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.

 

Gravitomagnetism explained.

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
When an object spins it creates pions in space time, this is because particles are spinning vortices of space time.
thus when any object spins it forms vortices in space time,these fundemental vortices/particles are pions.
pions then aggregate into electrons which are two pions,these electrons as they are spin organized by the spin of the rotating object are spin organized into an magnetic field.
this is why spinning objects produce magnetic fields even in space time vacuums,hence we get gravitomagnetism which is the production of magnetic fields by spinning objects.

this is why when you spin a magnet its magnetic field strength increases dramatically as the spinning magnet is producing electrons from the void.

This is where we also get zero point energy from,it is demonstrated by the electric charge produced by a spinning object,ie that spinning obejcts produce electrons and magnetic fields,



A laboratory experiment devoted to the measurement of the magnetic field created by a rotating body is described. Using an original method of detection, the effects of the magnetic field of a rotating body were detected and their properties investigated. Based on a model proposed by the author, an interpretation of the experimental results is given.


www.sciencedirect.com... teway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1684534281&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a21ae4255a4465ea fdedc8299c2aa3dc&searchtype=a

This is why many of the U.F.O's spin they are producing gravitomagnetic fields which levitate the magnetic component of the U.F.O.




posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   
The link is broken.


XL5

posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
So your saying all we have to do is spin a magnetic puck and get free energy? What kind of voltage and current would a 1" x 3/8" magnet produce and at what RPM? IMHO if its something like 1V at 1A and 500K RPM, even if it is free energy, its useless. Sure, in that case we could still learn alot but if its not easy, no one will build it.

If any free energy device exists, it needs to be easy and simple to build/work. Otherwise the people/companies with hundred magnets and many moving parts will never get it to market.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by XL5
So your saying all we have to do is spin a magnetic puck and get free energy? What kind of voltage and current would a 1" x 3/8" magnet produce and at what RPM? IMHO if its something like 1V at 1A and 500K RPM, even if it is free energy, its useless. Sure, in that case we could still learn alot but if its not easy, no one will build it.

If any free energy device exists, it needs to be easy and simple to build/work. Otherwise the people/companies with hundred magnets and many moving parts will never get it to market.


heres an example of a free energy device utilizing gravitomagnetism
www.rexresearch.com...

yes all you have to do is spin objects at large RPM and you get large magnetic fields which can be tapped for free energy.

this effect is also seen in spinning magnets over superconducting disks, spin a magnet over a super conducting disk and it levitates.this is because the spinning magnet produces a gravitomagnetic field when it spins adn this gravitomagnetic field extends into the superconductor which then gives it its own magnetic field.the two repel each other and tada you have lift.
www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   
we can see the gravitomagnetic effect at play in this link
______beforeitsnews/story/461/880/Anti-Gravity_Zero_Point_Energy_Device_Confirmed_by_Measurements_in_Morningstar_Energy_Box.html




and created anomalous magnetic zones up to 15 meters around the device



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by AxlJones
 


I think this is the link he put up but, you have to pay big buck$ to read the paper:

Science Direct



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by HeresHowItGoes
 

Pions are pi mesons.

They have a spin value of zero.

Besides, the property of subatomic particles known as 'spin' has nothing whatever to do with physical rotation.

Your post is fantasy, not science. The laws of thermodynamics laugh in the face of it.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by HeresHowItGoes
 

Pions are pi mesons.

They have a spin value of zero.

Besides, the property of subatomic particles known as 'spin' has nothing whatever to do with physical rotation.

Your post is fantasy, not science. The laws of thermodynamics laugh in the face of it.


there is actually been no proof of pions existing,they are far to small to measure and to observe so theres no way anyone can claim they dont spin.


nearly all particles spin,read this artcle as to how protons get their spin and you will notice its via the spin of the quarks,



the observed spin of the proton arises simply from the intrinsic spins of the quarks


focus.aps.org...

the fact that particles spin is just basic science to me,to say they dont shows your complete lack of understanding of the most basic element of science.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by HeresHowItGoes
 


there is actually been no proof of pions existing

The existence of pions was first predicted by the Japanese physicist Hideki Yukawa in 1934. Naturally occurring charged pions were first detected by British scientists in 1947. The following year, they were created in experiments using the UC Berkeley, California cyclotron. Neutrally charged pions were identified, also at Berkeley, in 1950.


they are far to small to measure and to observe

The pion’s mass (roughly 200 times the mass of an electron) was predicted by Yukawa and the prediction was borne out by the cyclotron experiments of 1947. Charge radius (‘size’) was determined through dispersion methods in 1949.

Not only do pions exist, they have been used in radiotherapy with cancer patients.


theres no way anyone can claim they dont spin.


The pion, being spinless, has kinematics described by the Klein–Gordon equation. Source

And particle spin, as I said before, is nothing at all like mechanical rotation. It is just a property of subatomic particles that is arbitrarily called ‘spin’. It doesn't mean they really do spin, any more than calling quarks red, blue and green means they actually have these colours.


the fact that particles spin is just basic science to me,to say they dont shows your complete lack of understanding of the most basic element of science.

Either that, or it shows that you don't have a blessed clue what you’re blethering on about.


edit on 19/3/11 by Astyanax because: I left out a link



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by HeresHowItGoes
 


there is actually been no proof of pions existing

The existence of pions was first predicted by the Japanese physicist Hideki Yukawa in 1934. Naturally occurring charged pions were first detected by British scientists in 1947. The following year, they were created in experiments using the UC Berkeley, California cyclotron. Neutrally charged pions were identified, also at Berkeley, in 1950.


they are far to small to measure and to observe

The pion’s mass (roughly 200 times the mass of an electron) was predicted by Yukawa and the prediction was borne out by the cyclotron experiments of 1947. Charge radius (‘size’) was determined through dispersion methods in 1949.

Not only do pions exist, they have been used in radiotherapy with cancer patients.


theres no way anyone can claim they dont spin.


The pion, being spinless, has kinematics described by the Klein–Gordon equation. Source

And particle spin, as I said before, is nothing at all like mechanical rotation. It is just a property of subatomic particles that is arbitrarily called ‘spin’. It doesn't mean they really do spin, any more than calling quarks red, blue and green means they actually have these colours.


the fact that particles spin is just basic science to me,to say they dont shows your complete lack of understanding of the most basic element of science.

Either that, or it shows that you don't have a blessed clue what you’re blethering on about.


edit on 19/3/11 by Astyanax because: I left out a link


i dont know what they are detecting but it isnt pions,i know for a fact the aliens havnt even detected them and building pionic matter is a priority of theirs.

i believe we are talking of differnt particles here,the pion i am refring to is a subatomic particle which makes up quarks,the particle you are reffering to is one made up of quarks.

i believe we are using the same word "pion" to describe two different particles,get it?

thr subquarkic particle may not even have a name but i have heard it called a pion and thats why i use the term pion.
simply a misunderstanding.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by HeresHowItGoes
 


i dont know what they are detecting but it isnt pions, i know for a fact the aliens havnt even detected them and building pionic matter is a priority of theirs.

Aliens, eh?

I think the Reality Express just left the rails.



i believe we are talking of differnt particles here,the pion i am refring to is a subatomic particle which makes up quarks, the particle you are reffering to is one made up of quarks.

In real-world physics, quarks are fundamental. They are not made up of ‘pions’ or any other kind of particle.


i believe we are using the same word "pion" to describe two different particles, get it?

Seems that way. I’m using the word the way physicists use it. I'm not sure what you mean by it.


simply a misunderstanding.

Yes, but whose, and of what?


edit on 20/3/11 by Astyanax because: I forgot the 'reply to' bit.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by HeresHowItGoes
 

Pions are pi mesons.

They have a spin value of zero.


Of course.



Besides, the property of subatomic particles known as 'spin' has nothing whatever to do with physical rotation.


Actually, this is not true: Einstein-de Haas effect and its reverse, the Barnett effect.

It is true that a fully classical description gives the wrong answer.


edit on 21-3-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 

Thank you, mbkennel, for teaching me something new. This is what I like best about ATS; the opportunity to learn new things.

I looked up the Einstein-de Haas effect, which I hadn't heard about before.
There's not a lot about it on the web, it seems, but from what I could find I gather that it is not well understood how the summed electron angular momentum ('spin') relates to the angular momentum of the rotating ferromagnet. I think you'll probably agree with me that the electrons are not actually spinning like tops on their axes.

I found a Scientific American article about particle spin, which attempts to make simple a complicated subject. Anyone who wants to grapple with this very challenging concept could do a lot worse than to start by reading it.

Here's another good introduction to spin from the Ask A Scientist web site.

By the way, OP, none of this restores your credibility, or makes your arguments any more scientific.



edit on 21/3/11 by Astyanax because: it was there.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:43 AM
link   
Well, all moving particles create a magnetic field, and an electric field; electromagnetic field. Not sure about a gravitomagnetic field though =\



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


the word credibility gives away what you are,you and your kind seek to undermine peoples credibility,its part of your manual right?.

why do you find it so implausibile that particles spin?,where does it say they cant?,any form of matter can spin including particles.

i believe there will be a disclosure on science someday soon,looking forward to it.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 12:33 AM
link   

the word credibility gives away what you are, you and your kind seek to undermine peoples credibility, its part of your manual right?

‘I and my kind’? And what kind might that be?

‘Part of my manual’? Are you suggesting that I am employed to debunk crank theories on ATS? By whom, exactly?


why do you find it so implausibile that particles spin?

  1. I do not find it implausible that particles have a property called spin. Protons, neutrons, electrons, neutrinos and quarks all have this property, which relates somehow to classical ideas of angular momentum (exactly how is unkown). However, pions have a spin value of zero. This is the particle-physics equivalent of kindergarten knowledge, by the way (kindergarten knowledge is about my speed when it comes to particle physics.
    )

  2. Spin is not actually rotation. Particles are not little hard bullet-like objects that spin on their axes like tops.


any form of matter can spin including particles.

You are still confusing particle spin with mechanical rotation.


i believe there will be a disclosure on science someday soon,looking forward to it.

Priceless. Keep ’em coming.
edit on 22/3/11 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Find here a link to treatise on gravity and gravitomagnetism
gravitomagnetism.voila.net...
Nduriri France



new topics




 
6

log in

join