The GRAVITY conspiracy (Part 1)

page: 9
57
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Man! These are the times when I wished I was educated.

All I have been able to contribute to the conversation was a story about my grandpa's old truck. (see page 4)

After reading the original post I was wondering if there is not a difference in one object orbiting another and one object going around in a circle -- like some of us.

It would seem if one object were in orbit of another, the gravity of the second object would be attracting the first and thus acting as to "input energy into the system" along with the enertia of the fist object to produce an orbit. Were as an object moving in a circle would need to supply the energy needed to constantly change it's direction around a singular point in space. Much like locking down the steering on a truck and adjusting the spark advance, trottle, to keep the engine running.

As I read the OP math figures, I saw no evidence of either of these. To do other wise would bring in discussions about some other physical laws.

Maybe I missed his point entirely. If so; oh well.




posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 

You did pretty well on the satellite. But I wouldn't want to use your figures for a trip to the Moon. You missed by 10 minutes. I don't suppose you could show your work?

You didn't do so well on the hypothetical planet, using gravitation its period would be about 168 days.
edit on 10/11/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


He did OK, except the "53,000 miles (9.167 x 10^7 m)" part. 53,000 miles is 85,295,232 meters.

And you're right, I wouldn't want to go to the moon with them. As they assume a circular orbit and constant orbital speed, they'd be completely useless for determining position.



posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 

I saw that.
I believe Tauristicus assumed that I was referring to the distance above the surface and was correcting for the radius of the Earth. I took that into account.
edit on 10/11/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Original poster, I wish you could facilitate your theory a bit. Not everyone understands advanced math and people will end up being confused or misinformed.

What I'm getting is that swinging a rock attached to a rope in a circular motion is somehow similar to the moon orbiting a planet? The difference is, Earth is a planet with a core and the gravity pulls things to its core. When you swing the rock around, the core of the Earth is also pulling it down so when you let go or stop swinging it, it'll fall down. In space these planets are in out of space so they are not on a planet with gravity.

Please explain this though, maybe I misunderstood something.



posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
My layman's idea of it all.


All mass is only visible and known with an interaction of light.

The light creator, our sun also creates magnetic waves. Those magnetic waves trap debris that forms into heavenly bodies. The heavenly bodies that receive the most light, tend to be the most dense. And they travel the fastest because they are in the fastest strongest bands of magnetic energy. Someone posted a video of a supposed free energy machine awhile ago. It had electrified rails that pushed a magnet around, turning the motor. Kind of what the planets do around the sun. It creates the electric rails that push the smaller magnets along.

Elliptical orbits are a matter of introductory vector, plane, distance from the sun(amount of light it receives) , and our own suns rotation.

The sun isn't stationary at all. That alone would cause distortions in a planets orbit. factor in how the planet was created or came to be in our system. was it debris that formed,a body injected into the system, or did it collide with another body? Planets with odd planes are most likely injected or had a collision with something that was. also an elliptical orbit is evidence that as it approaches perigee, it receives more light, and becomes more dense. It moves faster, flattening out its orbit.

The sun creates the order, or is working on it.



posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


if this harmonic ordering system is within 25% of being acurate then dependant on the sun
most systems would be similar to ours?
would a harmonic order to circular orbiting bodies (forget the epigee thingy) cause alot of solar systems to mimic ours with earth like planets in the goldie locks zone like ours?

does this mean lots of earth like planets?

xploder



posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


I think there will be an Earth-like planet for every Sun about the same size as our sun. There should also be some kind of life in other solar systems with stars not too small (inner planet) and not too big (outer planet). The universe must be teaming with life.

The fact that SETI is not picking up EM transmissions suggests to me that using EM energy to communicate is very short lived in any advanced civilization and that we will find a better way to communicate pretty soon (scalar or quantum). Perhaps civilizations are inundated with visitors attracted to EM transmissions and switch as soon as possible to reduce visibility.



posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxpageant
reply to post by XPLodER
 


I think there will be an Earth-like planet for every Sun about the same size as our sun. There should also be some kind of life in other solar systems with stars not too small (inner planet) and not too big (outer planet). The universe must be teaming with life.

The fact that SETI is not picking up EM transmissions suggests to me that using EM energy to communicate is very short lived in any advanced civilization and that we will find a better way to communicate pretty soon (scalar or quantum). Perhaps civilizations are inundated with visitors attracted to EM transmissions and switch as soon as possible to reduce visibility.


thank you very much
i think if there is a lot of other systems with earth like orbits and conditions life may look quite similar to here on earth. the universe just got more populated in my opinion

star 4 you

xploder



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
I too have wondered whether gravity was a conspiracy, but it isn't really questioned because of one reason: it works. When Kepler used Tycho Brahe's observations, he found empirically what was happening in the universe. Newton's law just explained it



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 03:21 AM
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.


yes exactly, 'gravity' and electromagnetics have a direct relation. And its been ignored by the mainstream for a long time.



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 06:15 AM
link   
I also believe the suns emitted Neutrino's play a part in gravity.

When we were on the moon kicking up dust how come it fell so fast with only 1/6th of Earth's gravity. When we landed on the bottom of the Marianas Trench a dust ploom raised up and for 30 minutes the guys couldn't see squat outside of their submarine/bell and had to leave. NASA says it's because of the sun, why the moon dust fell so quick. The suns emissions cause a static charge which causes atoms to attract. If the suns emissions could be blocked and you kicked up dust on the moon it would take longer before it fell. This is also likely why the asteroid belt on the outside of our planet never came together as a planet. They didn't get enough of a static charge to attract to each other.

My personal theory is it's the neutrino's causing this static charge. But it's impossible to block them to verify my theory. NASA doesn't specify what emission from the sun is causing the static charge creating "gravity", or alteast helping it a whole lot.

Our method of carbon dating uses radioactive decay to estimate the age of things. This is flawed. Neutrino emissions from the sun are not constant, and it has been found Neutrino's can speed up or slow down radioactive decay. They may be the answer for the gap you are looking for in your data.



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Great, just what we need.
Another unproven theory about an unproven theory.
Maybe one day someone will find out what this thing we like to call gravity is..
Till then I guess we will have to put up with more theories..



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 03:07 AM
link   
Im going to have to re read your thread tomorrow to follow the math, im getting too sleepy, but id like to share my problem with newtonian gravity

Compared to a vacuum, gravity doesnt seem that strong of a force. A Multi-ton jetliner can completely overcome this force by creating a small vacuum under its wings, for example. Or closer to my point, a vacuum cleaner creates a vacuum strong enough to pull air straight up into it (dirt too, but im thinking of an example where it couldnt be said that its making a seal with the floor)

My question is, at the edge of space, what force is stopping our atmosphere from being sucked up into the absolute vacuum of space, when gravity isnt strong enough to oppose a vacuum here at the ground level?



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by RebelSoldier
 


Your crucial mistake is in treating vacuum as a force. It is the difference in air pressure that lifts the wings of a plane up, or sucks things into a vacuum cleaner. In space, both the plane and vacuum cleaner will be useless. In the atmosphere, when you create a vacuum (or a low pressure), the air will try to rush in to equalise the difference. That's what creates the force.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius
I also believe the suns emitted Neutrino's play a part in gravity.

When we were on the moon kicking up dust how come it fell so fast with only 1/6th of Earth's gravity. When we landed on the bottom of the Marianas Trench a dust ploom raised up and for 30 minutes the guys couldn't see squat outside of their submarine/bell and had to leave. NASA says it's because of the sun, why the moon dust fell so quick. The suns emissions cause a static charge which causes atoms to attract. If the suns emissions could be blocked and you kicked up dust on the moon it would take longer before it fell. This is also likely why the asteroid belt on the outside of our planet never came together as a planet. They didn't get enough of a static charge to attract to each other.

My personal theory is it's the neutrino's causing this static charge. But it's impossible to block them to verify my theory. NASA doesn't specify what emission from the sun is causing the static charge creating "gravity", or alteast helping it a whole lot.

Our method of carbon dating uses radioactive decay to estimate the age of things. This is flawed. Neutrino emissions from the sun are not constant, and it has been found Neutrino's can speed up or slow down radioactive decay. They may be the answer for the gap you are looking for in your data.

There is no air on the moon, so there's nothing to keep the dust from falling as quick as it did. In the atmosphere (and especially in water) dust can float for a long time and get lifted by air (or water) currents. Static electricity has little (or nothing) to do with this.

Neutrinos are electrically neutral (hence the name), so they can't cause a static charge. I think you misquoted or misunderstood what NASA said. Can you please post the link where they talk about this?



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 05:45 AM
link   
A question to the OP and everybody else discounting Newton's gravity: what keeps our feet on the ground?



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 


I understand, the vacuum is more like the absence of force or pressure or anything else, but at the very edge of it, whats holding the pressure of the atmosphere from leaving to fill the absence of pressure in space? My examples were observations of gravity not being powerful enough to do this.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by RebelSoldier
 

The weight of the atmosphere is holding it, and the weight is due to gravity. An airplane doesn't defeat gravity, it simply uses the "cushion" of compressed air under its wings to generate lift. Likewise ships and boats don't defeat gravity, they simply float on the much denser water. Take the atmosphere from Earth, and the plane will drop like a stone.

P.S. the same weight of the atmosphere is what makes it rush into the vacuum cleaner when the vacuum is created. Vacuum doesn't literally "suck". One person asked once how can astronauts wear spacesuits in vacuum if vacuum is so powerful it would make them explode. My answer was that vacuum doesn't exert any force, only the air inside the spacesuit does, and the spacesuit is strong enough to hold that air.
edit on 28-10-2012 by wildespace because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
57
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join