gravity waves found

[Harvey]

all i was trying to show in that picture is that a flame, heat, has a component that moves AWAY from gravity. Solrey in the image he sent, has shown also that this force has a direction in a electric field....question; does polarity in the electric field dictate the flow direction of the flame? Anyway a flame on the surface of Earth burns away from the center of gravity? Do we agree on that?

Here is something to consider: YouTube - Microgravity Combustion

In this experiment, the microgravity was obtained by dropping the flame down the NASA Glenn 145 meter tower drop facility tube 132 meters for 5.2 seconds.

So even though the flame is in the presence of a large gravitational body (Earth) its relative motion creates a microgravity environment where the flame does not migrate away from gravity, but instead becomes spherical.

I guess Einstein was right, inertial gravity and mass gravity are just different forms of acceleration.

[gravityblock]

Here is something to consider: YouTube - Microgravity Combustion

In this experiment, the microgravity was obtained by dropping the flame down the NASA Glenn 145 meter tower drop facility tube 132 meters for 5.2 seconds.

So even though the flame is in the presence of a large gravitational body (Earth) its relative motion creates a microgravity environment where the flame does not migrate away from gravity, but instead becomes spherical.

I guess Einstein was right, inertial gravity and mass gravity are just different forms of acceleration.

I disagree with this. 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. There are two additional factors at work which can influence this phenomenon, density and temperature. The attraction that the vertical component of magnetism 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. 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. 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.

With the above in mind, the flame is in free-fall and no longer feels the full pressure above it. The mass density of a material varies with temperature and pressure. The variance is typically small for solids and liquids, and much greater for gasses. Decreasing the pressure on an object increases the volume of the object and therefore decreases its density (You can see the volume of the flame increasing in the video as it's falling, thus it's density is decreasing). Since the volume of the flame is increasing and the denstiy is decreasing as the flame is falling, then it becomes more spherical. Also, since the volume of the flame increases and the density decreases, then this affects the temperature gradient of the flame, which also influences magnetism (The temperature decreasing is seen in the video by it giving off less light as it falls). Gravity is a combination of phenomena and never an individualised force.

GB

[gravityblock]

David,

You missed the "pine cones" in the images you posted. Think "Project Looking Glass", "pineal gland", "the Vatican", "fullerenes", etc.

GB

[solrey]

all i was trying to show in that picture is that a flame, heat, has a component that moves AWAY from gravity.

David, that's incorrect. Hot air is less dense than the surrounding cooler air. The force of gravity acting on the denser cooler air displaces, or pushes, the hotter diffuse air upwards. Ultimately it's the force of gravity acting on the surrounding air that causes hot air to rise. It's a matter of density which is why oil floats on water. It's called buoyancy. Why is this not getting through?

How Hot Air Balloons Work

Combustion Experiments in Microgravity

Solrey in the image he sent, has shown also that this force has a direction in a electric field.

Wrong again, David, because the "force" you describe is only a product of your imagination. A flame is slightly ionized, thus electrically conductive, which is why it's influenced by an electric field. In order for a flame between two conductors to be directed horizontally, the force of the electric potential, or electric field, acting horizontally on the flame must be greater than the vertical force of buoyancy.

question; does polarity in the electric field dictate the flow direction of the flame?

Yes.

Anyway a flame on the surface of Earth burns away from the center of gravity? Do we agree on that?

Not exactly. A flame is pushed upward away from the surface by the atmosphere being compressed at the surface by the downward force of gravity.

Harvey, GB...microgravity is used to describe an object in free-fall with zero drag. Remember the Vomit Comet?

cheers

[Harvey]

Solrey,

The problem is, you are thinking in very simplistic terms. You can see the kind of wood on the tree but you have no idea how big the forest is.

Not all 'flames' are directed by buoyancy or electric fields.

The flames in a solar flare for example leap well beyond any atmospheric lift or electric field or atomic blast push. Instead they are shown to clearly follow a magnetic field.

The flames of a torch are directed by pressure.

The flame of my plasma puzzle (which is not thermodynamic as some may believe) interacts with gravity on a fundamental level rather than the much stronger electrical force involved.

What David is doing here is going through the known and unknown and questioning if we truly have it right. And he is humble enough to accept our input in his quest. From what I can tell, you think perhaps that you are teaching him something he doesn't already know. He has already looked at the wood on the tree and is now stepping outside to see the whole forest. You could learn something from him.

[Harvey]

Unknown

YouTube - Mystery force baffles NASA

[gravityblock]

YouTube - Mystery force baffles NASA

NASA doesn't take all of the forces into account and has their terminology mixed up. 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. While being attracted by this point, the 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?

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.

Nobody can equate problems without weighing all the factors which lead to their solution. 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

[david lambright]

?????solrey

So much nonsense I don't know where to begin even if I had the time so I'll just highlight one glaringly obvious falsity.



Nope. It's called buoyancy. We've gone over this before but you just refuse to listen or learn. What was that your chemistry teacher said again...they'd rather quit than have you in their class? Yes, I concur.

The rest is a copy of my comment on the "pi paradox" thread:



I couldn't have judged what you're saying based on those facts because you didn't divulge them until recently. Even if I had known, I'm judging what you're saying based on the fact that you've presented not one shred of real evidence to back your claims. You have also demonstrated that you don't actually understand the concepts of the terms you've cobbled together and yammer on about.



I admit I was wrong about that. Upon reflection after reading the following:



Your understanding of math appears to be LESS than I originally thought.
Any number divided by itself equals one...basic, basic, basic kid stuff.

Here's your chance to prove me wrong, David. You say the Julia set applies to your "theory". Here's the base form:

f(z)=z^2+c

What is the initial value (or function) of z and how did you obtain that value (or function)?
What is the value of c and how did you obtain that value?
What do those iterations describe in your theory?



Ummm, possibly because he was only 16 and didn't study for the exam on his first attempt.



Are you trying to compare yourself to the likes of Tesla or Einstein?


cheers

FIRST
does not buoyancy imply gravity? Wikipedia/buoyancy, i looked it up, and sho nuff, gravity CAUSES the buoyant force! Harvey explained that [i thought] is that proof? it seems that if someone were to read the Wiki definition of buoyancy, they could find out for themselves! NEXT; the math, i stated that .999 = 1, i also said that .333 = 1 and 3.14 =1 and .314 = 1.......wikipedia, .99999999999....read that for a while.....david

[david lambright]

or did i

David,

You missed the "pine cones" in the images you posted. Think "Project Looking Glass", "pineal gland", "the Vatican", "fullerenes", etc.

GB

...i need to find out if lens could be cut, Fresnel style, into that pinecone shape....a kindof inside out spherical lens.....look close at the cut on the 'cone.......just a thought.....david.....GB ...i bow to you, thanks.

[gravityblock]

David, I sent you a PM.

GB

[david lambright]

PS

Harvey, just so you know, i have ALWAYS bowed to you ...david

[Harvey]

Harvey, just so you know, i have ALWAYS bowed to you ...david

Thank you David, but I assure you I am no one to be bowed to. I appreciate your respect and humility. There is only one who is deserving of being bowed to and He is higher than those who are higher than angels.

Revelation 4:11
1 Cor 6:3

[david lambright]

hi

Thank you David, but I assure you I am no one to be bowed to. I appreciate your respect and humility. There is only one who is deserving of being bowed to and He is higher than those who are higher than angels.

Revelation 4:11
1 Cor 6:3

But of course! there is only ONE .....i bow to you in OUR sphere of existence, for your knowledge and insight....thanks

[david lambright]

solrey

about Julia and Riemann...i hope i did not imply wrongly?....let me restate; at first, the Julia sets were nothing more than a design, i remember reading something like, "So, what good are they", and now they are being used as models of quantum mechanics....Riemann's spherical math model has been shown to be invaluable in quantum physics...in these models, there is a direct relation to reflection. does any else know this? of course they do! common knowledge. there are only two forces, attraction and repulsion or three, attraction, repulsion and my imagination? so let me re-phrase; ON EARTH, A FLAME BURNS UP, HEAT RISES?......gravity down heat up.....i think that is right? sol, i do not know you, i know you are intelligent, read up on Minkowski, Poincaré, Riemann, Maor.....tactricoid geometry, p-adic numbers DeSua, Mandelbrot and Julia....OK....if you have a helium balloon, neutral buoyancy, in a vehicle accelerating, which way will the balloon go? the balloon will move the same way as the vehicle is accelerating, try it buoyancy...The idea of buoyancy was summed up by Archimedes, a Greek mathematician, in what is known as Archimedes Principle: Any object, wholly or partly immersed in a fluid, is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object....i copied that part, but the word WEIGHT...that implies gravity? can we say there is a force opposite of gravity? without using the word Buoyant? ...when i hear the word buoyancy, i think water, float, boat, etc. , not the image i am trying to portray.

[david lambright]

video links

YouTube - niteshot and UV led lighting and YouTube - maybe this one i hope these help...david