gravity waves found

[Harvey]

If Gravity was related to a planet's magnetic field in some way then Mars and Venus would be in trouble - there is practically no evidence of those planets having a magnetic field.

Magnetic Fields and Mars

If Gravity was related to some electrical effect like the ionosphere and surface being different charges, then wouldn't we expect all gravitational bodies like the asteroid belt, Moon and Comets to not have gravity since they have no atmosphere?


Also having a look at the 'New Gravity' link (I've seen this before but I don't think it was finished back then) we have a small problem with section 5 that attributes the gravitational force to an electromagnetic induction according to the the 'New Induction' - but what about those celestial bodies that have no electromagnetic fields? Why do they have gravity? Perhaps it has to do with the BMP and the fact that all atoms are electromagnetic Hmmm, an in rushing Aether . . . must be an endless supply if all the celestial bodies destroy it. I have to think on that theory a while but it does sound much more plausible to me than a universe filled with tiny magnetic dipoles as Ed Leedskalnin theorized.

[witsend]

Anyone who proposes the actual properties of gravity will need to speculate on this. The simple fact is that no-one knows. And the only way to find this would be to design a series of tests that can actually definitively prove it. It has puzzled us all for centuries and has remained as elusive. There are proposals that the force is particle based - a graviton - but those gravitons have never been seen. Even if extant they only answer some questions. Others have proposed longitudinal forces - string theorists - but they can only reconcile this with the introductions of multiple dimensions. The simple truth is that everyone is simply stabbing at potential answers. Right now - mainstream - brilliant academics - our Giants - our forum members - and a whole host of people have proposed myriad explanations that have this in common. Each one varies, one from another. And as they become increasingly more complex they also become increasingly less understandable. It is almost as if clarity of argument is somehow sacrificed to Occam's requirement for simplicity. They frankly, become less and less plausible requiring little conceptual coherence and very little observed relevance. It is my opinion that anyone who quotes mainstream as an authority on the subject would first need the caveat that all such 'proposals' are UNPROVEN.

Bear in mind. THE SOURCE AND CAUSE OF GRAVITY IS ENTIRELY UNKNOWN. But we do know something about light. And what we know is that the only thing that can naturally 'change' the path of light is massive objects in space that seem to allow light to bend around those objects.

Which is why Dave's discovery is important. It gives us a chance to look at similar effects of gravity as it influences light in actual tangible apparatus.

[witsend]

I am of the opinion that patterns exist in nature that are - of themselves - based on priciples akin to fractal geometry. I see what I personally find to be self-evident. Nature repeats itself in ever more substantial forms. For example I propose that the atom comprises hidden orbiting two dimensional magnetic fields that orbit at different energy levels. These trap the electrons. Then we see that a sun would have similar two dimensional magnetic fields - hidden energy levels and they, in turn, would trap it's planets. If so, then accreted objects within and between those energy levels would orbit much as the electron orbits the atom's nucleus. And then our own star stystem would be trapped inside the energy level of the entire galaxy. And on and on.

It really does not matter whether any of those planets have their own magnetic fields - such as our earth. The fields in which they are trapped would determine their orbit depending on their position within that magnetic field - that energy level. The 'lock' would result in an orbit. An axial spin would be evidence of an independent magnetic field from that planet. But both objects would be forced into an orbit much as the electron is forced into an orbit.

But here's my caveat. That's only an idea. It's NOT proven. LOL

EDIT I might add that this would require the existence of a magnetic field as an independent force with it's own fields and it's own particles. My thesis argues this.

[sucahyo]

If Gravity was related to some electrical effect like the ionosphere and surface being different charges, then wouldn't we expect all gravitational bodies like the asteroid belt, Moon and Comets to not have gravity since they have no atmosphere?

Don't associate atmosphere existence with electrical charge then.


Fire is plasma. Some say it is the next matter transition after gas. Negative ion blows fire and thus considered as reacted the same at much lower scale to gas, liquid and solid.

Plasma is lighter than gas just like gas is lighter than liquid. Plasma fly up, just like light gas fly up and heavy solid going down. Maybe gravity reacted with mass. heavy matter attracted to negative mass at earth center, light matter repelled.

Thing that repel fire have similar characteristic as gravity. Things that attract fire have similar characteristic as anti gravity. My previous conclusion about gravity derived from single candle light experiment. If you put a ring of corona maker underneath the candle flame, the flame shrink. If you point the negative wire to the fire, it blows them just like wind being generated. But it is only illusionary wind since no real wind happen other wise the fire won't change direction very quickly.

I theorized that ion wind repelling acceleration is faster on plasma than on ambient air. If any real wind happen then it would react slower than the fire.

If david lambright has ion wind property. It should either repell fire or attract fire.

[witsend]

I say gravity is an effect of electricity, kind of strong ion wind but not caused by the magnetism that produced by current. In my opinion, gravity goes perpendicular with voltage, a product of huge voltage, not current.

Since the earth center is negative, gravity goes straight down to earth. There is less gravity in space because there is less electric polarity in space.

Actually sucahyo - there are no 'known' electric fields in space. It is always associated with matter. And to say that it is an 'effect' of electricity would first need an explanation of electricity. In effect you are simply calling gravity - 'electricity'. We do know a little more about electricity than gravity - precisely because we use it so much more widely. But electricity is not known to bend light - it is not known to attract massive objects in space - and, if it attracted all materials regardless of its magnetic properties - then there'd be an evident pull of all matter towards any generator of electricity. None such is evident. But I do know something about the Electric Universe theory. That proposes that electricity is the primary force. I discount that thesis by these arguments. But I really do like that thinking especially as it proposes the changing shapes of Venus and other celestial bodies. Fascinating stuff. And some valid arguments against both classical and quantum theories. But none that our classical and quantum theorists don't themselves acknowledge.

[sucahyo]

Actually sucahyo - there are no 'known' electric fields in space. It is always associated with matter.

How do we measure electrical charge in space? Can we really measure static electricity in space?

How space electrical detector work? If we use magnetic detector to measure electricity, isn't we already use assumption by then? If we use spectrometer to measure electricity, isn't we already use assumption too?

[witsend]

Plasma is lighter than gas just like gas is lighter than liquid. Plasma fly up, just like light gas fly up and heavy solid going down. Maybe gravity reacted with mass. heavy matter attracted to negative mass at earth center, light matter repelled.

It's not that plasma 'flies up'. It simply is lighter than the other elements and therefore less 'pull' by gravity. But if it literally 'flew up and away' from a gravitational field there would be no means of holding it within a gravitational field. It would dissipate into space. All states, solid liquid, gaseaous and plasmas - are attracted to a gravitational field.

I am very interested in your 'flame' experiment. I think it's very elegant and I agree with you that it's significant.

[sucahyo]

But electricity is not known to bend light - it is not known to attract massive objects in space - and, if it attracted all materials regardless of its magnetic properties - then there'd be an evident pull of all matter towards any generator of electricity. None such is evident.

At what level of static electricity this experiment done? 10 digits of volts? 20? 1000? What if the experiment result will actually positive at 10000 digits of volts?

[sucahyo]

The flame experiment show electricity repel. But who knows.

I am very interested in your 'flame' experiment. I think it's very elegant and I agree with you that it's significant.

We just need high voltage DC and a candle . Although I use the one that also has AC lol.

[witsend]

How do we measure electrical charge in space? Can we really measure static electricity in space?

How space electrical detector work? If we use magnetic detector to measure electricity, isn't we already use assumption by then? If we use spectrometer to measure electricity, isn't we already use assumption too?

Not sure of your question here sucahyo. I'm talking about the vacuum of space. This is filled with matter that has electromagnetic properties - by definition. But there's no known electric fields within space itself - nor for that matter magnetic fields. It's widely assumed to be a vacuum. And classicists propose that the vacuum is filled with 'gravitons'. EU theory proposes that there's a longitudinal path where the electric fields always propogate. But that path has never been 'found' - only proposed. In effect the proposal is that electric fields 'radiate' outwards and in lines and through space - very much as light does. If that 'thing' that irradiates outwards is based on some loose concept of 'charge' - then I can still buy in. But if it's being proposed that 'electrons' irradiate outwards - then they're doing something that we know electrons, usually, don't do. They simply don't 'share a path'. It would be a new heretofore unknown property of electricity that they're proposing.

[witsend]

At what level of static electricity this experiment done? 10 digits of volts? 20? 1000? What if the experiment result will actually positive at 10000 digits of volts?

Sucahyo? Again not sure of the question. There is no known static electricity in the vacuum of space. Are we talking about the same thing?

[sucahyo]

Sucahyo? Again not sure of the question. There is no known static electricity in the vacuum of space. Are we talking about the same thing?

Sorry, I though you are suggesting that as a fact. A fact based on experiment or theory. And human has limit to replicated or think about what happen in real life. And we may have achieve wrong knowledge because of this limit.

[witsend]

Sorry, I though you are suggesting that as a fact. A fact based on experiment or theory. And human has limit to replicated or think about what happen in real life. And we may have achieve wrong knowledge because of this limit.

Indeed. My thoughts exactly.

[Harvey]

How do we measure electrical charge in space? Can we really measure static electricity in space?

How space electrical detector work? If we use magnetic detector to measure electricity, isn't we already use assumption by then? If we use spectrometer to measure electricity, isn't we already use assumption too?

What happens when you put your arm in front of your TV screen when it is charged up? If it is a CRT, then you will detect the electric field very easily because each of hairs on your arm will stand up and straighten out to align with that field. Or if you yourself become charged, what happens to your hair?

This



So, the same in space where very strong electric fields are present many miles from charged matter producing the field. Detecting that field is not so difficult a task. You may find this interesting:
http://web.media.mit.edu/~jrs/efs.html

Here is a document regarding the FAST:
The FAST Satellite Electric Field and Magnetic Field Instrument

And here is one on the VEFI used on the C/NOFS Satellite:
http://vefi.gsfc.nasa.gov/vefi/Resou...riptionREV.pdf

Electric field strength diminishes by the inverse square rule so the strength reduces rapidly at great distances from the source.

[sucahyo]

So, the same in space where very strong electric fields are present many miles from charged matter producing the field. Detecting that field is not so difficult a task. You may find this interesting:

Thank you. Interesting .

A combination of many physical device. As I thought they use magnet meter (magnetic field model) to detect static. I wonder if it result the same measurement if they send one of electric field sensing device to the stars. I wonder if it can transmit the data though, or if the man in charge do not forget to leave note to his successor....