You're missing the point all together. Climbing up walls is an attempt to defy gravity. It is an evolutionary attempt to escape the boundries of
gravity. When we built planes it was an attempt to defy gravity. When we built rockets it was an attempt to defy gravity. When we went from
crawling on all fours to walking upright that was also an attempt to defy gravity. Adhesive limbs are an attempt to defy gravity.
Again, why can't you climb up walls? There is no need for you to climb up walls or walk on water. You can build something to do that for you. You
can build something that walks up walls or walks on water.
Take a fly for instance. They can't build anything that defy's gravity. It has to come from evolution.
Again, I'm not sure gravity is the good guy in all this. Gravity just might be the enemy. Gravity doesn't want anyone leaving it's place in the
Come clean , evolution in animals and plants and insects , arent battling against the forces of nature , they are battling against competition from
predation and similar species which have dominance within the food chain
gravity isnt in direct competition for survival with animals !
So they arent evolving simply to beat gravity , they are evolving to take advantage of certain body functions which focus primarly on the forces of
nature which help them have the advantage over species which do not have these bodily functions !
my thoughts are two fold
1. if you are encountering positive and negitive charge is equal amounts then the charge would be removed by the negitives and replaced by the
positives(not sure of terminology)
2.if the charge was orinted with the positive at the front of the probe and the negitive at the rear then a cycle of attraction to negitive at the
front disapating of charge and at the rear a collection of charge and a repultion
i guess the unexpected ionic thruster effect you metioned would acount for the theory
and as the amount of positives and negitives encountered vartied so would the speed differential
Magnetism is what can "orient" the negative and positive charges on an atom. If you have a net positive and negative charge on a "satellite" you
would need a non-conductor between or capacitor -- essentially, that's a "battery." Batteries however are NOT automatically magnetic. Magnetism is
the orientation of "electrons and protons" -- not necessarily electrical charges -- you won't hear that from anyone else, but it's pretty obvious:
Batteries, with electrons and protons MORE out of balance than an ordinary atom or even a magnet -- are NOT magnetic.
Like I said; magnetism is the organized flow of space/time (gravity). It does not change the mass of an object but it changes the objects attraction
to a magnetic field. Induced magnetic fields require WORK -- so conservation of energy can turn that into motion.
>> I'm mixing theoretical (mine) and standard physics -- but it's pretty clear that few here actually KNOW the standard physics before they've
jumped on these "alternate" theories.
The "electric Universe" is pretty BAD theory, it does not correctly predict actual phenomena and it shrugs its shoulders at actual physics and makes
a pretty bad mess of it.
"all things are NOT conductors or Magnetic" -- conduction is about the chaining of molecules such that an electron can easily be passed. The
Non-metals are to the right of the periodic table and NEED one or two electrons. So when the bond with a metal -- it USUALLY turns non-metallic
because it has a balanced chemical composition that does not readily share (or pass) electrons. Some Ceramics and "physical" features (such as
nano-grooves) can be used to pass energy, but that has to do with resonance structures. Lasers can be formed by gaps in silicon that are the width of
a specific frequency of light -- when the molecules get extra energy added, their vibration amplifies random photons that only capture a specific
frequency.... well that can happen with electricity, so some "nano-flaws" will be found to act as Super Conductors ... but I'm getting off
>> It seems there are people too willing to have NEW THEORIES here -- when they don't know what the OLD ONE is that they abandon. Rockets,
electronics and pyrotechnics all are based upon known and understood principles. The "force" we are talking about on the Voyager satellites is
minuscule -- a few miles in a million deviation. So the STANDARD PHYSICS used by NASA, can calculate a deviation of missing some target a mile away by
less than an inch.
Until you have an alternate theory that can CALCULATE a more accurate trajectory -- you don't even have a working theory. I have a few "ideas" --
but they do not replace or contradict the way things actually work now. These alternate theories I'm reading here, would result in totally different
outcomes from what we actually know to be true. For instance, ionization does NOT suddenly make objects powerful magnets and force electrons to one
side or another -- a battery does that, but it is storing energy and that takes WORK. Now, some materials might become "metallic" or magnetic with
extra ions or heating/cooling -- but that requires a 'gradient difference' (like the sun on one side and cold space on the other). AFAIK, just being
bombarded with particles will charge a satellite -- but not SEPARATE the charges. On a grounded metallic object, the charge is going to distribute
Explain why you can't climb up walls then? Explain why you don't have wings or gills? If life was nothing more than electric properties then we
would all have adhesive limbs or wings. Why limit a universal constant to just flies? Electric properties are a constant right? Someone posted
earlier that polarity is a universal constant. They claimed to know everything there is to know about the universe. That means electric properties
are a universal constant right?
Let's get some things straight. All scientist know the answer then they form the question. Gravity has always existed. It existed when there was no
Einstein. Einstein articulated it into a formula. But we all know his formula doesn't work in a black hole. So his formula is flawed from its
inception. His formula is based on our limited understanding of the universe. We know what we see makes up 2% of the known universe. Why do we know
this? Because some scientist said so. When in fact, he doesn't really know what makes up the universe. So how can he say so in the first place?
WHY? Because he knows the answer already.
His answer is some bing bang happened. So he forms questions to all the answers. They work their way back to a known answer. 2 + 2 = 4. But wait,
8 - 4 also equals 4. 16/4 also equals 4. 100 - 96 also equals 4. 1 * 4 also equals 4. None of these other formulas should make sense if there was
a universal constant for gravity. I should NEVER have more than one answer to any question based on science! So that means science is flawed from
it's inception unless they can limit it to ONE formula. 2 + 2 = 4. However, 16/4 = 1 million. That is ABSOLUTE SCIENCE. I should never had two
answers to one question according to science. But we know here on Earth that 16/4 also equals 4. How can that be in Absolute universal science?
Explain how you know what 2 + 2 equals 1 trillion light years away?
4 = Bing Bang. It can't equal anything else according to scientists. If it's 3 then it's junk science or religion at work.
They know the answer because their primary focus is disproving God exist. Science is the devils work.
edit on 22-9-2010 by Come Clean because: (no reason given)
As far as I know, 4-4 equals 20,000 in the constellation orion. Here on Earth it equals zero. I would like for all the big brains to explain how
they know what 4-4 equals in the constellation orion. Why do you big brains assume numbers and math is a universal constant?
omg ok i think i may or may not have figured it out.
As the sun grows older it goes through differnt phases, this one (phase 28 or so) it has a electro magentic field that is possibly 2 times bigger then
the solar system itself.
So as it gets stronger it acts like a magent, so the probes are just floating in space in a direction with nothing other then the "an oject in motion
stays in motion" but its made out of metal, thus this magent effect will get stronger and stronger as the years go by.
The reason our junk around earth isnt effected is because those objects are stuck in our orbit, gravity keeping them there, thus they wont float
towards the sun, for a long time (i hope)
Also a contributing factor could be the "slide effect" the weight of our solar system has an effect on the "fabric" of space, so as you go outside
the solar system you might get a "push" but that would be to say gravity is responsible which nasa said it wasnt, so i am sticking to my orginal
theory, that the sun has a large electro magentic field.
As time goes on this field will get stronger, we must develop more advanced technogly so we can leave the earth behind before, we are unable to
I would like one of the big brains to answer this question.
How can I have INFINITE answers to the question, "what is 4"? Explain that to me? If science is so exact then why the INFINITE answers to that
question? 5-1=4, 6-2=4, 7-3=4 and so forth and so on until infinity.
Does that mean the Universe has INFINITE questions and answers? So what makes YOU think you have all the answers? Is it based on your limited
understanding of the universe? If so, then who are you to squash alternative ideas?
edit on 22-9-2010 by Come Clean because: (no reason given)
if you take away 2 in this universe then that means in this universe you have 0 while in another you could have 4, imagen your life now, but the excat
oppiste, like you failed high school or became a drug addict or w.e your mind can come up with.
So you if took away 2 in this universe and got 2 in another universe, that doesnt mean its the same, they are differnt just like an alternate verison
of you, looks and maybe acts like you but isnt you just somethings are simlar thats all.
"there is always a bigger and smaller rock" and the main rule of the universe is " if there is one of something there are many" this repeats
itself into nature, so if there is one universe there are many, if there is one multiverse there are many, get it?
The way that atoms bond together affects the electrical properties of the materials they form. For example, in materials held together by the metallic
bond, electrons float loosely between the metal ions. These electrons will be free to move if an electrical force is applied.
anyway gravity doesnt eplain how gases collect to form a star...electromagnetics does.
is this evidence of “gravity” or a central pole..polarity...holding the galaxy at a flat structure in between the poles
i here by rename this image to... POLARITY...
like the suns doing to the planets...like the nucleus of an atom....electromagnetics
HOW DO GASES FORM TO MAKE A STAR..NOT GRAVITY..ELECTROMAGNETIC ATTRACTION
what holds subatomic particles so close to the nucleus but it doesnt touch.. atomic funadamentals/electromagnetics.
i used to see gravity like you...now i only contribute it to electrodynamics.
gravity is a term used to describe an effect of electromagnetics.
also what is dark matter and how is it bent...gravity doesn’t answer that electromagnetic does (well attemps to! Lol)
if i make a hoverboard..your not allowed to play on it...
edit on 22-9-2010 by theAymen because: (no reason given)
i just found this online ..something that joins gravity, radioactivity and electromagnetics...introducing...BOB LAZAR (yes i know, you know him!)
"Bob Lazar claims that Element 115 exists as a stable isotope. It's used as a fuel via nuclear reactions with proton projectiles in which
antiprotons are created. These are then collected and channeled into an annihilation chamber where they react with protons to form gamma rays and lots
of energy. This enormous power is used to fantastically multiply the minuscule Gravity-A wave also produced by the onboard Element 115 reactor.
Gravity-A is understood to exist only between atomic nuclear particles and is vastly more powerful than the Gravity-B with which we are all familiar
from our own everyday experience. Element 115 is unusual in that the Gravity-A effect extends just beyond the perimeter of the Element 115 atom and
with very advanced technology can be tapped and amplified and then directed via gravity distortion devices to produce a kind of ''propulsive''
effect for the "alien" spacecraft. What is supposedly happening is that the craft is creating a large enough space-time distortion along its
direction of orientation that it essentially ''falls downhill'' through the artificially generated gravity corridor. "
as i said...... Gravity is an effect of electromagnetics
Ok so I am going to add a thought into this, and since I have no formal training in this area, be gentle when destroting the thought.
Is it entirely possible that the spacecraft are now experienceing a cumulative effect of gravity from our planetary system?
When we launched the spacecraft we had to overcome earths gravity to get them into space and on their way. Using larger planets and their own gravity
wells to pull the craft in an effort to increase their speed. This continued gravity pull occured several times, until they passed out of our solar
Since we have never had anything this far out, we are still not sure whats out there. I am wondering if it might be possible that in addition to the
individual planet / moon gravity wells, and then our stars own gravity well, that once something leaves the solar system, and the individual gravity
wells, the gravitational pull takes all of these bodies into account, exerting a "single" gravitational pull back towards the solar system
Not usre if I am describing this where people will see what im talking about:
Sun - Gravity Well
Planets / Moons - Gravity well
While inside the solar system you experience the pushing and pulling of these individual gravity wells depending on where you are at, what direction
you are going, speed, etc.
Once you leave the solar syetm, everything "clicks" into place, exerting a single (solar system cumulative) gravitational pull that our craft are
anyways.. jsut a thought. Fell free to destroy theory in
rather than attack your theory i propose you are right
Vector field functions and anti gravity
One member motioned that sitting at a chair at his desk not moving he was in fact moving
The first vector which is displayed as rotation was about our earthly axis
The second vector which is displayed by our solar rotation
The third vector which is our solar system as a whole (moving as a unit)
This gave rise to
The solar unit can be moving in a curve though space in the spiral arm
Does this movement in three different directions simultaneously of our solar unit
Create a ripple or weight to the fabric of the spiral arm as one unit bending space time around itself like an oddly shaped egg (likened to how the
earth’s magneto-sphere protects earth)
On the leading edge of the solar unit energy is induced and trailing side energy dissipated
The solar unit as a whole induces the energy it requires by moving through a charged area of space in a diamagnetic manner
As a result there is a potential voltage difference from one side to the other and energy is transferred inside the solar unit (manifesting in the
And a graveto-magnetic feild is created by the sun for the earth to induce its stored voltage. This capacitance allows a projected spherical magnetic
field (in a electrical sence)
I think there very well might be a dilatation in the fabric of the universe at the boarder of this graveto magnetic effect
I think the cancelling of those vector feilds would occurs when this process is reproduced but with the right hand rule now becomes the left hand rule
Cancel out the vectors of all axis of rotation with a mass of fero fluid moving in all vetor diections at the same time a spiral inside a donut and a
spiral magnetic feild rotated in the center to induce rotation of the ferro fluid up to gyroscopic speeds
If all vetors in all directions is countered with balancing forces then there is no movement, you become excluded from the graveto magnetic
These are theorys only not facts this have been derived in the last week from reading a few websites
is it possible it could be a microblack hole maybe? it would be almost impossible to detect, yet have enough energy to affect those probes + it can
move, thus it would not be a constant, which might be why it wasnt detected before / didnt affect anything before. only other option i can think of
is some sort of superdense matter like a chunk of brown dwarf....or maybe the dark matter as somebody mentioned here before.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.