Erasing concepts of gravity

[cody]

Speaking of that video... He describes an "anti-gravity" device in those videos that seems so simple to reproduce im surprised i havnt seen any replications on the net. (see video #4 around 5 minutes into it)

YouTube - UFO TECH 9 Stan Deyo-AntiGravity explained and produced Amazing pt 4 of 8

Well seeing as i have lots of ferrite pieces from junk electronics and i just upgraded my function generator i thought i might try to get some effects from the described device. I have a small ferrite loop stick and a small ferrite toroid that i cut a slit in with my angle grinder. Im going to put some wire on both but i figured i should try to keep the power correction phasing the same on both cores, so i was planning on just getting the inductance the same on both cores with my lcr meter and then removing turns after finding resonance with my function gen and setting them up in parallel. Or maybe i could just hook them up in series and would not need to worry about that? He says to use pulsed dc to get the effect. Im not sure how using the magnetic field will produce antigravity, using a HV dielectric field makes more sense to me but what the heck, cant hurt to try.

Any thoughts or suggestions about how to go about this would be great.

[Chip Shorter]

I don't think time is a constant. Its our nature to see everything in the universe in OUR TIME. It really doesn't exist in the way we think it does. Distance is also a component of human time. Time and distance do exist but not to the extent we make them out to be. I'm not talking about Relativity. It is possible to move a wave faster than the speed of light. Its has to be quantified differently. Gravity functions in the same way. It is not of a constant physical manifestation but rather a quantified manifestation.

[Armagdn03]

I don't think time is a constant. Its our nature to see everything in the universe in OUR TIME. It really doesn't exist in the way we think it does. Distance is also a component of human time. Time and distance do exist but not to the extent we make them out to be. I'm not talking about Relativity. It is possible to move a wave faster than the speed of light. Its has to be quantified differently. Gravity functions in the same way. It is not of a constant physical manifestation but rather a quantified manifestation.

Good observation, actually there is a cosmology which agrees very much with what you are saying.

It was created by engineer and scientist Dewey. B Larson and is named reciprocal theory. It states that time and distance are inversely proportional and exist in a reciprocal relationship.

It is also in agreement with W. Russell and other cosmologies i have posted in the past.

This theory resolves the quantum mechanics and relativity quandary, an interesting quote:

"Unique aspects of the theory are that both matter and energy are represented mathematically as greater than or less than unity (t/s or s/t), and three dimensions of time, reciprocals of the three dimensions of space. All physical phenomena are reduced to space-time terms."


RS Theory | Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System of physical theory

[gravityblock]

Herschel and Newton mathematically proved the existence of our magnetic field, within which the Sun and the planets move, when they discovered that the point of equilibrium of the solar system lay at a distance from the Sun equal to three times its diameter, due to the proportion of 1 to 700 in the relative mass of the planets to that of the Sun. It is round this point of equilibrium that the Sun moves.

It is wrong to say that matter attracts matter in the direct ratio of mass and in the inverse of the square of distance. Matter having undergone atomic interaction has no influence on other matter at a distance. However, magnetic fields attract or repel one another, and matter can be attracted by a magnetic field. A force of attraction is exerted on the Earth by this magnetic point of equilibrium of our system, which we may call "point zero." While being attracted by this point, earth is being repelled by the light from the Sun. It's orbit round the Sun represents the balance between these two actions of attraction and repulsion.

Now, a body in space can only be in a state of equilibrium if two contrary forces meet to support it. If there were only a force of attraction without a corresponding one of repulsion, the planet would move towards the point of attraction. If the repulsion were caused solely by centrifugal force, the planet would slowly spiral in, towards the source of attraction. Without the repulsive force of the Sun, there would however, be no circular movement. There would be neither axial rotation nor orbital revolution. A body impelled in one direction only does not move in another direction. How could Earth move in orbit in a different direction to this repulsive force? Surely a thrust from one direction cannot give rise to another at right angles to itself?

Having explained this, we can understand why planets of large volume are situated at a considerable distance from the Sun. By taking note of their distance from the Sun and their volume, we can discover their true density, and this will also give us the magnetic force of its poles. Thus the planet Jupiter is of low density and, having a large diameter, it is more subject to the force of repulsion than that of attraction. If it were true that matter attracted matter in direct proportion to the mass of the bodies, Jupiter, with a volume 1,330 times greater than Earth and 331 times as much mass, should be much closer to the Sun than Earth is.

If the magnetic centre lies between a planet and the Sun, the force of attraction is predominant and the planet is drawn in. However, if the Sun is between the planet and the centre, the force of repulsion predominates and the planet moves out, its path disturbed. As the position of the Sun changes in relation to the "point zero" centre, each successive aphelion and perihelion of a planet occurs in a different position. The two opposing forces of attraction and repulsion are able to act upon the Earth.

GB

[gravityblock]

The weight of light is equal to 410 of atmospheric pressure per square mile. As long ago as 1873 Maxwell showed that radiation exerts a pressure. Lebedev and Nichols discovered the same thing. If the Sun exerted attraction its light would not have weight, but a contrary effect.

Airmen who make parachute descents from a great height get into violent spins and are only able to control this movement when they reach the denser layers of the atmosphere. There is however, quite a simple solution to this problem. If a body rises to a certain height above the Earth, thus reducing the atmospheric pressure on it, the body at once begins to rotate? This is due to one side of the body receiving more light and heat than the other. The remedy lies in balancing out the difference and supplying light and heat to the colder side.

Earth also, having one hemisphere in sunlight and the other in darkness, is subject to a difference of potential or, more specifically, a binary potential difference, and turns about its axis. From this you can see that the phenomena of Nature are simple, all resolving themselves into readily understandable laws which need very little analysis or understanding.

GB

[gravityblock]

Scientists have got their terminology mixed. It appeared to them that the only thing that could conceivably maintain the Earth in orbit and account for its revolution was solar attraction, so they based all their calculations on this. In reality the opposite is the case. The Sun exerts a repulsive force on the Earth. Further, as it was obvious to them that a body could not maintain itself in an orbit when acted upon by a single force, they impute miraculous qualities to centrifugal force, believing that it was the second force that held the planets in their orbits. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Even if centrifugal force did give the necessary balance to a planet, which it does not, there is one glaring omission in this theory, namely the force that impels a planet in a certain direction. They see that a planet is attracted, they also see that centrifugal force counterbalances this attraction, but they do not see that they have overlooked a third force which gives a planet movement. When one whirls a stone on the end of a string, the string represents the force of attraction and centrifugal force plays the part of repulsion, but the individual represents the third force which gives direction to the stone.

If y = F or f= y x M, then the element of propulsion F is necessary to make the Earth move, since it is this that imparts an acceleration to the mass M. It is logical that a body to which acceleration has been imparted should begin to move, but it is absurd to state that this acceleration could be initiated without a force and then maintained without one, especially as there is a loss of energy as the result of the movement of the body against the action of gravity.

Jupiter, with a mass 317 times greater than that of the Earth, should be subject to a far greater attraction than the Earth, yet the velocity in orbit is not high enough to counterbalance this and maintain it in orbit. This planet has a large mass and a low velocity. This being the case, either the orbital velocity of the Earth is too great for its mass, and it should be flung out of its orbit, or Jupiter's is too low, and it should be drawn into the Sun. Note that I give Jupiter's mass as 317 times that of the Earth, which is based on the force of attraction of the Sun against centrifugal force. This figure, however, is incorrect.

You might raise the objection that Jupiter, with its large mass, revolves in an outer orbit according to the theory that spheres of greater mass are said to be more subject to the action of centrifugal force. Against this we have the case of Mars which is smaller than the Earth, yet is farther from the Sun, or again, the planets beyond Jupiter which are smaller than it, and yet revolve at a tremendous distance from the Sun. Moreover their velocity in orbit is very low. So that does not make sense either.

Scientists forgot, when dealing with the movement of planets, that energy must have been used up as a result of solar attraction working against the two centrifugal forces mentioned. If no explanation was given as to the source of power necessary to sustain the movement, then it is because the problem was based on false premises.

In the theory which I contend is the correct one, this force is derived from difference of energy potential which sunlight sets up by illuminating one face of the planet while leaving the other in darkness. A body which is balanced between two opposing forces (attraction and repulsion) has no weight and moves like a stone whirled round on the end of a string, the radius of its orbit being represented by the string.

GB

[gravityblock]

God is an oscillating charge superimposed on an infinite point, constantly causing a deformation of space, continually exerting its influence on the un manifest, and automatically creating energy, and in consequence, matter. If God did not exist, nothing whatsoever would exist. This continual creation of energy in the Universe gives rise to an internal pressure in the nebulae which can be seen in the phenomenon known as "the flight of the nebulae." As a result of this internal pressure they move away from one another.

You may raise the objection that this pressure is also applied in the direction of flight so that the internal pressure coupled with the external one would make them stable and they would not move apart, which would cause their mass to condense. My answer to this would be that energy created outside a galaxy tends to be drawn into the galaxy, condensing itself into material form. Thus we have an internal pressure coupled with an external decompression.

The flight of the nebulae prevents condensation taking place for three reasons: 1) This movement causes the interior pressure to disappear. However, nebulae appear to maintain an acceleration caused by an internal pressure within the Universe. (2) As the nebulae move apart, that space which had been transformed into matter endeavours to return to its former state of primordial space in accordance with the law of rotation of masses in a magnetic field. This reconstitutes the energy that had been used for condensation of the matter, turning it into light, whose wave energy goes on decreasing until the moment of entropy is reached. This is what takes place on the Sun. Leaving aside the reaction that they bring about on the planets, the Sun's discharges into space are, in a sense, matter returning to its original state of primordial space. (3) Light repels magnetic fields. Light from a myriad of suns in the various galaxies produces a very great force of repulsion on all the nebulae, and under this pressure they move away from one another.

In the first instance God supplied the power that brings about the deformation of space and the Sun, by an opposite process, turns it back into energy, thus re-establishing the balance. Everything comes from God and everything returns to Him. That is why neither matter nor energy exist, but only deformed space, which is called matter, and what you call energy is nothing more than a phenomenon of transition between primordial space and deformed space.

GB

[gravityblock]

Gravity is no more than a wrong interpretation of a combination of phenomena. What science calls gravity is a question of a difference in the density of bodies. The smoke of your cigar is heavier than the surrounding air. Yet, it rises as the result of warmth. That is to say the difference in density is compensated for by the temperature of the smoke.

Therefore, two factors are at work which can influence this phenomenon, density and temperature. We can see that a balloon full of hydrogen gas rises, according to the volume of the gas. The same thing happens with helium. That is to say, bodies of lesser density always tend to rise, in the same way that water and oil separate, due to density. Gravity does not prevent bodies of lesser density from rising. Whereas in air, which is of low density, heavy objects fall rapidly, in water-more dense than air-they fall more slowly.

The third factor influencing gravity is the mass of atmosphere and ether surrounding a planet. This can, however, be included in the factor of density. It is wrong to attribute greater or lesser gravity to a planet without knowing the extent of its gaseous mass and the density of its atmosphere.

On Saturn, for example, owing to the absence of atmosphere, gravity is considered zero. On Jupiter, which has a very rarefied atmosphere, it is quite different. A falling body has a high initial acceleration and then it collides with the low density of the planet. On Mercury, however, where the etheric covering extends more than 6oo,ooo km., atmospheric pressure is high and gravity is tremendous.

The fourth factor influencing gravity is the vertical component of magnetism. However, the attraction it exerts on a body is, with small variations, the same as that on any other body. Thus it is that the speed of fall in a vacuum is constant. However, this attraction is not due to mass, it is caused by the magnetism with which the whole body is endowed.

Lastly, we have the energy that exerts pressure upon the Universe and penetrates our systems of galaxies, of which I posted earlier. As a body cannot be subject to pressure in all directions, the Earth always shielding it from this pressure on one side, the body feels a difference in the forces acting upon it and falls to the surface of the Earth. This tremendous universal pressure, which is the result of the vibration of God on the infinite point of the Universe, is what maintains the atmosphere of the planets.

Why does heat affect gravity? Because it reduces the magnetic force of bodies. You can prove that a magnet loses its properties on being heated. As matter is made up of stationary waves, heat has a powerful influence on them. By increasing the frequency of these waves they begin to give off light. Moreover, it is well known that heat reduces the density of a body. Accordingly, it tends to rise. This can best be seen in the case of boiling water. The warmer water tries to place itself above the cooler, producing currents. We note that heat is a factor which affects gravity, not because it is itself an agent causing the phenomena of gravity, but because it influences magnetism and density.

GB

[Armagdn03]

Scientists have got their terminology mixed. It appeared to them that the only thing that could conceivably maintain the Earth in orbit and account for its revolution was solar attraction, so they based all their calculations on this. In reality the opposite is the case. The Sun exerts a repulsive force on the Earth.

GB

I thought I would pick this thread back up, now that I have had further time to reflect.

GB, I have to dissagree very much with your statement here. The sun repulses the earth, AND attracts the earth. At a zone of equal potential it does NEITHER, and there is the appearance of weightlessness.

I believe that Walter Russell, Aaety Olsen, Dewey B Larson, Hans Jenny, Edward Leedskalnin ALL showed that gravity is NOT only repulsive, and NOT only attractive. Gravity is the SUM of two opposite forces creating a NET force towards one direction. If a material is out of its zone of equal potential, it will see a force in the direction of the zone of equal potential.

It is absolutely wrong to say that gravity pushes or pulls only, the resultant force is all we really care about.

Here is another thought experiment shatteringt he current concept of gravity.

I took this quote from a "textbook" website.

"A space-ship is the ideal laboratory to verify the inertia principle, because the gravity of the bodies moving inside it, is neutralized by the centrifugal acceleration produced by the orbital motion."

This quote is basically saying that the position an orbital body occupies is a careful balance between centrifugal force and gravity.

Therefore it should be noted that changing either the centrifugal portion, or the gravity portion of the balanced equation will cause the orbital body to find a new orbit, where the forces equalize out again.

So, if we are orbiting our earth, our distance from the earth should change as our speed around the earth changes.

So, if we accelerate a body say "clockwise" around the earth (with the earths rotation) we should find the body moving further from the earth, and if we then reverse its direction, it should fall promptly back down to earth....This most certainly does not happen.

It seems quite obvious to me that a balance between centrifugal force and gravity is a ridiculous concept.

[SilverToGold]

Interesting theory.

These is a problem with your model as shown. When the new charge is introduced, the +4 charge's field is also imposes on the +64 field. This changes things and unfortunately I don't believe that the charge would just sit there.

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

[Armagdn03]

Interesting theory.

These is a problem with your model as shown. When the new charge is introduced, the +4 charge's field is also imposes on the +64 field. This changes things and unfortunately I don't believe that the charge would just sit there.

I don't know that I can agree....but you didn't really flesh out what you were trying to get at so I cannot say for sure. Lets think through it a little bit...

I think you are taking a sphere charged to +4 and moving it into proximity of the +64 sphere. This is not what is happening.

You have a neutral sphere, then you charge the sphere to 64. At the radial distance of 4r the field potential is 4, this is where the second sphere sits, so it has a charge induced on it of 4.

There is no introduction of a second sphere after the fact...The plus four is a artifact from the central 64 potential sphere.

the interesting thing is this....that sphere, because it was charged in one zone, will be in a zone of equal or zero potential with respect to the field position in which it sits. Because the second sphere was sitting in an area of potential 4, it will gain a charge of potential 4. If it were at a different radius, it would gain a charge equal to field potential at that radial distance.

think about this....

If you have a point source of charge, as you move away from it you will have decreasing potential field (inverse square law). Any conductive material placed within this place will have a surface charge redistribution, this takes work. But we can "ground" the introduced conductive object. Now it "zeros" itself and effortlessly takes on the potential of the field in which it sits. If it is in an ambient of +15v, it will gain a potential of +15v with respect to ground, but will have a potential of 0v with respect to its immediate environment!

The second sphere in this demonstration takes on the characteristic potential of the environment in which it sits. It does not introduce ANOTHER +4 charge, the +4 charge it gains is a product of the original +64. The original charge is the "parent" charge, and the secondary sphere takes on a secondary charge as a result. This secondary charge is INVISIBLE to the original +64 because it is siting in the +4 ring around the original charge.

Because it is neutral to its environment, any deviation from this location will cause a charge difference between the environment and the secondary sphere, and this will cause a mechanical force to appear (coulomb forces)

[Armagdn03]

The concept is, that a charge with zero potential with respect to its environment will be in a zone of neutrality, or equi-potential, and so will feel no net coulomb forces, while a potential difference creates coulomb forces.

However, matter in reality is a alternating pattern of different charge densities and potentials, and magnetic fields etc. some of those self neutralize in their equal and opposite particles they are next to.

This means that if you have a object with 8 particles in it, and 4 are +2 charge, and 4 are -2 charge, you have a net field of zero as you move away from the object because the fields are self neutralizing or "infolded".

However this does not mean that they dont have a characteristic Density or a no field emmited which would interact with a net electrical field. To really get a grasp on how this is more possible, here is a mind bending read, which is really really good.

COMPOSITION OF FIELDS

I highly suggest reading most of this guys material as he is a clear thinker with some very good arguments!

[Raui]

Taking a look at that website now, and so far it's excellent! I can see Walter Russell's cosmology in this guys writings, very interesting. Thanks for the link man!

Raui

[nueview]

@ Arm03
i can say that from most of the odd ball projects i have done that i am not seeing any problem with what you are saying except for a concept i am thinking about which i would call locked charge it has a unique feature in itself and is never discussed on any of these threads or in physics.

@ gravity block
in thirty years of working with magnetic and electric charges i have never seen a connection between these to forms of energy other than a magnetic field effecting the motion of a charge flow and this is very emfatically stated in physics and if you can demonstrate this i would love to see it.

it is and has been for almost 150 years well defined that magnetics and electrostatic fields are two different entities and yet they act upon each other and yet have totally different characteristics.

i would welcome any demonstration that clearly connects these forces derived from there interaction the best i have seen to date involves john searl and don smith of recent.
Martin

[boguslaw]

it is a mystery like the difference between wind and sound
are they the same ?