It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

NASA discovers brand new force of nature

page: 14
58
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Jerry_Teps
 



No, gravity does in fact act on massless particles.


these damn photons again...their ralationship with gravitons has me aching.

Gravity arises from (to express it vaguely) energy. So a collection of photons gives rise to a gravity field:
First, you could never have enough photons in a small enough volume to have a detectible amount of gravity.

if photons are the carriers for electromagntism and gravitons are the carrier of gravity and
the warping of spacetime -quantum energy- effects these photons....as photons exist in both waves and particles..adding the interchange with gravitons via virtual photons
then i can only say that the photons wave is attracted to the weak force of gravity, while the photon as a particle is not effected by gravity

these are forces that we can percieve maybe there are others




No, because objects without an electromagnetic field still produce a gravitational interaction.

But would it orbit or collide??




posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Unst0ppable0ne
 


A very good explanation! I suspect we had a few who would know that answer. I majored in both Biology and Chemistry but ended strong in Chemistry with a scholly for a year or two, not enough to finish, in Chem so I am weak on what causes lizards to stick but your right on track. Thanks.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 07:05 AM
link   
this is going one way see if you agree

we will discuss:
1) gravity.................then 2) wider laws of attraction........then 3) conciousness of an atom.

lol


edit on 21-9-2010 by theAymen because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Jerry_Teps
 


one more point
orbit...according to gravity means...being trapped in the “earths” gravitational field...but newtons model has no mathematics for the term “trapped” only mathematics for a collision

personally i think we need to rethink gravitys significance to generating an orbit and importantly generating an axis (polarity) for orbiting satelites and contributing gravity to the forces of electromagnetics/dynamics




edit on 21-9-2010 by theAymen because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Maybe Gravity is a stronger force than currently believed. We know about gravity on Earth. We know a great deal about gravity in space around Earth. But we don't know squat about Gravity outside our Solar System. Seems our Sun has a stronger pull on objects than previously thought.

By the way can you believe it has been 40 years since they were launched. I remember when they were launched and remember the pictures they sent back from our Solar System. I was 12 when the first one was launched. I also remember waiting for the pictures of our Solar System, and was amazed at the beauty when I did see the pictures of our Solar System.

Too bad our government hates the exploration of Space. That should be our number 1 focus. Seeking out new worlds to expand the human race.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Ok, I've come up with 3 possible explanations for this:
A) Nibiru
B) Black Hole
C) Extraterrestrials

I'm serious. One of them has to be the right answer.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


One of the spacecraft could have slingshoted around such object, hence increasing it's velocity towards the Sun. We do this with spacecraft to slingshot from one planet to another.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Id honestly love to know what powers these vessels and why they aren't in force in the mainstream. 40 years of nonstop power would be pretty useful. Do they have solar panels and if so are they way better that what their letting the normal folk use? Anyway what I first think of when I hear this is huge ultra massive planets or systems that are so vast that their gravity pull is astounding.

EDIT: A quick read up states to me that we have lost contact since 2002 (Of pioneer 10 and 11). How do they know that its being affected by gravitational stuff and thiswhat a whatknot,


edit on 21-9-2010 by Aoxoa because: (no reason given)




edit on 21-9-2010 by Aoxoa because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus
If there is a genuine "slowing down" effect coming into play, and because there are no significant gravitational masses at that distance to play a significant role, I'm just wondering whether what we're seeing is indications that space itself is not homogenous.
Instead of assuming that the regions of space that the probes pass through are all of the same "density", what if space does indeed possess a property similar to "density" that affects the velocity of the probes by imparting a "impeding or drag" type of force ? The fact that virtual particles are being created/destroyed continuously in otherwise "empty" space immediately implies that space is not completely and totally empty and therefore must exhibit "density-like" properties.


I am glad you posted this, and would like to hear you elaborate on it a little if possible.

I have entertained the idea that "deep space" possesses strange properties because of the lack of mass. The whole "uncertainty" principle, or wavefunction concept, would weigh on the local reality. The idea arises from the concept of the "Holographic Universe Theory".

With less mass, there is less time dilation, for example.

I would suspect that as it relates to Voyager, it isn't a new force, but rather a lack of known force.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   
other evidence that our theory on gravity is BS is...eliptical orbits.

eliptical orbits support the electromagnetic theory.
gravity states, the moon would spiral closer and closer. untill it collides with the earth.
well its been thousands of years if not miilions...why has it not got any closer.

the eliptical orbit shows the moon repels the earth as well as being attracted to it

i agree with gravity to an extent...but, the moon not spinning on its axis supports the thoery that the suns eectromagnetic attributes cause polarity for its satelites.
earth doesnt emit strong electromagneticenergy as the sun

the earth cannot give the moon polarity the moon is trapped by the earths polarity which in turn is trapped by the suns.

im gonna outdate the word gravity...lol



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zgrace226
Could this explain Einstein's theory of the fabric of space? Just thinking based upon how it was explained to me as a ball on a bed sheet it creates a slight curve in turn the object when traveling away it would be going uphill possibly changing the course of motion?


The "curve of space" is like a ball dropped onto a sheet, because an object moving near that dip will "curve" towards the heavy object. As the incline lessons -- that's just like the reduction in gravity. Everything has curved orbits because that's the path of least resistance to the gravity "well."

The OP about an un-expected slow-down that is NOT explained by well know effects of gravity. What you are talking about has been proved over and over again. The "uphill" part is LESS because of the distance from the mass.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   
This is more confirmation of the Electric Universe hypothesis...




"After launch, a spacecraft accepts electrons from the surrounding space plasma until the craft's voltage is sufficient to repel further electrons. Near Earth it is known that a spacecraft may attain a negative potential of several tens of thousands of volts relative to its surroundings. So, in interplanetary space, the spacecraft becomes a charged object moving in the Sun's weak electric field. Being negatively charged, it will experience an infinitesimal "tug" toward the positively charged Sun. Of most significance is the fact that the voltage gradient, that is the electric field, throughout interplanetary space remains constant. In other words, the retarding force on the spacecraft will not diminish with distance from the Sun. This effect distinguishes the electrical model from all others because all known force laws diminish with distance. The effect is real and it will have a fundamental impact on cosmology and spacecraft navigation because Pioneer 10 has confirmed the electrical model of Stars!"


entire story here



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by theAymen
other evidence that our theory on gravity is BS is...eliptical orbits.

eliptical orbits support the electromagnetic theory.
gravity states, the moon would spiral closer and closer. untill it collides with the earth.
well its been thousands of years if not miilions...why has it not got any closer.

the eliptical orbit shows the moon repels the earth as well as being attracted to it

i agree with gravity to an extent...but, the moon not spinning on its axis supports the thoery that the suns eectromagnetic attributes cause polarity for its satelites.
earth doesnt emit strong electromagneticenergy as the sun

the earth cannot give the moon polarity the moon is trapped by the earths polarity which in turn is trapped by the suns.

im gonna outdate the word gravity...lol



>> Electricity needs a CONDUCTOR for it's charge to matter.
You could have a million volts on one peace of metal in outer space and it will NOT jump the gap to another piece of metal because there is NO CONDUCTOR. High voltage electricity will jump a gap on earth because the air itself loses impedance and transmits the current.

Charged particles leave the sun all the time in the Solar Wind. But the net charge of both the sun and the earth is neutral, and the particles have inertia and are attracted to our planet by gravity.

The "elliptical orbits" do PROVE gravity -- because they are caused by FALLING towards the object -- but if your momentum perpendicular to the gravity well is sufficient, you will keep moving forward enough that your falling stabilizes the orbit with acceleration -- you can fall nearly for ever in an orbit.

The FASTER you go, the larger your orbit around a gravity well -- so for most speeds, it can be intrinsically stable. If an object, however, is too slow, or has a vector TOWARDS the large mass -- it will fall into that mass, however, it almost always has a curved trajectory because it's momentum is rarely perfectly in sync with the mass -- if it misses the mass, it can "sling-shot" around and achieve escape velocity, or move into an orbit, or come back for another pass to strike.

EVENTUALLY, the moon will slow down enough that it will fall into the earth -- but that's likely not for billions of years.

>>The "electric Universe" theory you mention is not taken seriously by anyone with basic physics -- I suspect that there are other mysterious to gravity and that it functions differently -- but at least I understand what CURRENT THEORY actually is.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptChaos
 


NO. That example does NOT support "electrical attractions" in the Universe through space.

The "charge" that builds up is from particles HITTING the spacecraft -- this is a well-known phenomena. The charge stays on the craft because space is NOT a conductor.

When they connect two spacecraft together -- they have to make sure the charges are equalized first.

After a craft reaches a certain amount of ionization, it repels further charges from particles -- because the ionic charge on the particles is not greater than the craft -- so it stabilizes.

>> There is however, an infinitesimal MAGNETIC "tug" on objects. The magnetic field is projected out from the Sun -- as is the electromagnetic spectra. Electricity, is bound by physical constraints and needs a conductor. However, an ionic charge MAY turn an object into one that is MORE CONDUCTIVE and influenced by magnetic fields -- it has to do with the polarity of the atoms and if their electrons and protons are more often than not UNBALANCED.

So an object that can be influenced by a Magnet can BECOME magnetic in a field or with an electric charge -- when you move a conductor through a magnetic field, that creates a GREATER imbalance in electron forces and that requires WORK. The the propulsion or impedance is in direct response to "equal and opposite" rule of thermodynamics. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The electrical imbalance is a REACTION to particles striking the craft -- it does NOT in itself, create an attraction. But a magnetic or conductive field (of plasma) can.

Magnets do NOT push metallic objects -- they pull them, or they will rotate them to be equal and opposite to the polar fields (north points to south pole of the other object). Anything that requires MORE WORK, or produces energy, is going to effect motion. So the "work" the metallic craft has to make against the magnetic field of the sun means that it MAY slow down.

>> My own theory, is that magnetism is merely an ORGANIZED expression of a gravity field. The negative and positive charges are caused by a "push and pull" on space time, and when there is a pattern, this causes other atoms to respond to the "push and pull" and they are attracted to each other because the expression of the flow of space time becomes more and more aligned (where normally, it is evenly distributed). Anyway, it's something that can be proven false or true, because of the effects of light and magnetism on gravity (an object with a greater magnetic field SHOULD have a lower mass in different vectors than expected WITHOUT the magnetic field). The gravity or "mass" of an object doesn't change -- but it's DIRECTION can.

But even though I've got a converse "REASON" why there is gravity and magnetism -- I accept the well proven laws of physics that guide them. And the "Electric Universe" theory flies in the face of normal, well understood principles.


edit on 21-9-2010 by VitriolAndAngst because: To add a bit about magnetism...



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by sandmannc40
Maybe Gravity is a stronger force than currently believed. We know about gravity on Earth. We know a great deal about gravity in space around Earth. But we don't know squat about Gravity outside our Solar System. Seems our Sun has a stronger pull on objects than previously thought.

By the way can you believe it has been 40 years since they were launched. I remember when they were launched and remember the pictures they sent back from our Solar System. I was 12 when the first one was launched. I also remember waiting for the pictures of our Solar System, and was amazed at the beauty when I did see the pictures of our Solar System.

Too bad our government hates the exploration of Space. That should be our number 1 focus. Seeking out new worlds to expand the human race.


THIS, I believe to be true. I've made a lot of predictions concerning physics that current Physicists are just NOW getting around to proving as well -- and I will PREDICT that gravity will be proven to be "a force coming OUT OF particles" -- it's really space/time that I PREDICTED would be shown to expand between objects in this Universe. I Predicted that the Hubble Constant would be shown to be increasing over time decades ago when I was a little kid.

Gravity is the same force as the STRONG and WEAK nuclear forces in the atom -- to give an idea of HOW POWERFUL it is. The entire planet is pushing down on particles in the earth's core -- but it's not enough force to fuse one atom into another -- that only happens in a star.

The current problem in physics is a Unified Theory, and that Gravity explains normal sized objects and rockets perfectly well -- but observations of the mass of stars does NOT account for enough mass to allow them to have such tight orbits and spin so rapidly in Galaxies. That gave rise to the "Dark Matter" theory. I've thought for some time that there can be a "bleed through" from other Universes and dimensions and that space can have gravity without matter.

My visualization of the fundamental particles that make up matter -- is parallel but completely different to that of quantum and string theory. My particles are folded up "donuts" that are pinpricks into a higher dimension. Gravity is the flow of that higher dimension into this one as the Universe ages -- but it is NOT a complete one-way transfer. The "branes" of two upper and lower dimensions are oscillating back on forth on a rip in space/time (from the Big Bang), and the space/time is rapidly going in and out from every particle. The NET force is outward, and gravity and space act a bit like water pressure in this regard --- which is why acceleration and gravity are almost identical -- it has to do with PRESSURE on the particles to MOVE space/time.

I won't get into the complex interactions that allow for all the forces and why there are electrical charges and why the structure is "just so" but it seems like my theory covers all the bases, and is NOT incongruent with observed reality. But it means that Gravity is a much stronger but MORE DIFFUSE force than realized -- objects are merely "pushed together" because gravity is pushing on SPACE itself -- and "solid particles" act more like a collection of bubbles. Gravity avoids matter and pushes on space -- so they are forced together. As much as possible, the positions of these particles are away from the expression of space/time of the other particles -- and this creates the amazing activity we see in the oscillations of atoms -- they are constantly readjusting position, to MINIMIZE the force of gravity on other "particles" expression of gravity at all times -- from that, comes ALL the other observed forces. When a few particles "organize" their expression of gravity (both negative and positive), then they form a magnetic field.

The NET of this, is that Gravity is about a 10 million times more powerful than currently theorized, BUT, it is NOT trying to pull objects together. The UNIVERSE is obviously, very disperse, and while galaxies are large -- they do not seem to be trying to clump all matter together -- there seems to be an upward limit on how massive something can be, and anything VERY massive, ends up emitting very strong magnetic fields and gaining massive angular momentum.

I picture it like a bunch of balloons (with an infinite air supply that keeps them inflated but forever spewing air), continuously blowing out air through an un-tied neck-- this acts like a lot of tiny air-propelled and round rockets, and they are randomly tossing around because the propulsive force is undirected, and has to REDUCE the pressure when two rocket streams collide. When they BLOW towards another balloon -- there is more of a "push back" because of air pressure, so they will tend to maximize the amount of time they blow AWAY from other balloons at the edges -- and their trajectory always changes because all the other (particles) balloons are always changing. In the center of the balloon mass, all points are covered by balloons, so the balloons will have a totally random and constantly changing propulsion pattern while in NET, minimizing the time they blow directly into the nozzle of another balloon. The balloons will clump up into a mass -- but will NOT compact such that they collapse or pop one balloon.

So, on the periphery, the RANDOM pattern, is 'weighted' towards the outside of the clump, while the pattern of balloons inside the mass, is UN-weighted.

In matter, this could be proven by testing for polarity on the outside surface of solid objects that is DIFFERENT from the inside mass. Of course it would take very sensitive "SQUIDS" to do it. But that is another topic.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   
The so called "Pioneer anomaly" known in the gravitational physics community is not new. Unfortunately the force has not been formulated. That means it has not been mathematically clarified.
They do know though something other than Newtonian gravity is at work. But that is not enough to make such a big claim. There is other theoretical claim of additional gravity known as "dipole gravity" proposed by Dr. Eue Jin Jeong. I think it is more credible than the experimental observation made by Pioneer anomaly. But then these two could be related. In fact, the additional attractive force confirms to the model of dipole gravity. And also the dipole gravity decreases proportional to the inverse r squared which may fit the conclusion derived from the Pioneer anomaly.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   
IMHO and off the top of my head....planetary orbits are defined by an ejection of a "something" (say maybe the solar wind) from the sun that is resisted by the Kuiper belt much like air moving through holes in a plate. This flow and resistance to flow is what forms the planetary orbits. (feel free to flame) The effect being noted here could merely be some sort of venturi effect where the craft slow down prior to being shot out into deep space.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by notsoperfect
The so called "Pioneer anomaly" known in the gravitational physics community is not new. Unfortunately the force has not been formulated. That means it has not been mathematically clarified.
They do know though something other than Newtonian gravity is at work. But that is not enough to make such a big claim. There is other theoretical claim of additional gravity known as "dipole gravity" proposed by Dr. Eue Jin Jeong. I think it is more credible than the experimental observation made by Pioneer anomaly. But then these two could be related. In fact, the additional attractive force confirms to the model of dipole gravity. And also the dipole gravity decreases proportional to the inverse r squared which may fit the conclusion derived from the Pioneer anomaly.


Ah, see I wasn't describing Newtonian gravity. I was describing quantum gravity.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by theAymen
other evidence that our theory on gravity is BS is...eliptical orbits.

eliptical orbits support the electromagnetic theory.
gravity states, the moon would spiral closer and closer. untill it collides with the earth.
well its been thousands of years if not miilions...why has it not got any closer.

the eliptical orbit shows the moon repels the earth as well as being attracted to it

i agree with gravity to an extent...but, the moon not spinning on its axis supports the thoery that the suns eectromagnetic attributes cause polarity for its satelites.
earth doesnt emit strong electromagneticenergy as the sun

the earth cannot give the moon polarity the moon is trapped by the earths polarity which in turn is trapped by the suns.

im gonna outdate the word gravity...lol


actually, elliptical orbits are "supposed" to be due to the dragging effect of their parent body. The problem I have with that idea is that they wouldn't be elliptical or rather , they would be longer on only one side of the parent body not two sides

Jaden



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 

Neither spacecraft has velocity toward the Sun. Their velocity away from the Sun is showing an anomalous decrease. (Acceleration does not mean an increase in velocity, it means a change in velocity).

There is no "slingshot" trajectory.

Both spacecraft showed the anomaly ((8.74 ± 1.33) × 10−10 m/s2) from 20AU to 70AU from the Sun. It didn't change over that distance.

The gravitational influence of an unknown body cannot account for this.


edit on 9/21/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join