Erasing concepts of gravity

[Armagdn03]

One of my mail goals in my scientific endeavors is to erase lines of separation which are not necessary. I contend that gravity and electromagnetics are redundant explanations of the same phenomenon. I will expound upon this with various sources, maths, derivations of those maths, charts and visuals etc. This should clear up my eccentric transformer thread from unnecessary clutter, and give an open forum for discussion on gravitics. I realize there is already another gravity forum, but this one has specific purpose in mind. Rather than just exploring the phenomenon, we will try to distill it.

[Armagdn03]

To get the ball rolling, lets take a look at the equations for both charge and gravity with respect to force.

The equation for gravity is:



* Value of Gor Unit of G (constant),
* me = mass of the earth (kg),
* mo = mass of an object (kg), and
* d = distance between the earth and the object (m).


The equation for the electric field:



where:

* Value of K (constant)(constant),
* Q = electric force of one object (C),
* q = electric force of the other object (C), and
* d = distance between the two objects (m).


Before we go into any derivations or simple permutations of these equations take a good look at the equations side by side, what the various variables mean, and how changing any of them affects the others.


gravity:


Charge:


Both state that every matter which has a (mass or charge) causes interaction with other matters with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their (masses / charges) and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the centers.

These are the base equations used to derive others when dealing with gravity and charge. We begin on equal footing.

[Armagdn03]

Notice that both equations are what we might call dependent in the inverse square relationship. As centers move further apart, the force between the two decreases with the inverse square of the radius.

This means that we should have a smooth gradient of both gravity and charge as we move further and further form the source. However in both cases, for any force to even be apparent, a second charge or mass must be placed within the area of the first.

When this happens in the area of gravitics, strata appear. Dense objects are attracted to the center of the earth, and voluminous objects hang around the periphery. Because elements do not have a smooth transition from one to the next, they find their areas of preferred density and stay put and a stratification appears. Now, there are also strata within strata. As you move further from the earth, you will eventually stop being pulled towards it. You will reach a new orbit, and be at peace there. If the interactions between the mass of the earth and the object in orbit were as simple as the equations above, obit could never happen. We would be constantly pulled towards earth no matter where we are but this is not the case. So it was originally thought that the orbital motion with centrifugal force would balance the inward pull of gravity to cause the illusion of orbit. Therefore one would think that by slowing down or speeding up, the orbit would be altered, this is not quite the case.

Many many quesitons to be had...

How do we start with an inverse ratio field gradient, and end up at this stratification which does not follow the field gradient as we envision it? How can orbits exist....and do all these still tie into charge? I am simply posing some questions to get people thinking....

[Aromaz]

I believe exactly the same as you - though I am going about it in more
physical way than with maths. Unfortunately my maths is somewhere
between numbers and nothing.

Here is something to add into your equation;

Both EM and G are effects of radiating energy, be such energy 'electrons'
photons, neutrons or whatever else. I think we do have whatever is emitted
by EM is only a portion of what is emitted by any physical body in the universe.

Hypothetically; assume that the truth of gravity is in fact a ‘pushing’ force which
comes into existence from all radiants from all matter in the universe – then so
many other problems fades into nothing.

Electromagnetic force is also not just in the conductor nor connecting on the tips
– it is also all around that conductor and ever present in the environment near
whatever item has electricity active.

At the end, for me both formulae looks exactly the same, just use limited symbols
F=G((mm)/d) and F=K((Qq)/d) could just as well be ☼=♠(♣♥)/♪

Is mass not a result of pressure?
Is electricity not a result of Volts?
Is volts not ‘pressure’
Is magnetism not a result of pressure?

[Armagdn03]

I believe exactly the same as you - though I am going about it in more
physical way than with maths. Unfortunately my maths is somewhere
between numbers and nothing.

Here is something to add into your equation;

Both EM and G are effects of radiating energy, be such energy 'electrons'
photons, neutrons or whatever else. I think we do have whatever is emitted
by EM is only a portion of what is emitted by any physical body in the universe.

Hypothetically; assume that the truth of gravity is in fact a ‘pushing’ force which
comes into existence from all radiants from all matter in the universe – then so
many other problems fades into nothing.

Electromagnetic force is also not just in the conductor nor connecting on the tips
– it is also all around that conductor and ever present in the environment near
whatever item has electricity active.

At the end, for me both formulae looks exactly the same, just use limited symbols
F=G((mm)/d) and F=K((Qq)/d) could just as well be ☼=♠(♣♥)/♪

Is mass not a result of pressure?
Is electricity not a result of Volts?
Is volts not ‘pressure’
Is magnetism not a result of pressure?

Thanks you for contributing.
Mathematics without relation to reality breads confusion. So both need to be considered, and both need to agree with each other which is the purpose of this exercise, you are correct.

I dont believe that gravity is a pushing force...Or a pulling force. Rather we are confused. Gravity as we think of it is only in the pulling domain. Which IS incorrect. But the alternate...pushing...is equally incorrect.

What we are interested is the NET force an object experiences at a given point within a given field. Is the object thrust up??...Down??... what is the resultant??. I would say that the limitting idea of push or pull is a result of a Newtonian progression. What we are really interested in is net force. Let me take from Boston Universities physics pages....

Right now you are experiencing a uniform gravitational field: it has a magnitude of 9.8 m/s2 and points straight down. If you threw a mass through the air, you know it would follow a parabolic path because of gravity. You could determine when and where the object would land by doing a projectile motion analysis, separating everything into x and y components. The horizontal acceleration is zero, and the vertical acceleration is g. We know this because a free-body diagram shows only mg, acting vertically, and applying Newton's second law tells us that mg = ma, so a = g.

You can do the same thing with charges in a uniform electric field. If you throw a charge into a uniform electric field (same magnitude and direction everywhere), it would also follow a parabolic path. We're going to neglect gravity; the parabola comes from the constant force experienced by the charge in the electric field. Again, you could determine when and where the charge would land by doing a projectile motion analysis. The acceleration is again zero in one direction and constant in the other. The value of the acceleration can be found by drawing a free-body diagram (one force, F = qE) and applying Newton's second law. This says:
qE = ma, so the acceleration is a = qE / m.

Is it valid to neglect gravity? What matters is the size of qE / m relative to g. As long as qE / m is much larger than g, gravity can be ignored. Gravity is very easy to account for, of course : simply add mg to the free-body diagram and go from there.

The one big difference between gravity and electricity is that m, the mass, is always positive, while q, the charge, can be positive, zero, or negative.

Here is where a major missconception comes into play!!! We assume that a charge can be either positive or negative, but not a mass. The reality is that mass can be positive or negative WITH RESPECT TO ITS ENVIRONMENT. We experiance thrust downward because we live in an environment of air, less density. Thus we feel thrust downward. If we lived in a strata of the earth that was more dense than us we would float upwards, like a hot air baloon, and we would have a different view of gravity. Now we see that both conditions involving charges and conditions involving gravitation can result in a pushing, or pulling condition, and both are a result of the laws of BUOYANCY and Archimedes principle which takes the correct approach. I will expand upon this in the next post.

Look at these descriptions of what net force an object feels given by Walter Russell as an explanation for gravity.

"Weight is the sum of the difference between the two pressures that act on every mass."

"Weight is the measure of difference in electric potential between a mass and the volume it occupies."

"Weight is the measure of unbalance between any mass and its displaced environment."

"Weight is the measure of the force that a body exerts in seeking its true potential."

"Weight is the sum of the difference between the inward pull of gravitation, and the outward thrust of radiation."

These are repetitions of the exact same concepts in different contexts, if we are concerned withmaking the connection to Archimedes principle and Bouyancy, then "Weight is the measure of unbalance between any mass and its displaced environment." is of extreme importance.

[sucahyo]

One of my mail goals in my scientific endeavors is to erase lines of separation which are not necessary. I contend that gravity and electromagnetics are redundant explanations of the same phenomenon.

I don't agree. That can fail other important discovery. We observe and learn more if we separate something that has different property.

Water for instance, healthy water make a good crystalin where bad water do not form it. We go nowhere if we treat different kind of water state as same.

However, I do agree that there should be a formula that is correct for all kind of energy. Since every object/energy in our world work under the same rule.

[Armagdn03]

I don't agree. That can fail other important discovery. We observe and learn more if we separate something that has different property.

Water for instance, healthy water make a good crystalin where bad water do not form it. We go nowhere if we treat different kind of water state as same.

However, I do agree that there should be a formula that is correct for all kind of energy. Since every object/energy in our world work under the same rule.

Well we can agree to disagree. I believe that separation leads to obsession over effects, while what what I am after is cause, and understanding of that will lead to understanding of all the effects understood and predicted.

[sucahyo]

Well we can agree to disagree. I believe that separation leads to obsession over effects, while what what I am after is cause, and understanding of that will lead to understanding of all the effects understood and predicted.

OK. To find the cause from know effect and to replicate previously untested effect?

Formula is built from effect isn't it? not the cause?

[Armagdn03]

Since buoyancy can accounts for net force rather than the one sided view of gravity which either pulls or pushes, and since we are trying to look for ties between electric and gravitational forces, it would pay to figure out whether electrical point charges and their respective electrical fields can act like mass centers and their respective gravitational fields.

So lets say we have a charge of 64 on a sphere. This represents a charge density in reality, because we have a charge over a given surface area of the sphere. If we double the radius, the surface area increases by a factor of 4 and the charge density decreases by a factor of four, thus each doubling of the radius equates to a 1/4 effect on the charge. We can easily see from this that a sphere with radius 1 and charge 64, is the SAME as a sphere with radius 2 and charge 16, is the SAME as radius 4 charge 4 etc....see picture below:



So what happens when we take a sphere with charge +64, and introduce next to it a sphere with equal radius at charge +4...?



We know that both spheres have a net positive charge with respect to environment, and so will repel one another. This is standard science, nothing new here. The closer they are to one another the harder they push on one another. Imagine they are close, and there is a great push to separate. Now imagine we start to pull the two apart, so that their distances increase. Eventually we will get to a point where we reach 3 radii away from the center of our +64 charge. At this point we can see that there is an ambient field of +4. It just so happens our second sphere also has a charge per its surface area of +4. Because it sits in an environment of +4 and it is of +4 you could say that it has reached a state of equilibrium.




Beyond this plane of zero, things to our second sphere look increasingly positive and repulsion is great to push outward (we tend to call this buoyancy). To the other side, things look increasingly negative and pull inward increases (we tend to call this gravity). In essence, we are measuring, and taking into account net force one way or another, and finding a zone of equal potential where net force is zero.

Take a look again at the definitions for force of gravity shown earlier:

"Weight is the measure of the force that a body exerts in seeking its true potential."

and....
"Weight is the sum of the difference between the two pressures that act on every mass."

Now think about this in relation to your body. Every mass must have a charge equivalence. One of the innate properties of matter is its density, thus you have charge density. We also know that all matter will seek a zone of equal potential to find rest where there is no net thrust on it.

So say we look at water.

Water with its inherent density will settle itself right above things more dense than it, and right below things less dense than it. If we, beings which are essentially water, and have essentially the same charge density, decide to live outside of this zone, or ABOVE SEA LEVEL (or to one side of our equi-potential zone) we will feel a net force pulling us inward....until we enter our zone of equal potential where we should feel no net force. Therefore we should feel no weight, when we are an ambient area which has our same characteristic charge density...or put another way, we should feel weightless in water......And the opposite should be true. If we are placed in a liquid with greater charge density, one which on the strata scale would be more towards the center of the earth than water, then we would feel a buoyant force upward....and low and behold, both cases turn out to be exactly this.

This explains why particles settle where they do with respect to one another, and with respect to their environments. It also happens that the concept of electronegativity and mass energy equivalence therum both point to the fact that every mass should have an inherent charge density.

Is it coincidence that both the electric and gravitational fields of the earth are overlaid on top of one another, with exact same geometric relations? Both acting perpendicular to a center? That the interaction between different masses and different charges are described by the same equations? Why is force towards a center recognized as gravity:



while thrust in the opposite direction chalked up to buoyancy and dismissed?

[Aaron]

gravity

I am simply posing some questions to get people thinking....

My view is it is a displacement effect. It is a downward push that is
partially negated by the the centrifugal force that is trying to throw us
off of the planet.

It obviously is a net effect as you mention in another post but I still
see it as a downward push because of the fact that if there was
more centrifugal effect to negate or overcome the downward push,
there would be no gravity at all.

Just my opinion, but the dominant characteristic of gravity is a downward
push where the tendency to the surface of the mass is always greater
than the counterforce.

That is an interesting point about neutral mass in relation to its
environment if I'm reading that correctly.

Buoyancy and water are great analogies for showing certain principles,
but buoyancy is an effect that is happening withing another system.

For example, a bowling ball in a tub of water I think is a great analogy to
show displacement. I personally believe in an aetheric fluid that everything
is submerged in. The ball displaces the water by that much like an object
displaces the aether by that much floating in space. Aether rebounds back
to where it was displaced giving a downward net push on the object.
Water rebounds back to where the ball is.

But the ball in water is sitting at the bottom of the tub because it is
under the effect of gravity and doesn't accurately show the concept
if the ball was in outer space away from other mass, it would sit in one
spot without a bias.

Buoyancy is within a bias in the analogy but I don't think the bias is
considered.

With centrifugal action, I think it is more clear the equalizing of the
downward push.

With buoyancy and water analogy, any object that floats in the water
is buoyant and at the same time there is the centrifugal force, which is
separate. In the buoyancy, there are two outwards pushing effects
while there is the one downward push magnetism not included in either
up or down.

The charge example with the blue circles, it seems to assume there is
no other medium that is being interacted with. That would be like two
masses not even interacting with any medium between them if for
example, they were two masses... a moon and a planet. Moon 4 and
planet 64 for example - where there would be both the mass of
each planet and the medium they are submerged in. The electrical
charges seem to assume isolated effects of their own charge and
nothing else.

These are just my first thoughts on what you have posted so far and
I'm interested in your take on this or maybe I'm misreading your posts.

[bboj]

I think your respons is very much in accord with Armgd03. He does not say averything is in equilibrium, also the aether can be taken in account this way and the centrifugal force.

[Armagdn03]

My view is it is a displacement effect. It is a downward push that is
partially negated by the the centrifugal force that is trying to throw us
off of the planet.

It obviously is a net effect as you mention in another post but I still
see it as a downward push because of the fact that if there was
more centrifugal effect to negate or overcome the downward push,
there would be no gravity at all.

Just my opinion, but the dominant characteristic of gravity is a downward
push where the tendency to the surface of the mass is always greater
than the counterforce.

That is an interesting point about neutral mass in relation to its
environment if I'm reading that correctly.

Buoyancy and water are great analogies for showing certain principles,
but buoyancy is an effect that is happening withing another system.

For example, a bowling ball in a tub of water I think is a great analogy to
show displacement. I personally believe in an aetheric fluid that everything
is submerged in. The ball displaces the water by that much like an object
displaces the aether by that much floating in space. Aether rebounds back
to where it was displaced giving a downward net push on the object.
Water rebounds back to where the ball is.

But the ball in water is sitting at the bottom of the tub because it is
under the effect of gravity and doesn't accurately show the concept
if the ball was in outer space away from other mass, it would sit in one
spot without a bias.

Buoyancy is within a bias in the analogy but I don't think the bias is
considered.

With centrifugal action, I think it is more clear the equalizing of the
downward push.

With buoyancy and water analogy, any object that floats in the water
is buoyant and at the same time there is the centrifugal force, which is
separate. In the buoyancy, there are two outwards pushing effects
while there is the one downward push magnetism not included in either
up or down.

The charge example with the blue circles, it seems to assume there is
no other medium that is being interacted with. That would be like two
masses not even interacting with any medium between them if for
example, they were two masses... a moon and a planet. Moon 4 and
planet 64 for example - where there would be both the mass of
each planet and the medium they are submerged in. The electrical
charges seem to assume isolated effects of their own charge and
nothing else.

These are just my first thoughts on what you have posted so far and
I'm interested in your take on this or maybe I'm misreading your posts.

I think you have misunderstood me on several fronts. This is good because it allows me to strengthen my argument.

First off lets look at this statement

"I still
see it as a downward push because of the fact that if there was
more centrifugal effect to negate or overcome the downward push,
there would be no gravity at all."

This is an incorrect assumption. According to modern theory, what keeps rotating objects together or in place is centripetal force, to balance the centrifugal. This is a force pulling inward towards a center while centrifugal pushes out from a center. Whether it is being pushed inward, or pulled inward makes no difference! the force vector for both will have the SAME direction and SAME magnitude, therefore it makes absolutely no difference whether you see the fan blowing air, or pulling air.

Buoyancy and water are great analogies for showing certain principles,
but buoyancy is an effect that is happening withing another system.

For example, a bowling ball in a tub of water I think is a great analogy to
show displacement. I personally believe in an aetheric fluid that everything
is submerged in. The ball displaces the water by that much like an object
displaces the aether by that much floating in space. Aether rebounds back
to where it was displaced giving a downward net push on the object.
Water rebounds back to where the ball is.

Again I think this is confusion. We are at this moment pulled down by gravity, we are also bouyant to an extent because of the air we displace, we are ALWAYS displacing environment. The addition of our buoyant force to our gravitation force gives us net force or weight. If we go in water we are in the exact same conditions! we displace environment, add the difference and take note of the net force. The only difference is we have moved into a different strata of "gravitation". One could even say that there would be no water were it not for that particular density layer. Water does not exist in water form in any other location, except for that layer and adjacent, where it may look like vapor steam or ice. Every density sees a ground or floor or surface tension which it views as a boundary. Look at the cumulus or strata clouds, they hover above a very noticeable plane. They are the dense condensates of their layer, and sink to the bottom hitting a surface tension and coming to a rest, just as our feet rest on the ground. If you move the cloud above this point it will sink.....below it it will rise.....So what are we concerned with here??? NET FORCE....where will any particular object head, and with how much strength!!! (Stand Dayo talks about this greatly and gives a great example of anti gravity.....a hot air balloon!)

The charge example with the blue circles, it seems to assume there is
no other medium that is being interacted with. That would be like two
masses not even interacting with any medium between them if for
example, they were two masses... a moon and a planet. Moon 4 and
planet 64 for example - where there would be both the mass of
each planet and the medium they are submerged in. The electrical
charges seem to assume isolated effects of their own charge and
nothing else.

Ah now I see a bit where the confusion is coming into play. What I said about those concentric spheres the 64 within a 16 within a 4 etc...is that they are all equivalent to on another....and all exist when any exists, in the same place at the same time. We know this to be intuitively true. Ambient is never nothing, it simply means that there is no potential gradient to be found, it is local zero. If we charge a sphere within local zero we place stress on it and we have a gradient per the inverse square law. Placing a neon up to such a charged sphere it may glow bright close, and grow dimmer as we move further away. This is because we are moving through the decreasing charge density in the air, we are essentially moving our neon through those many blue circles, first we are close at the 64 then we keep moving it away till it is in the 16 circle, and grows dim, then we move outward towards the 4 circle where it is very dim. There is not nothing, there is the stress we have created in the ambient zero. Therefore to say that there is no medium to interact with is not the case. The planet earth sets itself up like these blue circles, you might consider the very dense inner circle molten iron, followed by less dense layers of earth, water, atmosphere etc...all exist simultaneously, and any object placed within one of these layers will have to fight buoyant force up, and gravitational force down, resulting in a net weight.

Also there is confusion with where the sphere of influence stops. For example we could say the moon is well within our atmosphere. We could say that we are sitting smack dab in the middle of the suns atmosphere etc. The surface tension we call ground is real to us, but the surface tension strata clouds call ground is real to them, yet both have different diameters. There is no real boundary to a particle, point charge, planet etc....in reality there is a spherical density gradient with many surface tensions or ground planes concentric to one another.

[Aaron]

push or pull

This is an incorrect assumption. According to modern theory, what keeps rotating objects together or in place is centripetal force, to balance the centrifugal. This is a force pulling inward towards a center while centrifugal pushes out from a center. Whether it is being pushed inward, or pulled inward makes no difference! the force vector for both will have the SAME direction and SAME magnitude, therefore it makes absolutely no difference whether you see the fan blowing air, or pulling air.

I have to read the rest but want to comment on this first.

I agree that the net result is the they are in the same direction and
magnitude.

But just think about the perspective. If we want to see things as they
are, then we simply have to see them for what they are.

Example. Most people say that heat moves to cold. It is true that the
direction the heat is moving is towards cold. However, it isn't the heat
that determines where to go, it is the fact that the cold is a low potential
sink that pulls heat to it. Cold pulls heat to it. The heat doesn't know
where to go by itself without the cold. The cold is the determining factor.

The fan analogy - there is a difference between pulling and pushing.

Anyone that puts a fan in their window blowing out or blowing in should
know the difference if they have ever paid attention. Blowing a fan into
the house will cause instant eddy currents that breaks apart of the smooth
flow of air from the fan.

If you put a fan in a window and blow OUT and there is another window
open, you will establish a smooth air flow since it is being pulled that is
not possible by blowing air into the house. Air coming into the entry
window will enter smoothly since the pulling action of the fan has already
established a smooth path for the air to follow.

Pushing air into a house will still result in air moving out of an exit window,
but with more disorganization.

I agree that whether gravity is seen as pushing or pulling will still result
in the same effect. However, a fan pushing air into a house or pulling it
out of a house, the effect is different. One is efficient flow of air and one
is not.

So some analogies fit and some don't and all push/pull comparisons are
not really equal analogies.

[Aaron]

misc gravity

Again I think this is confusion. We are at this moment pulled down by gravity, we are also bouyant to an extent because of the air we displace, we are ALWAYS displacing environment. The addition of our buoyant force to our gravitation force gives us net force or weight. If we go in water we are in the exact same conditions! we displace environment, add the difference and take note of the net force. The only difference is we have moved into a different strata of "gravitation". One could even say that there would be no water were it not for that particular density layer. Water does not exist in water form in any other location, except for that layer and adjacent, where it may look like vapor steam or ice. Every density sees a ground or floor or surface tension which it views as a boundary. Look at the cumulus or strata clouds, they hover above a very noticeable plane. They are the dense condensates of their layer, and sink to the bottom hitting a surface tension and coming to a rest, just as our feet rest on the ground. If you move the cloud above this point it will sink.....below it it will rise.....So what are we concerned with here??? NET FORCE....where will any particular object head, and with how much strength!!! (Stand Dayo talks about this greatly and gives a great example of anti gravity.....a hot air balloon!)

Or, we're pushed down by gravity.

Yes, we are buyoant in the gases but there could be a simpler analogy that
includes a mass with gravity and no environment.

Heating air reduces the density so there is more "space" for the rebounding
aether to slip through on its way towards the ground in my opinion but
since it does move against or past the primary effect of aether rebounding,
then it is going against the downward push and is demonstrating anti-
gravity. Of course my opinion in my perspective.

We could say a tree is anti gravity because it grows up against the gravity.
And if we mix mercury and water, water floats on top but do we say that
water is performing antigravity?

Of course it is a net force, I haven't disagreed. But you seem to
to be equating centripetal force as a local force from the mass itself instead of an external action such as the possibility of an aetheric fluid rebounding back from the outside pushing down on the mass holding
it together while the centrifugal force is countering it with less force
so the net force is a downward push.

Whether or not my viewpoint above is accurate, what are you saying
centripetal force is? Is it an external force moving towards the mass or
is the centripetal force something that is caused locally and is causing
a pull? There is a difference and I don't believe it has anything to do
with semantics.

If two people are standing face to face and they put out their arms and
try to push each other back. If one pushes with the strength of 10
and the other pushes with a strength of 8, there is a net force of 2 in
towards the direction of the weaker one. There is a PUSH in the direction
of the weaker one. It can never be considered that the weaker one is
pulling the stronger one. There is a definite PUSH of 2 in one certain
direction.

[Aaron]

gravity "density"

Your third main point, I see what you're saying more simply now.

I agree there are density layers of gravitational effects.

Personally, I see it as the aether being more dense the closer it is to the
planet and denser deep inside of course and the aether density reduces
the further from the planet.

To me the higher the density of the aether, the more effectively
the protons in mass will be pushed on and therefore will weight more.
So the same mass up in the air will be lighter than the same mass on the
ground. On ground, more dense aether to exert a stronger push on the
mass.

I'm not trying to convince you of my viewpoint, just that I agree with
the diminishing effects further from the center.

So light travels slower closer to the mass because there is more density
to work through and light travels faster away from mass because there is
less density of the aether to work through.

Whether that is accurate or not, which I'm sure it is, I agree with the
various densities or charge/gravity/etc... and all masses will have their
own appropriate "settling" level within this and the net amount of
force pushing down will determine the weight of an object.

I don't know the math to determine what the mathematical relationship
is to the mass, distance, etc... but I think for the most part it is common
sense that there are ratios/proportions of gravity effect that increases
and decreases based on distance from mass, etc...