gravity waves found

[Van T Stride]

Planetary Orbits

@ GravityBlock

You said:

If it were true that matter attracted matter in direct proportion to the mass of the bodies...

I think we have all see (NASA?) video footage of spherical objects and water droplets orbiting each other in the weightlessness of space, and showing evidence of being attracted to each other.

So if I understand what your saying - and I don't think any of us can test this - those objects would NOT behave this way in the absence of light? (ie. if you ran the same test in total darkness those objects would no longer attract? I realize that many of the "facts" that we have been taught are wrong, however this seems counter intuitive (to me).

-Van

[gravityblock]

@ GravityBlock

You said: "If it were true that matter attracted matter in direct proportion to the mass of the bodies... "


I think we have all see (NASA?) video footage of spherical objects and water droplets orbiting each other in the weightlessness of space, and showing evidence of being attracted to each other.

So if I understand what your saying - and I don't think any of us can test this - those objects would NOT behave this way in the absence of light? (ie. if you ran the same test in total darkness those objects would no longer attract? I realize that many of the "facts" that we have been taught are wrong, however this seems counter intuitive (to me).

-Van

Why did you only quote half of my statement? Also, why did you leave the original post out of the quote where it could be found? The complete statement I made is found in reply #1964, "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". All objects have the same rate of fall in a vacuum which shows that the mass of the objects is attracted by the vertical component of magnetism. In the NASA experiment you cited, the spherical object and the water droplets being free of the atmosphere along with it's height above the earth is subject only to a small proportion of the vertical component of magnetism, then becomes more subject to its horizontal component and moves at a certain speed corresponding to the relation between its mass and the magnetic impulse.

Astronomers 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 (solar attraction).

We use the term "centrifugal force," which means to say that all the points in a body tend to fly away from the centre. To put it differently, all the points M' tend to follow a straight line in space in the direction of the impelling force and at a tangent to the equatorial plane of the body. Now let us analyse the consequences of the terrestrial system based on solar attraction and repulsion through centrifugal force. If all the points of a body tried to fly away from the centre, the force of solar attraction resisted by the centrifugal force would give rise to a loss of energy and the planet would become stationary. We should also bear in mind that this loss of energy would be a double one as the Earth develops two kinds of centrifugal force, the first due to its orbital velocity, and the second due to its axial rotation. Work cannot be performed by a body without a source of power. If Earth itself were the source of the power, then the whole of physics, thermodynamics included, would be wrong. This alone is sufficient to show the incorrectness of terrestrial astronomy.

Earth's velocity in orbit is 66,000 m.p.h. and has a distance of 93,000,000 miles from the sun with a mass of 1. Jupiter's velocity in orbit is 29,500 m.p.h. and has a distance of 489,000,000 miles from the sun with a mass of 317 earth's mass. Jupiter, with a mass of 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, so as not to differ from the estimate which is based on the force of attraction of the Sun against centrifugal force. This figure, however, is incorrect. The correct mass of Jupiter is 331 times that of the earth. 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. This alone is sufficient to show the incorrectness of terrestrial astronomy, as a theory is only valid when it answers all the relevant problems involved.

GB

[SuperCaviTationIstic]

One more idea for viewing the 'gravity waves', in addition, but along the lines of the aura lenses:
Circularly polarized lenses... like they are using for 3d movies. Maybe even 2 circularly polarized lenses, one left hand, one right hand, placed over each other... I've just started playing with some myself... I tore apart some throw away 3d movies glasses (NOT the blue/red ones) and when they are placed over each other, in the correct direction, everything appears violet when viewing directly through them, but when tilted at different angles, the color changes, through nearly all the colors.

[Van T Stride]

K, thanks

@GB - Sorry, didn't mean any offense by poking on only part of your earlier post.

So, I think you're saying that bodies in space are attracted to each other (weakly?) but that attraction and centrifigul force are not the only forces at play?

I'm a little slow... I had to read your recent posts many times, and am still not sure I fully comprehend it.

A few follow-up questions: If the point of equilbrium is 3X the diamater of the sun, what do you think would be a noticeable effect of our planet moving closer to or further away from this point (since the orbits of the inner planets are somewhat eliptical) - is there any corresponding change to the magentic field strength on earth? Do you picture this equilbrium point as a spherical region in space, or would it be more like a flat plane slicing the sun through at it's middle - roughly in the same plane as the orbit of the inner-most planets?
-Van

[gravityblock]

A few follow-up questions: If the point of equilbrium is 3X the diamater of the sun, what do you think would be a noticeable effect of our planet moving closer to or further away from this point (since the orbits of the inner planets are somewhat eliptical) - is there any corresponding change to the magentic field strength on earth? Do you picture this equilbrium point as a spherical region in space, or would it be more like a flat plane slicing the sun through at it's middle - roughly in the same plane as the orbit of the inner-most planets?
-Van

Soon, there will be noticeable effects of our planet moving further away from this point of equilibrium. Our solar system is part of a Binary Solar System with twin Suns, and this complicates things. This other Sun won't emit any light as the light of a Sun only becomes intense when it enters into a secondary magnetic field such as our solar system. Once it enters into this field, then it will begin to rotate while deforming space around itself and generate currents which will give rise to its brilliance. For more information on how the planets will be affected when this other Sun enters our solar system, then see this thread, where I go into great detail.

All the planets move in a given plane which we can call the equatorial plane of the system. The Sun, however, revolves around the magnetic centre in a different plane which, to be exact, lies at an angle of 460 to the mean plane of the planets. The first optical effect that this gives rise to is to make it appear to the inhabitants of a planet that the angle of the planet's axis in relation to the Sun changes as the planet moves round in its orbit every year, giving greater illumination to its northern hemisphere when the Sun is rising towards its upper node, and its southern when the Sun is going down into its lower node. We are also subject to the illusion that the Sun describes a pendulum-like movement in space. It is true that the orbits of all the planets are inclined to a certain extent, but for the most part this is optical illusion, due to the movement of the Sun. The true inclination is due to the Sun exerting a downward pressure and pushing the planet down in its orbit, when rising in its own plane of revolution, and pushing the planet upward when going down in its plane of revolution. The remainder is optical illusion due to the fact that the displaced Sun is taken as a fixed point of reference, which gives the appearance that all the planets are also displaced.

GB

[Van T Stride]

er...

[Harvey]

Too bad we can't use the backdrop of the starfield and constellations to measure the parallax and solar deviations.

[gravityblock]

Nasa discovers a new super giant, named Tyche, on the edge of our solar system, which is 4 times the size of Jupiter made of hydrogen and helium.

GB

[Harvey]

Nasa discovers a new super giant, named Tyche, on the edge of our solar system, which is 4 times the size of Jupiter made of hydrogen and helium.

GB

Discovery possible but not yet confirmed:
NASA - Can WISE Find the Hypothetical 'Tyche'?

[gravityblock]

Discovery possible but not yet confirmed:
NASA - Can WISE Find the Hypothetical 'Tyche'?

No, WISE won't be able to confirm Tyche, because NASA has shut WISE down. It's funny, how NASA releases an article asking if WISE can find the hypothetical Tyche when it's been shut down. How can it be a hypothetical when they know it's 4 times the size of Jupiter and is made of hydrogen and helium along with where it's located? This doesn't sound hypothetical to me. Besides, NASA has known about Tyche since 1983 and it was on major US news then, but in 1984 NASA tried to cover it up.

GB

[gravityblock]

In late September 2010, WISE ran out of the coolant needed to chill its infrared detectors. How cold do the sensors need to be? I thought it was pretty cold in space. Just more lies to try and keep Tyche covered up.

GB

[gravityblock]

A group of astronomers have reported the discovery of a new planet possibly inhabitable close to the solar system (40 light years). A group of astronomers can make this discovery with small telescopes at 40 light years away, but NASA can't confirm a massive body on the edge of our solar system? LOL. Everybody knows NASA is a coverup for the real space program.

GB

[gravityblock]

Here's a NASA scientist, David Morrison, saying Planet X is a no show, even though NASA is fully aware of there being a possible massive body, Tyche, on the edge of our solar system. Lies, lies, and more lies! NASA knows Tyche is there. Tyche isn't giving off much light at the moment, but as it approaches the magnetic center of our solar system, the more luminous it will become.

GB

[Oliver1975]

Ankh signs

David,
after checking your machine, i noticed the shapes of the metal on the sides resemble ankh signs.

ankh - Google zoeken

As being known in ancient egyptology, i know the egyptians used this ankh to levitate stones with. somehow they pointed the ankh on a stone and floated it to its position. in your design the straight end rod is missing, and magnetism flows straight out of the circular shape. i have to think about it what it means, but it might very well be that if we charge an ankh with coils, we can direct a wave an make thing lose gravity.
has anybody thought about this ?

regards
Oliver

[Oliver1975]

David,
after checking your machine, i noticed the shapes of the metal on the sides resemble ankh signs.

ankh - Google zoeken

As being known in ancient egyptology, i know the egyptians used this ankh to levitate stones with. somehow they pointed the ankh on a stone and floated it to its position. in your design the straight end rod is missing, and magnetism flows straight out of the circular shape. i have to think about it what it means, but it might very well be that if we charge an ankh with coils, we can direct a wave an make thing lose gravity.
has anybody thought about this ?

regards
Oliver