It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Gravity on the Moon...

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 03:25 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

You are exactly right. I think for the layperson, though, that it's pretty easy to confuse the two. people hear scientists talking about electromagnetic fields, magnetic field lines, etc.. and then they sometimes assume that gravity and electromagnetism are the same thing when they are actually extremely different from one another and also exist in nature completely independent from one another.

The moon is a great example of this. It has a gravitational force pretty proportional to earth's for an object of its size. But it lacks an electromagnetic field like earth has. Therefore, using this example, we can see that in nature gravity is not dependant on electromagnetic energy. At least not directly. We do believe that there is probably some kind of link between electromagnetic energy and gravity. But it has never really been scientifically proven. Mainly because we're talking about indirect scientific analysis at subatomic scales here. And it's extremely difficult to prove a theory when you're talking about something invisible to humans that can only be quantified and/or qualified through indirect scientific evaluation. An apple falling off a tree (just as an example) can be considered an indirect observation in this regard since the apple falling is only one observable effect of gravity when It does not represent what comprises the phenomenon, itself. The indirect effects of gravity are what humans observe all the time.. The earth orbiting the sun, the moon orbiting earth, an apple falling off a tree. What is extremely difficult to study and verify is something invisible to us that eludes any true means of direct scientific evaluation. That's the real challenge to studying and confirming the links between gravity and electromagnetism.

I've always believed that Gravity can be explained as a "side effect" of an object with mass existing in our multidimensional universe. When I say "an object with mass", I mean everything from subatomic particles, to atoms, dust, asteroids, planets, stars, and galaxies. Mass is an attribute of physical matter (and possibly some non-physical matter) which cannot be directly gauged or estimated by measuring the size of any one physical object. So, Gravity is a distortion of the space/time fabric as we currently understand it and is caused by physical objects with mass. Mass can generally be thought of as how "compacted" the physical matter of an object is (although, it is a little more complex than that). Take planet earth, for example. We have about average gravity for a planet of our size. If earth had more mass and were still the same size as it is now, the gravity of earth would be greater than it is now.

So, gravity is directly proportional to the mass of an object and how much of that mass makes up an asteroid, planet, star, etc.. This is how neutron stars can be much smaller than our sun, yet have many times the sun's gravity. This is a very basic, but still realistic, way of understanding how this all works.

This is how Einstein described gravity. (flash movie provided by Stanford University).

What is hard to really grasp here, even with the animation, is how gravity works 3-dimensionally. It's very easy to understand and depict gravity distorting space-time by showing how this distortion "bows" a 2-dimensional surface or membrane. But we don't live in a 2-dimensional world. What you are seeing in the animation (this bending of space/time caused by objects with mass) is actually always occuring at all points around any object with mass. That's what I dont' like about this depiction.
I know, I'm just picky!

The gravity of an object is almost never going to be uniform. The same goes for an electromagnetic field. But the electromagnetic field of a planet like earth exists completely independent of the gravity field. If we could visibly see both the magnetic field of earth and the gravity field of earth, the two would look extremely different geometrically. That's because of the nature of how a planet like earth creates an electromagnetic field. Earth's is believed to be created internally by what is referred to as a "dynamo effect". What we have are alot of theories about how it is internally created.
But electromagnetism still exists as one of the biggest unknown variables in science today because it is not very well understood. What we're left with are alot of theories about how the earth creates this field. We might not completely understand how or why it exists, but we do understand alot about how electromagnetism works, in general.

I'm not really an expert in electricity or magnetism, but the simplest way to think of it is like THIS..

The field is similar to that of a bar magnet, but this similarity is superficial. The magnetic field of a bar magnet, or any other type of permanent magnet, is created by the coordinated spins of electrons and nuclei within the atoms. The Earth's core, however, is hotter than 1043 K, the Curie point temperature at which the orientations of spins within iron become randomized. Such randomization causes the substance to lose its magnetic field. Therefore the Earth's magnetic field is caused not by magnetized iron deposits, but mostly by electric currents in the liquid outer core.

Convection of molten iron within the outer liquid core, along with a Coriolis effect caused by the overall planetary rotation, tends to organize these "electric currents" in rolls aligned along the north-south polar axis. When conducting fluid flows across an existing magnetic field, electric currents are induced, which in turn creates another magnetic field. When this magnetic field reinforces the original magnetic field, a dynamo is created which sustains itself. This is called the Dynamo Theory and it explains how the Earth's magnetic field is sustained.

Another feature that distinguishes the Earth magnetically from a bar magnet is its magnetosphere. At large distances from the planet, this dominates the surface magnetic field. Electric currents induced in the ionosphere also generate magnetic fields. Such a field is always generated near where the atmosphere is closest to the Sun, causing daily alterations which can deflect surface magnetic fields by as much as one degree.

This is very well illustrated in the following images..
Some of these are really big. Might take a minute to load.

I've been researching more into the connection between electromagnetism and gravity though.

A guy on "google answers" sais..

I was wondering if there has ever been any serious investigation into
the possibility that gravity might be a byproduct of the electrostatic
and electromagnetic forces.

The response to this guy's question is one of the best I've found at explaining this..
You can find this page HERE
Beware..The posts end up careening off into anti-gravity propulsion research by boeing and some other stuff.. Interesting to read.

Here's part of one of the responses (WOW).

I think I would be safe in saying that the current general
understanding in the physics community is that gravity is not a
byproduct of electromagnetic force but they are considered to be two
of the fundamental forces. The other two are known as the “strong” and
“weak” forces (physicists show such imagination with names!)

These four forces are considered fundamental because they are
considered to explain all observed physical processes. ie Any force
between two objects is due to one or another of these interactions.
The relativistic quantum field theory also describes four carrier
particles for each of these forces. Photons (electromagnetic), bosons
(weak), gluons (strong) and gravitons (gravitational). However ,
according to the SLAC article this theory is acknowledged as
incomplete. So the lack of experimental evidence for gravitons and the
fact that the theory does not explain how the fundamental particle
masses are generated, provides considerable opportunities for
physicists to complete the theory. Other forces and carrier particles
have been proposed and as has previously been the case, proof of such
fundamental particles or forces would definitely be considered a Nobel
prize level achievement.

However, there has been continuous serious investigation into the
possibility that gravity and electromagnetic forces are linked.
Unified theories of forces have been of continuous interest to
physicists. Some of the more famous examples include Maxwell in 1855
who showed electric and magnetic lines of force could be described by
a single set of equations; Einstein died working on a unified field
theory to explain the relationship between gravitation and
electromagnetism and more recently, the 1999 Nobel Prize was awarded
for work toward deriving a unified framework for all the theoretical
forces (Hooft).


[edit on 1-6-2009 by BlasteR]

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 04:01 AM
Hello All,

Here is some interesting reading you all might enjoy. This is directly from NASA website and has been discussed sinc e the 70's.

The moon is too big to be a ntural moon to the earth.

It was a planet in itself and I believe was inhabited at one time.

Check out this link:

It crashed into our 4 to 6 little moons as it got sucked into our gravity. Part of it broke off launching it into a good orbit. Not all of the moon is up there as part of it crashed into the earth.

This explains a lot. This is why we can not get a clear color picture of the moon. There are ruins up there from a previous civilization.

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 04:25 AM
I'm sure there's something we're not being told about the far side of the moon but im highly suspicious as to what it is, especially making such a claim like this with barely any evidence. I suppose we just wait for a whistle blower with these kinds of things... not much else we can do.

Did someone just say 'lets make our own space shuttle!?'



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 08:49 AM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by zorgon

As I read the thing jumped out at me....

The phrase "any sort of 'negative' gravity would be miniscule"

Gravity itself is somewhat miniscule, but its reach (based on the current prevailing theory) is far reaching. It doesn't lose strength as you move away from its center to as great a degree as the magnetic force, for example.

However, this miniscule force, because of its reach, is able to exert great force on objects in the universe. The "negative gravity" force being referred to seems logical to a layperson like me. I have heard it before, and it is perfectly sane when considered against the standard model.

Consider the nebulous appearance of the universe as we know it:

Notice the dentritic type globules of matter (galaxies, stars, etc). But there are vast, vast spaces of emptiness between them. And they are expanding away from each other faster and faster. Since we know that gravity, even though it is weak, would still have some level of effect over some of the distances seen, we can only assume that there is something actually pushing instead of pulling.

Now, for my own fanciful notion:

We believe mass to be the causative factor of gravity, and its effects are cumulative (i.e., more mass = more gravity). Would it not then be reasonable to assume that a lack of mass is going to create a lack of gravity? So, in the vast reaches of space, we can easily assume that the further you are from mass, the further you are from any gravitational effect. Perhaps it is then possible that this lack of gravitational effect creates a "bulge" in space/time? As if the universe were designed to have some level of gravitational tension applied to it, and when it isn't you get a bulge, to use an analogy.

By "bulge", i am referring to the concept that gravity creates an indention in space/time. If such a "bulge" could occur, it would be a perfect representative of "negative gravity".

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 10:09 AM
It suddenly hit me last night as I was drifting off to sleep. Why is the moon's orbit growing by 1 cm per year or whatever it is? It can't be because the moon's going too fast because that would resolve itself relatively quickly just like any satellite would do. Any object that moves too fast for it's current orbit would move higher but by moving higher it would slow down to the point where it's moving just fast enough to maintain that new orbit. So why isn't the moon doing that? This constant pulling away over long periods of time seems to be a form of anti-gravity. If either or both the Earth or the moon were getting more massive over time, let's say from impacting meteors, then you would expect the two bodies to move closer. If they are moving further apart does that mean that one or both of them are losing mass? How could that be?

There is one possibility that I just though of. If the moon's center of gravity were shifting away from the Earth, then I think that would give the same effect as losing mass. So here's a really wild idea. What if, the moon really is hollow and over time large amounts of heavy material like iron for example, was being mined and redeployed as building material elsewhere on or in the moon so that the center of gravity is shifting ever so slightly each year?

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 10:28 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

I got a question:

How can mass have a attraction force through space which is close to a vacuum?

For a mass to have any attraction to earth it has to be within earth atmosphere. Unless it has a strong magnetic force.

Satellites can stay in space because they are in a nearly vacuum environment. They are not attracted to earth at all by its mass only by its magnetic force if they have any. Unless it is within earth atmosphere. Only then will mass play a role besides a magnetic force.

In a vacuum state mass has no effect. The only effect of any attraction is if it has a magnetic force. That's why mass/people floats in space?

I got one more question:

If the Moon has no atmosphere. Then the atmosphere on the Moon would be the same as space(close to a Vacuum). And the Moon rotates. Why didn't the astronauts float on the moons surface?

And why doesn't the dust on the ground fly off? every grain of sand cant have iron or be magnetic.

The Moon has to produce a atmosphere of some kind to keep the small and light matter on it. If not it would float of into space.

What happens to a balloon that gets filed with helium here on earth. It flies and why is that?

If you where lighter then air you would fly to. See what i am getting at. Mass has only a effect if it is magnetic or in a environment where there is a atmosphere or a magnetic force to keep it in place.

One more question.

When and why does matter burn when they enter our atmosphere?
Well because on the outer rim of our atmosphere the air is so thin and there is hardly any pressure at all. The matter will speeds up. And when it gets closer to the ground where there is more gasses. You get friction or more pressure.

Earths atmosphere is also the reason why we have to use a rocket to get out into space.
Earths gravity is earths atmosphere and magnetic force combined. But earth atmosphere is the biggest gravity problem we have to leave this planet.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 11:31 AM
I have a personal theory about why the moon orbits earth.

As we all know earth gives of light gasses or matter into space constantly. " the lighter the energy/matter is the higher it will be from earth surface" But not in a equal amount in every direction. Because of earths production of energy/matter.

As we all should know mass is only effected if it meats a differential in pressure or is magnetic.
What if the energy/matter that earth gives of constantly into space is what gives the Moon a orbit? And the speed of the Moons orbit around earth is what makes it keep its distance?

The speed of the Moons orbit could probably be measured by the Moons mass compared to the consistency of the matter in the space that is between the Moon and earth. Matter given of by earth. That's matter not a magnetic force.

This is a lot like Einsteins theory of Gravity.

Its like the moon is attracted to earth because earth gives of a light atmosphere of matter between earth and the moon. Which gives the Moons mass something to be attracted by?

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 12:20 PM
reply to post by spy66

spy...really?? Please study some more, because as many have already answered your questions. Furry Texan, and BlasteR, especially.

You have many, many in correct 'assumptions' about gravity, and mass. And atmosphere. But, that's why ATS is great, because it is a place to learn, as long as you listen.

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 12:34 PM
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Did you miss where it was explained in this thread how "negative gravity" is simply a lower gravity than predicted from a model?

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 12:48 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by spy66

spy...really?? Please study some more, because as many have already answered your questions. Furry Texan, and BlasteR, especially.

You have many, many in correct 'assumptions' about gravity, and mass. And atmosphere. But, that's why ATS is great, because it is a place to learn, as long as you listen.

Ill stick to my theory because it makes sense.

You can stick to someone else's theory that is fine with me. But it won't change what gravity is

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 01:34 PM
reply to post by spy66

Oh dear.....

I'll try again.

Satellites orbit the Earth because, in reality, they are constantly falling. As they fall, because of their velocity, the curvature of the Earth prevents them from hitting the ground.

This is better explained with a visual....try YouTube, there are instructional videos there.

Earth's atmosphere is quite thin, in comparison. Try to imagine an apple....think of the apple as a scale model of the Earth. In order to put the thickness of our atmosphere into perspective.....on this scale model scenario, the skin of the apple would be a representation of Earth's atmosphere, on these scales. THIS is how miniscule our atmosphere really is, when compared to the size of our planet.

There are many, many different orbits that Humans use when we launch artificial satellites. There is LEO (Low Earth Orbit), there is geo-synchronous, and geo-stationary.....all sorts, depending on the purpose, the mission, of the satellite.

There is a really, really good NASA video, on YouTube, that explains is about 30 minutes long. I'd link it, but sometimes the finding of knolwedge is more fun, so I'll let you do the searching...

Open your mind, keep it open....and let knowledge pour in, please!!!


I just could not editing to include a link, to YouTube....I love this expalnation, I think everyone should see it!!

AND....I know certain ATS mambers will get a real kick out of the title "Naval Space Command" because, people are here at ATS, fond of 'bashing' NASA. Well...NSC, coming FROM a NASA video.....hmmmmm......

Please, enjoy.....EVERYONE, please watch!!!! It is over 30 minutes, but well worth your time!!! I have seen it four times.....this will by my fifth time. It is SO worth it!!!!

to include the it is...

Hope I fixed the link....
[edit on 6/1/0909 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 6/1/0909 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 6/1/0909 by weedwhacker]

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 01:55 PM
reply to post by spy66

This thread may help in understanding in combination with the videos Weedwhacker pointed out.

[edit on 6/1/2009 by jkrog08]

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 06:32 PM

Originally posted by Bob Down Under
I wonder if the past Apollo missions picked up on that when orbiting the Moon?

My guess is they would have had to.

Look at Apollo 13... they slingshot off the moon's gravity and came back to earth somewhat like throwing a pin at a piece of paper 10 feet away, and getting the pin to stick into the SIDE of the piece of paper.

Even with corrections they would had to have known about that back then... probably from the Gemini mission.

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 06:56 PM

Originally posted by zorgon
Recent conversation overheard outside Mike Griffin's office...

"Hey Mikey, what are we going to do tomorrow?"

"Tomorrow? Why tomorrow we are going to take over the world's space programs, that's what!"

NASA And India Sign Agreement For Future Cooperation

NASA To Work With India on Moon Mission

U.S.- India Space Cooperation

NASA Administrator Visits China

ESA and NASA extend ties with major new cross-support agreement


Hmmm No wonder we need to wait years to get those images

Zorgon you hit the nail on the head. We, being NASA, give you the technology and you participating countries make a pact to keep your mouths shut of what is up there. This has been my thoughts percisely.

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 07:29 PM
reply to post by amari

Do the the other countries really need the technology from the US?

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 08:55 PM
OH Oh I can explain this one. Imagine this. Earth is pulling you closer to it on the close side, but on the far side most of that affect is canceled by the moon's own gravity, allowing the moon's own pull to be greater.

I'm actually using this basis to design a bit of a warp engine for fun with some pals.

No anomaly, simply the way gravity works.

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 09:13 PM
Instead of reading the bible as if we were apes coming out of a cave, try reading it the way he wrote it. The 1st couple were born PERFECT! Their children not so much...but SERIOUSLY more closer than we are now! When you pull out the plug, the fan slows...but it goes faster TO slower, not slower to faster! They had FULL KNOWLEDGE, before the serpant began twisting it all.
Then read the 1st Babylon account. genesis 11:1 Now all the earth continued to be of one language and of one set of words. 2 And it came about that in their journeying eastward they eventually discovered a valley plain in the land of Shi´nar, and they took up dwelling there. 3 And they began to say, each one to the other: “Come on! Let us make bricks and bake them with a burning process.” So brick served as stone for them, but bitumen served as mortar for them. 4 They now said: “Come on! Let us build ourselves a city and also a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a celebrated name for ourselves, for fear we may be scattered over all the surface of the earth.”

Has anyone seen the archeological find of the tablet with old letters...older than Sumarian...ENGLISH LETTERS AND NUMBERS?? The hydroglyph of the jet fighters and helicopter? The fly-by filming on the moon of the old shot down ship in the crater? The deserted village? The mining facilities? Google "Moon Mineral Mining Shares" and see if you might wanna invest? The forests of Mars? Or the tube down the mountain with the car stuck in it at the crack? The biggest lye is that WE are the pinnicle of advancment! This has all been done before, and in some respects better than this time around! Re-adjust your outlook and stop beleiving those who held back the knowledge and would not let others by to REALLY advance! Everything they take serious, laugh at...and everything THEY LAUGH AT, TAKE SERIOUS! RIGHT IS WRONG, UP IS DOWN, BAD IS GOOD AND GOOD IS BAD! We didn't make it this way, but it really is a simple as that. Whatever they say....THE OPPOSIT! Howwever they tell you to deal with it...OPPOSITE! Test it for a few ideas and a few days...convince yourself by living the proof! You'll relax alot too, FINALLY HAVING AN IDEA OF WHAT'S GOING ON AND HOW TO HANDLE IT! Or stay locked in Lucifers fear prison of doubt!

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 12:14 AM

Originally posted by ArMaP
Do the the other countries really need the technology from the US?

You nean all the stuff that says "Made in Japan" or 'Made in China"?

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 08:04 AM

Originally posted by Esoterica
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Did you miss where it was explained in this thread how "negative gravity" is simply a lower gravity than predicted from a model?

No, i didn't.

but it seems that what you describe is equal to the concept of a "negative gravity bulge" that i mentioned in my previous post.

It is hard to visualize a bulge in 3d space, but if you consider it in 2d it is much easier. Where you have gravity, you have indentions in space/time. The places with less gravitational influence would then seem to bulge "upwards" relative to the curved space/time around it.

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 08:49 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Well your right. But so am i . You just dont understand what i am saying.

You your self say that the satellite is falling all the time. Because it has a mass that differs from its surrounding atmosphere. Which gives the satellites mass attraction. And it is falling towards earth. Right!!! Not towards the Moon.

And it is falling towards earth because earth is the source that gives the satellite a differential in mass compared to its surrounding atmosphere. That would be a pressure differential compared to a vacuum state. In a vacuum space the satellite wouldn't move anywhere if the magnetic force is to weak to have a effect on the satellite orbiting.

What i really wanted to point out is that: Two big objects with mass in a vacuum atmosphere wont attract ever.


1. There is a magnetic differential between them. That has a effect within the distance between the two objects. But this force is highly unlikely the only reason the Moon orbits earth.

2. One of the objects is within the energy field/ atmosphere of the other object.
This means if the one of the objects produces a field of energy/atmosphere and the other object is static. The static objects mass will be driven towards the pressure differential because of energy and matter compared to vacuum.

Its like if you have a boat (Moon) on the sea(space) and a gas bobble appears underneath it(earths energy). The boat will sink if the volume of the gas is greater then the mass of the water that is keeping the boat floating on top.

Why wouldn't mass, energy and matter have the same effect in space??

Its all about pressure, magnetic force and distance. Then you can build your geometry and equations.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in