Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The GRAVITY conspiracy (Part 1)

page: 6
57
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 

Ignore my post as I became lost when the OP threw out mass, I think it was.
So the rings on Saturn don't obey these new found laws.




posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Most of the equations used naturally assume that the "force" gravity itself actually exists as Newton and Einstein theorized. If gravity doesn't exist per their theories, then where does that leave the OP's original equation?

See my post on pg. 2 of this thread here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus

Originally posted by Axial Leader
The value of "K" has to be selected for each solar system.


Actually K does NOT have the mass of the sun (or any other primary body) factored into it. K was derived from nothing more than 2 basic values, namely that of a distance and that of a time period. Therefore it can be used anywhere in the universe ... just as can Newtons.


Ha Ha, I stand corrected. Brilliant stuff. It will work anywhere in the universe, I see that now.

Given the period and distance, you could derive the mass of the sun (if you wanted to), but then you would need the gravitational constant (which is not required by your equations here.)

Strange and cool.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Great work



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by MegaMind
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Well it certainly was not electromagnetic as we know electromagnetism. So whats left is the thing we call gravity.


Ralph Sansbury notes: "electrostatic dipoles within all atomic nuclei are very small but all have a common orientation. Hence their effect on a conductive piece of metal is less to pull the free electrons in the metal to one side toward the center of the earth but to equally attract the similarly oriented electrostatic dipoles inside the nuclei and free electrons of the conductive piece of metal.”

This is conducive to the fact that both gravity and electromagnetism obey the inverse square law.

This is not a coincidence.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by AutOmatIc
Most of the equations used naturally assume that the "force" gravity itself actually exists as Newton and Einstein theorized. If gravity doesn't exist per their theories, then where does that leave the OP's original equation?

See my post on pg. 2 of this thread here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


The universe is being pushed apart by all the exploding Suns by the transmission
of pressure waves throughout the universe.
Along with all the motions and electrical charges going through the conductive
planets the pressure and charges must equal to hold the planets in their places.
No such central activity holds for the universe thus all the gas explosions are
pushing out the universe.
No other way or explanation.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Yeah I don't deny that there may be some undiscovered connection between the 4 main forces of the universe, after all isn't that the holy grail for physics. But that doesn't change the analysis of what the OP is doing. He hasn't come up with the unified theory of everything - he merely derived a formula for a given situation with certain knowns. His formula still cannot predict the force of attraction between two stationary objects like Newton's law. And Newton's law certainly can. It has been verified. That does not mean Newton or Einstein's theories are the end all, be all.
edit on 8-10-2010 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by MegaMind
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Yeah I don't deny that there may be some undiscovered connection between the 4 main forces of the universe, after all isn't that the holy grail for physics. But that doesn't change the analysis of what the OP is doing. He hasn't come up with the unified theory of everything - he merely derived a formula for a given situation with certain knowns. His formula still cannot predict the force of attraction between two stationary objects like Newton's law. And Newton's law certainly can. It has been verified. That does not mean Newton or Einstein's theories are the end all, be all.
edit on 8-10-2010 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)


I would say it can't predict it because the force of "gravity" isn't the actor in the experiment.

The results are misconstrued.

"Gravity" in the Newtonian sense would be zero, but the electromagnetic dipole attraction between objects is still being registered.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by MegaMind
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Yeah I don't deny that there may be some undiscovered connection between the 4 main forces of the universe, after all isn't that the holy grail for physics. But that doesn't change the analysis of what the OP is doing. He hasn't come up with the unified theory of everything - he merely derived a formula for a given situation with certain knowns. His formula still cannot predict the force of attraction between two stationary objects like Newton's law. And Newton's law certainly can. It has been verified. That does not mean Newton or Einstein's theories are the end all, be all.
edit on 8-10-2010 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)


I would say it can't predict it because the force of "gravity" isn't the actor in the experiment.

The results are misconstrued.

"Gravity" in the Newtonian sense would be zero, but the electromagnetic dipole attraction between objects is still being registered.



A force is predicted, measured and verified. That measured force is used to calculate G. This in turn is used to accurately predict the orbits of satellites and planets. Obviously the same force that "works" on the lead balls also "works" on planets. Call that force what you may - convention calls it gravity.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by MegaMind
A force is predicted, measured and verified. That measured force is used to calculate G. This in turn is used to accurately predict the orbits of satellites and planets. Obviously the same force that "works" on the lead balls also "works" on planets. Call that force what you may - convention calls it gravity.


Since the electromagnetic field and gravitational field both obey the inverse square law, I don't see how you could be so certain that it is "gravity" bringing the balls together.

When magnetic dipoles are aligned through deep freezing them, objects float in the air.

See super conductive magnets.

edit on 8-10-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Many things dissipate as an inverse square of the distance. The magnitude of waves come to mind.

You are suggesting gravity is just electromagnetism. It may be that they are ultimately related. I would say they probably are. But this is not concrete enough to do anything with is it? What theories or formulas do you suggest we replace Newton's or Einstein's laws with? Right now they do a good job predicting things wouldn't you say?
edit on 8-10-2010 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-10-2010 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-10-2010 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Since the electromagnetic field and gravitational field both obey the inverse square law, I don't see how you could be so certain that it is "gravity" bringing the balls together.

When magnetic dipoles are aligned through deep freezing them, objects float in the air.

See super conductive magnets.

edit on 8-10-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)
If you're talking about this:



That happens because superconductors become perfect diamagnetic. The object levitating there is a permanent magnet. It still requires the interaction of a magnetic field outside the superconductor.

So obviously in the absence of a strong outside magnetic field, superconducting magnets do not self-levitate. If they did, MRI machines would be floating out of hospitals all day.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
You've effectively substituted your K constant for the mass of the sun. It works out for all of the planets in your chart, because they are all orbiting the same star. Your math will fail if the mass if the second body changes.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Magnetic field can be shielded, gravity cannot. Acceleration in magnetic field varies with mass and material of the object, acceleration in gravity field depends only on location in it because of the equivalence principle. Gravity field slows time, electromagnetic field does not..

There are too many dissimilarities to say gravitational attraction we observe is caused by electromagnetism.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Magnetic field can be shielded, gravity cannot. Acceleration in magnetic field varies with mass and material of the object, acceleration in gravity field depends only on location in it because of the equivalence principle. Gravity field slows time, electromagnetic field does not..

There are too many dissimilarities to say gravitational attraction we observe is caused by electromagnetism.


The dipole effects commented on by Sandsbury cannot be shielded.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
I think the others in the thread have summarized it pretty nicely. There is nothing new or conspirative in OPs calculation - he simply traded the need for one empirical input (mass of the orbited body) to another (time to complete the orbit). That brings many negatives (able to compute only simple circular orbits, unable to compute gravitational attaction between bodies at rest, most importantly, having to measure time to complete orbit for every new orbit in the gravity field (G is constant for all trajectories and gravity fields, central mass is constant for all trajectories in the given gravity field) ) with one little positive (getting rid of one constant in highly specialised case) into the equation.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
If you're talking about this:



That happens because superconductors become perfect diamagnetic. The object levitating there is a permanent magnet. It still requires the interaction of a magnetic field outside the superconductor.

So obviously in the absence of a strong outside magnetic field, superconducting magnets do not self-levitate. If they did, MRI machines would be floating out of hospitals all day.


This is specifically what I am talking about.

When the superconductor is not frozen, its dipoles are oriented toward the earth and it is pulled toward the earth due to newtons "gravity". When frozen, its dipoles become locked and subsequently it can be magnetically levitated. However, it always has pull toward the earth because of newtons "gravity"

I suspect that if one were to conduct the Cavendish experiment using super-conductive balls instead of lead, there would be no attractive force between them.

edit on 8-10-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
This is specifically what I am talking about.

When the superconductor is not frozen, its dipoles are oriented toward the earth and it is pulled toward the earth due to newtons "gravity". When frozen, its dipoles become locked and subsequently it can be magnetically levitated. However, it always has pull toward the earth because of newtons "gravity"

I suspect that if one were to conduct the Cavendish experiment using super-conductive balls instead of lead, there would be no attractive force between them.

edit on 8-10-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)


If it is the tiny magnetic dipoles in the earth that attract the dipoles in the currently-room temperature, currently non-superconductor to the earth, giving the apparent force of gravity, how does it suddenly become able to repulse a magnetic field when cooled to its superconducting temperature, yet still experience the exact same amount of force exerted by the tiny dipoles in the earth, maintaining the exact same apparent force of gravity?

If you are saying that the apparent force of gravity is really due to traditional magnetic attraction on some sub-atomic level, how do you explain the superconductor's repulsion of magnetic fields from traditional magnetic material, yet still complete susceptibility to this "magnetic" gravity?



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
If it is the tiny magnetic dipoles in the earth that attract the dipoles in the currently-room temperature, currently non-superconductor to the earth, giving the apparent force of gravity, how does it suddenly become able to repulse a magnetic field when cooled to its superconducting temperature, yet still experience the exact same amount of force exerted by the tiny dipoles in the earth, maintaining the exact same apparent force of gravity?

If you are saying that the apparent force of gravity is really due to traditional magnetic attraction on some sub-atomic level, how do you explain the superconductor's repulsion of magnetic fields from traditional magnetic material, yet still complete susceptibility to this "magnetic" gravity?



To me it looks like there is movement induced gravity and dipole induced gravity.

Since both would be operating on an inverse square relationship, telling them apart would be incredibly difficult.

Both are non-sheildable and act in the same manner.

edit on 8-10-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


EVERY electric field can be shielded, for example by faradays cage. EVERY magnetic field can be shielded to very high degree or otherwise manipulated in multitude of ways which cannot be done with gravity field, and also induces electric currents in moving metals, which gravity does not.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.coolmagnetman.com...

Acceleration in electromagnetic field varies with mass and material of the objects, acceleration in gravity field depends only on location in it because of the equivalence principle. Gravity field slows time, electromagnetic field does not..

Saying that gravity is just an electromagnetic field is simply ridiculous. What would be its intensity in N/C or V/m or Teslas on Earths surface?
edit on 8/10/10 by Maslo because: addendum



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


What exactly do you mean by "movement induced gravity" and how does it differ from your "dipole induced gravity" and standard Newton/Einstein gravity?





new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join