Attention to all Gravity and Aether Researchers

[Harvey]

Considering that the geographic North pole is a South magnetic pole, and vice versa for the other hemisphere, it stands to reason that any magnet in that field will simply reorient to align with N and S respectively. So we wont see a repulsion or attraction unless the generated field is the same size as the Earth's and somehow held locked to prevent rotation.

You can simulate that type of effect by placing two magnets side by side with the N-N and S-S next to each other. This would be the same effect a craft would have that generated a magnetic field that way.

So, while the electron will produce a magnetic field, it is important to realize that the field it produces is a dipole - let's say just for arbitrary reference, the dipole has N up (this will be for a specific motion and charge) then it's anti particle in the exact same environment would produce S up. But the N up will have a S down and the S up will have a N down. No real advantage here from an anti-gravity perspective. Besides that point, the Earth's magnetic field is much weaker than the Earth's gravitational field - so we can never use it to fully nullify gravity

Now what would be cool, is if we can use electromagnetism in some way to flatten out the curve of space time. Then Gravity would disappear

[gravityblock]

Considering that the geographic North pole is a South magnetic pole, and vice versa for the other hemisphere, it stands to reason that any magnet in that field will simply reorient to align with N and S respectively. So we wont see a repulsion or attraction unless the generated field is the same size as the Earth's and somehow held locked to prevent rotation.

You can simulate that type of effect by placing two magnets side by side with the N-N and S-S next to each other. This would be the same effect a craft would have that generated a magnetic field that way.

So, while the electron will produce a magnetic field, it is important to realize that the field it produces is a dipole - let's say just for arbitrary reference, the dipole has N up (this will be for a specific motion and charge) then it's anti particle in the exact same environment would produce S up. But the N up will have a S down and the S up will have a N down. No real advantage here from an anti-gravity perspective. Besides that point, the Earth's magnetic field is much weaker than the Earth's gravitational field - so we can never use it to fully nullify gravity

Now what would be cool, is if we can use electromagnetism in some way to flatten out the curve of space time. Then Gravity would disappear

I will use a "-N or a -S" to denote a magnetic field built from moving electrons and will use a "+N or a +S" to denote a magnetic field built from moving positrons.

A "-N/+S" will repel each other, for the +S has a force on a negative charge as if it were a -N. The magnet does not have distinct north or south particles on opposing sides. Poles should only be used as a reference to a particular side of a magnet to differentiate which direction the field is pointing in. The magnetic fields of a "-N/+S" configuration, will be pointing in a similar direction as a "-N/-S" configuration, but the force will be in the opposite direction and will repel each other instead of attracting each other. Gravity and electromagnetism are related in my opinion.

GB

[gravityblock]

Below is a quote from wiki on the concept of poles.

Although for many purposes it is convenient to think of a magnet as having distinct north and south magnetic poles, the concept of poles should not be taken literally: it is merely a way of referring to the two different ends of a magnet. The magnet does not have distinct north or south particles on opposing sides.

Poles should only be used as a reference, in regards to which direction the magnetic field is pointing in.

GB

[Harvey]

Below is a quote from wiki on the concept of poles.



Poles should only be used as a reference, in regards to which direction the magnetic field is pointing in.

GB

Glad you cleared that up.


Pole (complex analysis) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ok - that image and link is only for a bit of relaxation and has only some bit to do with a magnetic field

In general terms however, a magnetic pole is simply that physical surface of a magnetized material by which the minimum flux along the B vector penetrates. Depending on the direction of the vector (which can only be one of two directions) the pole will be labeled North or South. Therefore, if you break your magnet, you provide new physical surfaces and therefore new poles for each polarity. This process of subdivision can continue to the atomic level and ends with the individual atomic dipole for a given magnetized material. In some cases it may end earlier at the molecular dipole level where any further subdivision would result in a destruction or reorientation of the magnetic field. Such a boundary condition can occur along the Bloch Wall or Neel Wall of Weiss Domains.

Cheers

[gravityblock]

Besides that point, the Earth's magnetic field is much weaker than the Earth's gravitational field - so we can never use it to fully nullify gravity

Gravity does not exist as an indvidual force. What science calls gravity is a question of a difference in the density of bodies. To explain; 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. 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 maintains the atmosphere of the planets. As the tendency of gases is towards continual expansion, the whole of the gaseous envelope surrounding a planet would expand into the vacuum were it not maintained by constant pressure.

Gravity is a combination of phenomena and never an individualised force.

GB

[gravityblock]

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

[Matos de Matos]

Hi GB

My apologies for being off topic, but after you take a look at my last post, http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post107621 I believe you will forgive me.

Thank you
David

[Aaron]

how much will it take?

I have a question for anyone that can answer it - Harvey, anyone?

It takes 1 joule of energy to lift a small apple to 1 meter.
Over how much time? Let's just say 1 second and lets
say it is in a vacuum so air resistance isn't even a factor.

How much does the apple weigh? It would weight about
1/4 pound or 4 ounces - or whatever weight is necessary
to require 1 joule to lift it to a meter in a second but it should be
fairly close to that.

My question(s) is this:

How many joules of energy will it take to lift the exact
apple to 0.75 meters over 0.75 seconds?

How many joules of energy will it take to lift the exact
same apple to 0.50 meters over 0.5 seconds?

How many joules of energy will it take to lift the exact
same apple to 0.25 meters over 0.25 seconds?

To this day, thousands of people have not been able to
answer this simple question.

If it requires more information to calculate the answer,
let me know what more is needed,

[Aaron]

does the potential change?

To this day, thousands of people have not been able to
answer this simple question.

I'll rephrase that. There hasn't been anyone willing to answer it. I believe
many were perfectly capable but they didn't want to go there.

Here would be a second question/scenario for anyone that is willing to
answer: If a 4 ounce rock was sitting on the ground and someone dug
a 1 meter hole next to the rock and the rock was just sitting there,
does the potential in the rock change? No matter what the answer,
I am hoping for a Yes, ____ or a No, ____. Yes or No followed by the
reason why for why not.

[Aromaz]

I have a question for anyone that can answer it - Harvey, anyone?

It takes 1 joule of energy to lift a small apple to 1 meter.
Over how much time? Let's just say 1 second and lets
say it is in a vacuum so air resistance isn't even a factor.

How much does the apple weigh? It would weight about
1/4 pound or 4 ounces - or whatever weight is necessary
to require 1 joule to lift it to a meter in a second but it should be
fairly close to that.

My question(s) is this:

How many joules of energy will it take to lift the exact
apple to 0.75 meters over 0.75 seconds?

How many joules of energy will it take to lift the exact
same apple to 0.50 meters over 0.5 seconds?

How many joules of energy will it take to lift the exact
same apple to 0.25 meters over 0.25 seconds?

To this day, thousands of people have not been able to
answer this simple question.

If it requires more information to calculate the answer,
let me know what more is needed,

In each of the 'steps' the total amount of energy to reach will be higher per distance. In relation something like this:

100 cm = 1 joule
75cm = .75 +.05 joule
50cm = .50 +.05 joule
25cm = .25 +.05 joule

the .05 joule is thumbsuck. Reason for that is that the initial energy to get an object moving is more than maintaining the movement - in this case lift.

Not considerting the issue of acceleration and deceleration.

[Aromaz]

I'll rephrase that. There hasn't been anyone willing to answer it. I believe
many were perfectly capable but they didn't want to go there.

Here would be a second question/scenario for anyone that is willing to
answer: If a 4 ounce rock was sitting on the ground and someone dug
a 1 meter hole next to the rock and the rock was just sitting there,
does the potential in the rock change? No matter what the answer,
I am hoping for a Yes, ____ or a No, ____. Yes or No followed by the
reason why for why not.

The potential of the rock remains the same because the hole is next to the rock; not under it.

[Armagdn03]

I'll rephrase that. There hasn't been anyone willing to answer it. I believe
many were perfectly capable but they didn't want to go there.

Here would be a second question/scenario for anyone that is willing to
answer: If a 4 ounce rock was sitting on the ground and someone dug
a 1 meter hole next to the rock and the rock was just sitting there,
does the potential in the rock change? No matter what the answer,
I am hoping for a Yes, ____ or a No, ____. Yes or No followed by the
reason why for why not.

Bit of a silly question.

Potential is (for the sake of this arguement) could be defined as "something" in reference to "something else" nothing in and of itself has potential, there must be a reference point with a different energy state. The ground AND the rock had no potential. Now you changed the ground, you changed the reference point, YES now the ground and the HOLE have potential.

[Aaron]

silly question

Bit of a silly question.

Potential is (for the sake of this arguement) could be defined as "something" in reference to "something else" nothing in and of itself has potential, there must be a reference point with a different energy state. The ground AND the rock had no potential. Now you changed the ground, you changed the reference point, YES now the ground and the HOLE have potential.

You seem to have a problem with my questions - silly? It points
out that the very premise of all the conventionally minded concepts about
potential are 100% wrong. I would think if anyone is open minded, they
would appreciate a question like this. If anything is silly, it is the mythical
idea that something "stores potential" as you lift it only to give you
back "what you put into it" when it is released and it comes back down.

You even say: ""something" in reference to "something else" nothing in and
of itself has potential."

That is pretty right on. AND, that shows that there is NO SUCH THING
as "STORING POTENTIAL". There is no such thing as "storing potential"
in the literal sense and there is no such thing as "storing potential"
even in a casual abstract usage. Essentially, conventional physics has
absolutely no idea what potential is or its nature and this is why they
have to use smoke and mirrors.

So if someone throws a ball in the air, when it reaches its height, there is
no practical change to the intrinsic nature of that ball since any
gravitational potential is simply contributing new input into the system,
the system being the ball open to the environment (gravity) being dropped
from a height to the ground. Work is done by resisting the air, impact,
bounce, etc...

NONE of that work came from ANY input that we put into
it since 100% of the work we put into throwing it in the air is 100%
dissipated when it reaches it peak then new input comes in free from
gravity. So we do NOT get out what we put in. We get way more work
in joules than we expended.

The fact of the matter is that when we WORK to get that ball in the air,
what we got of our input WAS THE LIFTING of the ball itself. The lift of the
ball or object itself IS what we got out of our input. Anything after that
part is free from the environment and is prima facie evidence that not
only is conservation of energy a myth it's common sense that is a myth.

There is no conservation of energy, there was no energy that changed
form, etc...

And it cannot be put off as "well, it is known what is meant by that
term", etc... Because, NO, it is an erroneous usage of what potential
means - no storage - and also no such thing as static potential that can
be stored.

Maybe you see it as a silly question because you're so smart that
it is common sense to you that the entire notion of "storing potential"
is indeed silly.

Maybe my apple question is silly to you too - but if you could answer that,
you'd be the second one to ever do so.

[Aaron]

conventional physics dug itself a hole

The potential of the rock remains the same because the hole is next to the rock; not under it.

Exactly, that means that the idea of "storing potential" in an object the
higher from the ground it gets is a fairy tale.

If we dig a hole next to the rock, the conventional camp must state that
the rock has just stored X amount of potential to be consistent with their
claims.

We know it is completely ludicrous to believe that the rock has an increase
in potential or any change in potential at all.

And if we kick the rock into the hole, the resistance to air as it falls and
the impact is all work - and the conventional camp would also have to
claim that we got out what was put in to "lift" it or create a height
difference.

The work we put into digging the hole is all used up after we are finished
digging the hole. That work established the height difference. We actually
didn't put work into "lifting" the rock, it stayed right where it was.

If the rock is nudged over the edge and falls, the only potential it has
access to is the dynamic flowing river of gravitational potential or source
charge moving downwards and NONE of that potential, literal source
potential, came from us digging that hole.

So simply by changing the frame of reference from lifting an object to
digging a hole next to one reveals one of the most fundamental flaws
in the conventional definition of potential - that the notion of "lifting
something and storing potential then when it comes down we get out
what we put in" - is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

[Aaron]

"Newton got beamed by the apple good - yeah yeah yeah yeah" - R.E.M.

In each of the 'steps' the total amount of energy to reach will be higher per distance. In relation something like this:

100 cm = 1 joule
75cm = .75 +.05 joule
50cm = .50 +.05 joule
25cm = .25 +.05 joule

the .05 joule is thumbsuck. Reason for that is that the initial energy to get an object moving is more than maintaining the movement - in this case lift.

Not considerting the issue of acceleration and deceleration.

Thank God Aromaz!

I can't wait to see if anyone else is willing to answer in such a
straightforward way. I understand the thumbsuck but it shows the point.