The GRAVITY conspiracy (Part 1)

page: 2
57
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 



Gravity is an observation.
And not a very good one.


I'll try to remember that one next time I accidentally step off a cliff.


I guess that should relate the problem of our reasoning of gravity cause from common observations.
Yeah thats what was implied for this topic.
But how much is gravity used except for weight measurement and orbits and moon missions.
Who needs the theory.
edit on 10/7/2010 by TeslaandLyne because: weight typo




posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Anthony1138
 


I think mass distorts the ether and the space/time measurement evidence is the result.
The ether evidence has been ignored since the discovery.



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   
so, if the moon is falling towards earth, how is it all the experts are saying the moon is moving away from earth, and that's what is causing the earths magnetic field to weaken ?



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
The warping of space-time by mass (i.e. gravity) has been proven by atomic clocks flying over the Earth.



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by iismtivu
so, if the moon is falling towards earth, how is it all the experts are saying the moon is moving away from earth, and that's what is causing the earths magnetic field to weaken ?


Thats another strange cause.
Electrical current causes a magnetic field.
So the Earth's magnetic field should be current going through the Earth
and not generated by the Earth.
Or am I right about that.



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
The warping of space-time by mass (i.e. gravity) has been proven by atomic clocks flying over the Earth.
Time dilation that varies with distance from massive objects has been proven. That gravity derives from space-time curvature as described in General Relativity or as the effect of messenger particles, like the other fundamental forces, as postulated by the Standard Model is still very much up for debate.



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   
wow..im so impressed...i see evolution taking place...im so proud.

OP...CONCENTRATE ON ELECTROMAGNETICS....you will find your answer

im so happy...for two weeks now i have been saying this here..GRAVITY ONLY EXPLAINS A COLLISION PLUS OUR EXPLANATION OF GRAVITY IS A COLLECTION OF RESULTS, WITH A LABEL.

E&M is the reason for orbit...the sun has +- poles and the planets rotate inbetween these poles.



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by iismtivu
so, if the moon is falling towards earth, how is it all the experts are saying the moon is moving away from earth, and that's what is causing the earths magnetic field to weaken ?
I guess it all depends on how you define "falling." I know it's often said that something in orbit around the earth is "falling" towards it. And it is being acted upon by the same force that, say, a rock is under when you drop it from your hand and it falls to the ground. However, an object in orbit has a velocity vector perpendicular tot he force of gravity. So while it's falling to the ground, it's moving sideways at exactly the right speed such that it "misses" the ground and continues to "fall." If you define "falling" as gravitational acceleration towards an object that will eventually result in impact, then no, the moon isn't "falling" to earth.

Now, on to why the moon is moving away from the earth: As you know, the moon is what causes the tides in the oceans here on earth. Because gravity is stronger the closer you are to something, the moon pulls on the water closest to the moon, causing a bulge. And on the opposite side of the earth, the water there bulges out because it is farther away from the moon and is being pulled less than the center of the earth. As the earth rotates, these bulges rotate, which gives you a high tide about every 12 hours. But at the same time the moon pulls on the water on the earth, the water pulls on the moon (gravity works both ways). Because the earth rotates once every 24 hours, while the moon rotates once 27 days, the tidal bulge is always trying to speed up the moon, in a sense leading it like a horse and cart. This is adding energy tot he moon's orbit, while subtracting it from the earth. This is known as tidal friction. The net result is that the moon is moving away from the earth and the earth is slowing its rotation.

As for the magnetic fields, I haven't seen anything to indicate that the moon influences the earth's magnetic field (which results from a rotating iron core). I guess since this process is slowing the rotation of the earth, it will affect the rate the core rotates at, which could affect the magnetic field.



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by theAymen
wow..im so impressed...i see evolution taking place...im so proud.

OP...CONCENTRATE ON ELECTROMAGNETICS....you will find your answer

im so happy...for two weeks now i have been saying this here..GRAVITY ONLY EXPLAINS A COLLISION PLUS OUR EXPLANATION OF GRAVITY IS A COLLECTION OF RESULTS, WITH A LABEL.

E&M is the reason for orbit...the sun has +- poles and the planets rotate inbetween these poles.


That's interesting. So instead of "gravity" being the mystery force holding everything together it could actually be magnetism?

In the same fashion then that the opposite polarities of a magnet attract one another, the charged poles of planets and stars do the same. So its a reciprocal relationship between the respective poles of objects in space keeping them tethered in orbit.

My only question would be what about "dead" planets? Doesn't a planet have to have an active molten core for it to produce its magnetic sphere?



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by dalan.
 


So, what happens when a magnet is moving inside a magnetic field? can we then compare this to earth which has a + and - poles that rotates around the sun which has a magnetic field that reaches well beyond earth? and what keeps all the planets from being attracted to the sun? we can look at our solar system like an electrical circuit seeing that the sun is in the center and can be considered to be positively charged, while all the planets orbiting can be seen as negatively charged - and seeing that you cant have a magnetic field without current flow; where does the current from the sun flow to? and how do the planets keep from pushing each other out of their orbits? or keep from being pulled towards the sun? and why do all the planets rotate around the sun on the same horizontal plane?

scientists have found that there is a electrical conduit that opens up every few minutes between the earth and the sun which allows current flow, which keeps the earth neutrally balanced. as for the other planets, they postulate this takes place for them as well keeping all the planets with a neutral charge, thus keeping them form attracting or repelling each other.



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by iismtivu
 


no...the sun has both a + & -....so do the planets...the planets line there poles to the suns.

planets do not orbit the sun around it N & S poles...only inbetween...like below

POLARITY



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by theAymen
 


so, then our understanding of the atom is wrong? protons in the center and electrons rotate all around the proton?

that was what i was refering to; our solar system can be looked at in this fashion. the sun is the proton and all the planets are electrons rotating around the proton. intersting that the planets only rotate around the middle or equator of the sun, and not all around like scientists claim within an atom.



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   
I'm not good at maths but enjoyed your explaination.

maybe ALL 'Constants' should be removed.
with entrophy and all, NOTHING stays the same...


Why not try posting your OP to: Ask an Astrophysicist (unless you think there is a conspiracy afoot and nasa is part of it)



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 12:02 AM
link   
the sun controls electromagnetics in the solar system.
electromagnetics control the atom, make up of atoms, and the atoms relationships with its surroundings.


GRAVITY IS AN EFFECT OF ELECTROMAGNETICS...



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by theAymen
 

No, the planets do not "line there poles to the suns".
The earth is tilted at 23º to its orbit around the Sun. Its orbit is inclined 7º to the axis of the Sun

Mercury: 0º, 3º
Venus: 177º, 4º
Mars: 25º, 6º
Jupiter: 3º, 6º
Saturn: 27º, 6º
Uranus: 98º, 6º
Neptune: 28º, 6º

Why don't you read a book sometime?



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Can you show me a planet that rotates around the sun vertically? as in passing over the north and south poles? and all but one planet are oriented with a north and south pole with north being at the top. the tilting you refer to just keeps the planets from tumbling much like a gyro in jet planes do when they make high G turns.

obviously i do read books, maybe you could attack less and think more or are you afraid of learning?
or can you answer why all but one planet rotates not only counter clockwise on it's axis, but also revolves counterclockwise around the sun? and with that why doesn't torq come into play?



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 12:29 AM
link   
I love this subject you have raised and it is very interesting.

I know that Newtons Theory on Gravity has so many flaws it is quite astounding. This though is often coupled with he fact that many people do not want to discuss it at all, because it would mean that many many peoples equations, theories and publications are therefore flawed to.

This other concept might have some baring on the answer you seek.

Geometric Orbit Equation:




The Geometric Orbit Equation The Geometric Orbit Equation is a previously unrecognized, purely geometric equation embodying a relationship in the standard astronomical data showing that the orbital radius of any planet in 33 Introduction our solar system (i.e. its distance from the sun) multiplied by the square of its velocity always gives the same constant value. This would be written as: v2R = K, where K is a constant with the unchanging value of 1.325 x 1020 [m3/s2] R is the orbital radius of the planet (distance from the sun) v is the velocity of the planet This relationship can be readily deduced from any standard table of planetary data that can be found in most introductory physics textbooks. The constant, K, is the same for all planets orbiting the sun, but differs for other orbital systems. For instance, the value of K for objects orbiting the Earth rather than the sun can be readily calculated as 3.7 x 1014 by referring to these same tables of planetary data. This value of K for our Earth-based orbital system would apply to the orbit of the moon, for instance, as well as the orbits of the various satellites and spacecraft about our planet. This geometric orbit equation allows the distance of orbiting objects to be calculated if their speed is known. Perhaps more importantly, it allows for the planning or alteration of satellite and spacecraft orbits by indicating the speed required to achieve a given orbit, and the required speed change to transfer from one orbital trajectory to another. This type of calculation would underlie everything from fuel requirement planning for space shuttle missions to orbital insertion of satellites around Mars.

Notably, the Geometric Orbit Equation pre-dates Newton and achieves these results in a purely geometric fashion, as its name implies, without any reference to masses or gravitational forces. The Geometric Orbit Equation is the type of important astronomical observation that we might expect to be noticed and identified in the time of Kepler and Newton. Although there is no clear record of this occurring, the existence of this earlier geometric relationship provides an intriguing alternate derivation for Newton’s gravitational force and the final form of his Law of Universal Gravitation. To see this, we turn to the common analogy for planetary orbits taught in all elementary physics courses – the presumably equivalent scenario of a rock swung in a circle at the end of a string, as assumed by Newton. The Rock-And-String Assumption The idea of the moon being forcefully constrained by gravity to circle the Earth seems very reasonable at first, since we are all familiar with the seemingly similar concept of swinging a rock on the end of a 34 Introduction string, causing it to “orbit” about us. Of course, this is not truly an orbit since it involves a physical length of string with clear physical tension throughout it as our muscles strain to keep the rock from flying off. This leads to the mysterious concept that the orbit of our moon involves a mysterious attracting force acting across space in a manner that is still unexplained by science, apparently forcefully keeping the moon from flying off without drawing on any power source. However, since this is the equivalence made by Newton and widely accepted today, we will follow this same assumed rock-andstring equivalence in this alternate derivation of Newton’s gravitational force. Once this assumption is made, it may then seem reasonable to equate the force required to constrain the rock in a circular path about us with the gravitational force said to constrain the moon in its orbit about the Earth. The Centripetal Force Equation for calculating the force, F, required to constrain a rock swung by a string is well known, as it was in Newton’s day:


This from something called,

The Theory Of Everything.

Have a read it may help you in your quest. I have included the PDF.

Theory of EVERYTHING

edit on 8/10/10 by MrRed because: spelling



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by MrRed
 


well, considering most of those theories were based on 3 dimentions ( height, width and depth) in and of itself proves they are flawed as we have a fourth dimention called time. no one has come close to explaining that yet and until we can, there will continue to be more questions than answers.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 01:07 AM
link   
There really is a secret about astronomy
and it is hidden in Kepler by Newton,
so well done on the OP, but it's not
as nefarious as it seems, and it
just means you are past the
'intro to astronomy' phase
where you learn words
and ready to do so
actual work.

First let me do some damage control on
the intent of the OP. Cause I don't want to be dismissive.
But here is the one line punch line in advance, then I'll speak
to what I like about the post.

Flippant one line post: "Great, instead of solving the 3 body problem,
you have reduced the standard two body model into a one body model."


Yeah, heh, so ... what I dig about the OP.
Yes!!!!! the gravitational constant can be tinkered with.
I could increase it by 50% and decrease the mass of the planets by the same,
and get the exact same results. The earth, Venus, mars, everything could be much much
lighter than we have been lead to believe. Of course that's why science likes to test things with
empirical evidence. Like the fact that a 1kg stone on earth weights ... 1kg. I suppose we could call a half kilo the new 1kg and then yes... we would have to adjust the gravitational constant.
The nice thing is that the entire classical gravity formula can be tuned in with a finer and finer
gravitational constant as our technology to get precise weights increases.
This could be one reason the formula is still alive.

Also, Kepler. ZOMG well done. Yes yes, he is the key.
Newton is Kepler in a really well made suit from London.
But everything is extracted from Keplers equal time equal area law.
I mean everything. Gravity, relativity, space time, even quantum mechanics.
See Keplers law allowed us to measure objects by just looking at them.
The precise implications of the application of this finding
are just starting to be realized. Newton did well
explaining this in a more technical way for engineers
so they could start applying it right away.
Einstein's special theory of relativity
is nothing more than a philosophical way
of explaining the parameters of Keplers laws,
and their implications for the universe.
In a nut shell what he said was that
energy defines geometry. I feel
he learned this by living in
Keplers world.

Alright so the bad part.
Kepler defined the orbit.
Newton figured out how to weigh the planets and moons from this definition.
And Einstein figured out how to weigh light.

But the persistent remaining problem is called the 3 body problem.

With the standard Newton equation we can figure out the orbit of earth around the sun, or even the moon around the earth. But we can't do all three concurrently. Each one has to be figured separately and then results combined. There is a formula to do 3 bodies concurrently but it is very complex and hardly worth it. Especially when one considers there are upwards of a hundred planet sized objects in the solar system. All acting on each other simultaneously. Perturbations can become a recursive set of never ending adjustments, so much so that the closer one gets the longer it takes to calculate so that eventually it will take longer to calculate their positions than it takes the planets to actually move.

Reducing this to a one body problem isn't actually useful for more than inventing a beginners set of tools. In the one body math presented above all the objects are assumed to orbit the sun. Well, what if the sun has the mass of a spec of dust... with the one body math, we get the same orbit. A whole new set would have to generated for each object that has a moon.

I am excited to see someone capable of lending their intellect to solving the three body problem. And I think a completely radical approach coming from zero assumptions (like the OP) is right thing to do. Perhaps a set of single body formulas for each planet, and one for the Sun, and then there is a way to run all those concurrently, and then do a pass making adjustments for perturbations, will give more precise results than the current models.

/Salute
David Grouchy



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Fascinating! S&F

Is gravity real?


“Explaining why the expansion of the Universe is currently accelerating is certainly the most fascinating question in modern cosmology,” says Luigi Guzzo, lead author of a paper in this week’s issue of Nature, in which the new results are presented. “We have been able to show that large surveys that measure the positions and velocities of distant galaxies provide us with a new powerful way to solve this mystery.” “This implies that one of two very different possibilities must hold true,” explains Enzo Branchini, member of the team. “Either the Universe is filled with a mysterious dark energy which produces a repulsive force that fights the gravitational brake from all the matter present in the Universe, or, our current theory of gravitation is not correct and needs to be modified, for example by adding extra dimensions to space.”


dark energy: is the theory of gravity wrong?

Should we question the very existence of gravity? You are not alone:

Questioning Gravity

So is gravity NOT the elemental "force" that Newton and Einstein theorized it to be? ::

Gravity Doesn't Exist

Could a mathematical pattern explain everything? :

Is this the theory of everything?

I can't wait to see where they go from here!
edit on 8-10-2010 by AutOmatIc because: link
edit on 8-10-2010 by AutOmatIc because: ext txt





top topics
 
57
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join