a drop of water orbiting a nitting needle in space

this is very cool,


a charge diferential between the potential charges of the needle and water create this odd orbiting behaviour
it really reminds me of moons orbiting saturn

done in zero grav using water and a needle and static type charges

must watch looks cool
xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


Absolutely fascinating. Thanks for showing us an example of just how weird and wonderful science is

Perhaps when Albert Einstein was studying relativity he found that the laws of Physics behave differently than expected when outside the reasonable ability of the unaided eye to see them.

This experiment brings the usually hidden laws to our view, not because these laws are hidden, but because these laws did not expect to be viewed.

The scientific principle of not spitting on microscope slides is that not interfering with what you study is important; perhaps now we find something that didn't expect to be studied, our view of it changes how we expect it to react.

Because because we can interfere with these laws, humans find new ways to interpret them.

Because we interpret these natural laws differently than other animals, we find that these laws are inconsistent at different scales, a reflection on the severity of punishment being correlated to the crime, and the rewards also being correlated to the awesomeness of the achievement.

I've often wondered if because Monkeys don't talk to humans about Quantum Physics, monkeys just take it for granted that String Theory is real.

Can this be a supporting argument for the theory of "The Electric Universe?" that we have been hearing about for the last few years.

Originally posted by Aliensun
Can this be a supporting argument for the theory of "The Electric Universe?" that we have been hearing about for the last few years.

well after the news last week about a "cold plasma" bubble around the earth and the moon,
and the fact that the sun is stripping ions from the "cold plasma" bubbles,
and the ability for charge seperation to allow for positivly charged water to "orbit" a negitivly charged needle,
then direct parralles can be drawn with gravity.

please note the effect is created by charge potential differnce,
not gravity.

this is a very simple way of explainig how asteroids can have satalites,

it gets very complicated when you add hydro-magneto-dynamics into the attraction repulsion equations and diameter becomes a factor in orbital charictoristics.

but basically of the "needle" and "drop" were themselves moving though a gas,
that gas would effect the orbital charictoristics or hydro dynamics of the surface area and be a factor of the orbit perameters.

so this doesnt "replace" gavity but does under the right conditions conform to the square distence relationship
like gravity does.

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


To expound on this: I think it depends largely upon what we are talking about.

I would expect electromagnetism to be a more powerful macroscopic influence on diffuse material (nebulae, gas, and dust clouds) than solid bodies (planetoids).

Gravity, I believe, is the primary force involving objects, such as planets. But when you start looking at the arrangement of gasses and even some smaller, diffuse bodies; the similarities to plasma and its observed characteristics cannot be ignored.

So; I would say that the "Electric Universe" is not a theory that should be looked at as a replacement for the classical theory - but as a supplement and/or complement. Indeed - in such an electromagnetically active system as our Sun - it would be logical to presume the arrangement and behavior of electrical charges have a very powerful role in said system's mechanics. But I don't think that's reason enough to start chucking out gravity. That's throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Far too many want to approach theories and concepts as an all-or-nothing sort of deal.

reply to post by Aim64C

But I don't think that's reason enough to start chucking out gravity. That's throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I certainly don't know what everybody thinks but I was not aware of anyone trying to chuck out gravity. It should come right back if we tried. I thought the game was to find the cause of gravity. Now if we have empirical evidence of charge potential difference causing an effect that looks like gravity and acts like gravity, is it crazy to pursue its role in causing gravity. Primary with other factors maybe or secondary or 3rd cousin twice removed. Unless they can throw that magic paper in the LHC and smash the gravitons out of it .

I love it! My my.. The wonders that we're still uncovering today

Originally posted by Aim64C
I would expect electromagnetism to be a more powerful macroscopic influence on diffuse material (nebulae, gas, and dust clouds) than solid bodies (planetoids).

Why exactly do you expect this?

I don't know very much about astronomy, so I am not biased towards gravity or electromagnetism. I do know a bit about electromagnetism in general. One "problem" I can think of with your idea is that electromagnetic forces tend to find equilibrium fast. In general, you need to do work in order to "disturb" the equilibrium. One example of a situation where the time to reach this equilibrium is extended is to have a body that is mostly neutral and only has a very small charge. This is basically what they do in the video in the OP.

So what is the mechanism you are suggesting?

And to comment on the OP, it looks cool, but this effect is well known. This is not a new discovery, but rather a confirmation of an old one. You can do this experiment at home by rubbing a plastic object and holding it close to a thin stream of water from the tap. Of course minus the zero g effect.

Originally posted by XPLodER
please note the effect is created by charge potential differnce,
not gravity.

You beat me to it. Hope people keep this in mind. Pretty darned important.

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."

Very cool
Thanks for sharing

Originally posted by Aim64C
I would expect electromagnetism to be a more powerful macroscopic influence on diffuse material (nebulae, gas, and dust clouds) than solid bodies (planetoids).

totally. But when you work up to movin' round the "big boy" stuff in the universe, like the planets you mention, elec-mag. is suddenly a weaker force than gravity! go figure. like a turtle taking slow, but deliberate steps, and carries the weight on his shell. Other forces of attraction could be said then act like a little mouse trying to pull that same weight around. Oh, his legs will be goin' a lot faster alright, but the speed of progress of the load (same as what turtle is carrying) is slower. less progress towards the goal line even with the the "more effective/faster" force.

Almost like each level in the hierarchy of matter has it's own set of rules. Even einstein realized what happens here later on.. although he didn't want t comment on it. Made a couple tiny things he said seem to not apply.

Maybe our planets and stars, and black holes are just like nuetrons, protons, and electrons and all that mish-mash of thing involved with that theory...

anyways.. man, i am so tired. my brain is not too quick right now. need to spend some time with my buddy, mr. sandman...

Goodnight, everyone~

And you can see how it moves in a spiral too. Maybe catching the ether wind of 2 opposing vortices, back and forth?


I like the electric universe model. Particularly Walter Russell's

awesome find!

this goes to show you that gravity is literally "charge" that's given to objects because of their energy difference with their surrounding fields...just like electromagnetic charges

this recent thread discusses this in length:

cold plasma found above the earth raises questions about einstein's "gravity is a fundamental force"

Cool video OP

"Knittin' needle"

The idea to use electric charge to explain gravity is just broken. While the equations, effects look the same there is one very important difference between them. There are two electric charges but only one gravitational(mass).

Lets say we wanted to argument that things are attracted to earth surface due to a charge difference. Assume the earth had an overall positive charge. The sun attracts the positive charged earth, thus must be negative. But what about the charge of the moon? It is attracted by earth and sun!

I think you get the idea,.

reply to post by moebius


That is not that way I understand the Electric model to work. At least what I have been studying.

Maybe we can start by not looking at them as monopoles and let's say that everything has dual charge. Depending where you are in the wave field. (talking out loud)

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.