your whole theory. Despite same comment being posted in the first or second page.

Somehow you think when a baseball ball hits the ball it is changing the molecular alignment causing magnetic or gravitational repulsion??? Now that is far out.

I really enjoyed the Djed/Voltaic stack comment though... can't believe I missed that! Why would aligning it to magnetic feild decline would it have an effect?

I must say thread is all thought provoking so that is good

Are you going to write a book or embark on a CT radio ciruit speaking tour? There's big money to be made in this persuit so long as you can successfully perfect the excuses to actually avoid demonstration or proving anything!?

You are better read and more knowledgeable than many give you credit for. Again well done for entertainment value!



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE

Magnetism


In physics, magnetism is one of the phenomena by which materials exert attractive or repulsive forces on other materials.


When a material(mass) attracts or repels another material(mass), the force responsible is called magnetism. Oddly enough, "gravity" is the force responsible for a material(mass) attracting another material(mass).


Class dismissed.

D.K.S.


[edit on 23-7-2008 by ALLis0NE]


hi Allisone.

Great to see you still sharing on the thread.
I agree with the idea that gravity acts like a magnet when we look at attraction, but when or were do we observe gravity repelling mass. I mean, it either attracts or it repels, is that right?





top topics
 
52
<< 22  23  24    26  27 >>

log in

join