a drop of water orbiting a nitting needle in space

reply to post by Starchild23

You mean giving the rod and water drops opposite static charges?

Yes, the experiment wouldn't work (not as well, anyway) unless he did that. That would be another difference between electrostatic charges and gravity (as has been pointed out).

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation

Originally posted by SoulVisions

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
I certainly don't know what everybody thinks but I was not aware of anyone trying to chuck out gravity.

Couldn't do that even if we wanted to. It permeates everything near it's source. Everything is affected as long as they reach at least just the minimal mass reqs. Same goes for the "generator/source" too. It has to meet reqs too. The "micro-universe" isn't affected really though, but the reasons why should be obvious.

edit: it's a system of equalization though, so if the gravity is stronger, then of course whatever's being pulled can be "lighter."

edit on 7-2-2012 by SoulVisions because: so tired... cant sleep though. hope my posts make sense.

I'll try it this way. Gravity is real, it's not going anywhere. What I believe needs to be chucked is the idea that gravity is a fundamental force. It has a CAUSE. What evidence is there that it's fundamental? Keep searching for that "particle that carries the fundamental force of gravity". Why is gravity related to mass? Charge.

I understand what you're saying. I'd have to do some real digging through my things but we did have an AWESOME (odd) experiment that was essentially showing gravity and light (gonna sound crazy) to be similar. But only in the sense of the particle and wave duality issue. Anyways, that aside, the hypothesis was showing that gravity is mass dependant... actually no. hold on..

Okay, maybe "mass" isn't the right word to relate to gravity so much as the terms "density," and even "surface area" both do. I put these words in quotes because someone's gonna point out black holes, or dark matter, or something of the sort. Nice thing about it? It still works as far as we could tell.

What we theorized was that gravity was perhaps undetectable, and we couldn't find it's particles or anything because (again, in theory), the wave patterns were SO "tall" (peaks & and valleys), and SO "fast" (frequency) that were it to be drawn as a graph, you'd draw so many peak-to-valleys within a length of time (and so often!) that it would appear as one constant dark block on the graph. (thus our reason for not being able to detect any single "wave" of gravity. We weren't ever finding that "one wave" that told us about how gravity worked apparently because, we were actually measuring something comparable to the sound a hundred waves breaking on the shoreline, not an individual one, but rather we were "hearing" that unique sound of all waves crashing together at the same time (or at least fast enough where it'd seem like that). You get my point...

Interesting thoughts and all, and when I worked on this myself even it seemed like the answer, but then it was postulated that it could just as easily be the polar opposite with frequency so "slow" that again, we couldn't detect it. Next step was to find a way to find either it's peak or valley with the idea that if they could just see these "tips" then surely each wave-period was not the same size/length and they could then try and find the next nearest "tip" of the wave while measuring the distance between the two of similar or equal size.

Phew! I hope that makes sense. I understand the incorrect use of terminology here but it's hard to explain otherwise.

I don't have much to add to the discussion here as I'm not well versed in physics and the like. All I can say is that this is really cool!
Just out of interest, does anyone know if this was done in an artificial zero gravity environment or genuinely in space?

Cheers,
Ben.

Reply to post by Starchild23

I dissagree with you. You cannot apply electromagnetism on large bodies, because its strength decreases rapidly due to large distances and its only aplicable on small particles. In contrast the force of gravitation reaches great distances and its important only when large objects are involved.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

sorry, related to TWISTEDWORDS


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

double post


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by XPLodER


Awesome video, cheers for posting.

But if he says knitting-needle *one more time* I'll get space sick.

reply to post by Aliensun


Well, Einstein did say that electricity and magnetism are one of the same just in different forms. So if gravity is somewhat related to magnetism then I gues that, indeed, the universe is electric. Which would explain Tesla's success with his experiments in free energy. It' a shame we never had the chance to see those two work together.

I think it totally fresh. If only we could get it to work on Earth, thisnk of the uses. Water cusions, water ball bearings, sex toys.. the list goes on.

reply to post by zilebeliveunknown


Electromagnetic and gravitational forces behave exactly the same at a distance. So what you say here is not correct. The reason electromagnetic fields don't "reach" very far is because we are not capable of creating large charges. In theory, the electric field never becomes 0 no matter how far you are away from the charge creating the field. Though in practice, at a certain distance, it is no longer measurable.

Originally posted by Phage
The behavior of the water droplets is actually quite different from what would be displayed in a gravitational field. You would not see the longitudinal spiral effect. That is a result of the water droplets following sprialling field lines. There is no such effect with gravitation.

I think that when you create a needle that is dense enough to have a gravitational field of the same strength as the electric field(s) in the experiment, it will behave exactly the same. This is more of a practical issue, its not possible to create such a dense needle. But it can be done on a larger scale I guess. Theoretically. I don't see why the droplets (or planets) would not spiral in a gravitational field.

reply to post by XPLodER


OK, this reminds me of Men in Black 1. Why? Because of the tiny galaxy the cat is wearing on his collar. And the line "Just because something is small, doesn’t mean it’s not important." or something to that effect. By seeing this video, why couldn't we see planitary systems the size of sedan or even smaller. If gravity is dirrectly related to mass, then in a 0G enviroment size wouldn't really matter as long as the bodies are scaled and distanced properly in relation to one another. Now as for it's own sun, according to what we know, the mass needed to achieve fussion in a star is much to great to accomidate a planitary system of that size. But lets say that planitary system is orbiting a sun such as ours. Could it systain life, intelligent or not, on a microscopic level from our perspective. I think this little experiment will open a whole new line of questions I'm sure.

reply to post by XPLodER


That is an amazing clip, I wish I was up there with him doing that experiment, it's fun and beauty mixed.

Reply to post by -PLB-

It cannot behave exactly because its two different things.
Gravitation is always attractive, electromagnetic forces can be repulsive or atractive.
We are using gravitation to describe pulling forces between large celestial bodies and electromagnetic forces within atoms.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by XPLodER


Electromagnetism and Gravity have similar characteristics, in our Universe. Where the electromagnetic force has been greatly underestimated, and wrongly ignored.

Look at the sun, it draws into it objects ... and throws out energy particles that bombard the earth. The sun has it's own plasma core, which also electromagnetic and it's magnetic field interacts with the earth.

When we come to the conclusion that the earths core is plasma, and that this is the reason for the earths unstable magnetic field ... we'll be on our way towards a better undersanding of these aspects.

The drops, are drawn to the needle by magnetism ... while driven away, by inertia. Their inertia is slowed down by air resistance, while the magnetic attraction is relatively the same. Space, just as gas in the chambers, does represent resistance in earths motion orbitting the sun. But unlike the droplet, the earth has it's own electromagnetic field, interacting with the suns, and in a system of like bodies. Creating a much more complex system ... as there are two forces acting on the earth, gravity and electromagnetism, where the electromagnetic force is pushing, not pulling.

reply to post by XPLodER


Regarding Gravity and Charge, this is near the bottom of the page. I certainly have no idea if what he says is correct, but it is interesting.

FA.4.0 THEORY OF EVERYTHING

LINK

reply to post by zilebeliveunknown


I mean with behave is that the strength decrease in exactly the same manner when you move away from the source.

If this is going to be on the front page can someone at least fix the typo in the title? Do we want people to think ATS is full of illiterates?

OK, I'm done ranting...

Originally posted by zilebeliveunknown

Gravitation is always attractive, electromagnetic forces can be repulsive or atractive.

Er, well,that's not actually entirely true there.. :x

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation

FA.4.0 THEORY OF EVERYTHING

LINK

HEY!

Who found this initially? I've probably read a hundred of these papers but I never even saw this one before, weird. '07 paper too. Discussion related, though? He is absolutely 100% right in his thoughts about mass and photons being interchangeable in certain applications.

Hell, quantum spends a third of it's time doing just such things. The key though isn't really "whether" you can do it so much as "if I did do it, what kind of effect do I expect to occur?"