gravity waves found

[Harvey]

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.

You have an interesting point there regarding plasma 'flying up'.

Did you see this video? YouTube - Plasma Puzzle

That is true that the plasma stream runs from gravity like a bean sprout growing away from it. I wonder NASA - Threshold Acceleration for Gravisensing (Gravi)

YouTube - Microgravity Combustion

Floating Flame Balls - NASA Science

[witsend]

If plasmas were inclined to antigravitational effects then it would be impossible to contain plasmas within our own gravity fields. I trust that this much is clear. But I do see that any 'justification' - any positioning of the plasma paths - would be a response to the earth's or any surrounding magnetic field. And it would find that path that best neutralised it's own ionic imbalances. That plasmas do respond to magnetic fields is known. I am not sure if it's proven to respond to electric fields. But since electric fields have magnetic fields associated with them - then presumably such would also allow an interaction of sorts.

However, it is interesting to see - as sucahyo has shown, that flames themselves respond to electric and/or magnetic fields and this rather proves that flames themselves hold either electric or magnetic properties or possibly both. I've seen this proved - all over the place. But I've not seen it so simply and graphically made evident. My own thinking here is that flame is the actual 'aetheric' or magnetic particle that has manifested within our own timeframe. A kind of elementary plasma. And like all such magnetic dipoles - it looks for it's most balanced position - that path of least resistance. And because they are fundamental neutral particles they are well able to 'share' a path - where, conversely, electrons cannot. Hence the flame can 'grow' and become bigger and share the same space with other such 'flames'. Again. That's just my own thinking. It speaks rather well to the conservation of energy principles in that their energies would neither be created nor destroyed. They are either evident - when we see them - or they are hidden inside mass - when we don't see them. A kind of 'peek a boo' - that relies on applied physical events to make it manifest. And the good news is that if such dipoles existed and if this is our source of aetheric energy - then there's lots of them. Which means we just need to find ways to use them better. Flame can be somewhat destructive.

EDIT. BTW - if, indeed, there is such a magnetic particle - then it would need to be a dipole which would render it neutral. And as a dipole it would indeed respond to magnetic fields. But that's another example of a deduction based on inductive reasoning. LOL. It seems that these are tools of logic that I simply can't avoid using. I wonder if anyone can?

[Adie123]

My own personal opinion on gravity, is that gravity is not one state but a combination of elements.

Gravity that holds matter to a planet is a combination of magnetic forces + atmosphere pressure + centrifugal forces.

Gravity outside of atmosphere is magnetic forces + centifugal forces.

If something large is spinning, it sucks other objects towards it and eventually into the direction of the main mass/bodies spin direction. A bit like a whirlpool or galaxy formations spin effect(s) on other matter.

The less spin of a mass will result in less gravity geforce. The more spin of a mass will result in greater gravity geforces.

-------

SO with this in mind, i dont think it would be possible to find the definative answer for anti-gravity. What would need to be found is an effecient way to counteract the forces. Which would result in an artificial anti-gravity effect propulsion.

I'd like to hear peoples opinion on my/this theory.

Adie.

[david lambright]

spring scale test

i hope this helps...bruce has access to better equipment...maybe he will shed light...david...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCdI5z0UMpQ......thanks

[Stealth]

While I also agree that gravity is a cause effect of a spinning mass, it also posesses other atributes. When a mass spins it attracts matter, it also repels matter to an extent. Somewhere there is an imbalance of this attrecting and repelling,such as for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.But in this case the scenario don't quite work.I believe this is due to a phonomena in this spinning action of a mass. I have always thought of this spinning mass as creating a vortex effect, which would overpower the throwing off of matter in a spinning mass.This would in essence create an imbalance.There could also be many variables involve, such as size,rate of spin,density of the mass, etc. Once we actually do discover what gravity really is, we may all be surprised by the simplicity of it. I think it is a push-pull type of force associted with electric,magnetic and aether. I think the magnetic part is the push, and the electric part is the pull in this equation.Magnetism defies gravity and electric seems to attract gravity.This is my theory of how it works.Good Luck. Stealth

[Adie123]

i hope this helps...bruce has access to better equipment...maybe he will shed light...david...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCdI5z0UMpQ......thanks

Interesting vid, but not sure other peeps asking for this wanted this exact test. I think they wanted to see the rock on the scales and then bring your flywheel close to it and move it around the rock to see if any change happens.

But this vid probably shows that the rock may have a small repel and attraction depending on its orientation.

[Adie123]

While I also agree that gravity is a cause effect of a spinning mass, it also posesses other atributes. When a mass spins it attracts matter, it also repels matter to an extent. Somewhere there is an imbalance of this attrecting and repelling,such as for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.But in this case the scenario don't quite work.I believe this is due to a phonomena in this spinning action of a mass. I have always thought of this spinning mass as creating a vortex effect, which would overpower the throwing off of matter in a spinning mass.This would in essence create an imbalance.There could also be many variables involve, such as size,rate of spin,density of the mass, etc. Once we actually do discover what gravity really is, we may all be surprised by the simplicity of it. I think it is a push-pull type of force associted with electric,magnetic and aether. I think the magnetic part is the push, and the electric part is the pull in this equation.Magnetism defies gravity and electric seems to attract gravity.This is my theory of how it works.Good Luck. Stealth

agree with you here to most of what is said, but i feel that magnetism keeps bodies repelled or attracted depending on their rotation. For example. the earths magnetic poles are in process of flipping. So when the south pole ends up in the north hemisphere and visa-versa for the north pole. Then the earths magnetic field will attract the moons magnetic field. Which will start to pull the moon back towards us. At the moment the poles of earth and moon are the same and the moon is slowly moving away from us

I left out the obvious variables like weight, etc but i feel that centrifugal and magnetic forces are the key elements here.

Also when i use the term magnetic forces, i also expect peeps to realise that electricity is also a factor in it. Seeing as magnetic forces are a biproduct of electricity (so to speak).

[witsend]

agree with you here. i left out the obvious variables like weight, etc but i feel that centrifugal and magnetic forces are the key elements here.

Also when i use the term magnetic forces, i also expect peeps to realise that electricity is also a factor in it. Seeing as magnetic forces are a biproduct of electricity (so to speak).

Hi Adie. I agree. Changing electric fields induce magnetic fields and vice versa. BUT. We can have a magnet on magnet interaction without inducing an electric field. Take one magnet moving towards or away from another. In that interaction no-one has actually EVER found an electric field induced inside that magnetic interaction. This may be significant as it suggests that a magnetic field can exist away from an electric field. But we have NEVER induced an electric field without finding a magnetic field. Just a thought. Like sucahyo says, - otherwise we need the one to find the other - the one to measure the other.

The thing about referencing a centrifugal force - is that it needs to be ascribed to some mass of some sort. Otherwise we must find a centrifugal force in one of the extant forces. Not sure if it's known to be there. I've often read engineers who think the same way. It seems to appeal to a mind set. Personally I don't subscribe. But then I'm not an engineer. LOL. I think it's enough to have matter - which is electromagnetic - moving at right angles to a magnetic field. But in my book it's related to volume not mass. Mass determines the 'weight' of an object once it reaches its rest state. Again. That's just my own take. But it's indeed interesting.

[witsend]

Using a lens with a thin layer of sandwiched ferro colloidal fluid to map a magnetic field via optic affects of the field on the magnetic fluid. Blue LED's of the apparatus are spaced at 9 degrees, facing inward directed at the edge of the lens. Notice when the ring magnet (poles facing front/back of the ring) is perpendicular to the fluid plane inside the lens, it then greatly bends the light from each of the leds. I've never seen anything bend light like the magnets in this video. Note -- Most of the time in this video, the magnet is on edge and it is the profile view of the magnetic field we are seeing!

Red, yellow and green radial LED's are spaced evenly; facing inward into the edge of the lens. The light from the LED's warps around the magnets as it passes through the fluid.

For additional information on the above technique for viewing magnetic fields in real time, youtube user SirZerp has released an excellent pdf article titled, Photographing Magnetic Lines of Constant Scalar Potential. Also, there is a thesis.zip at the bottom of this page, which is four years of work (120 page thesis with supporting file), by the author in a single 1 GB file. Here is a quick overview of the technique.

There is also a technique for viewing the magnetic field lines in 3D with the Dynamic Etalon method. Here's a video showing the real-time holographic representation of magnetic flux is clearly visible to the observer or image recorder.

GB

Missed this post entirely. Hi gravityblock. These are some really interesting links. Many thanks for them. And welcome to the forum. That last video was 'amazing'. Most interesting.

[Adie123]

The thing about referencing a centrifugal force - is that it needs to be ascribed to some mass of some sort. Otherwise we must find a centrifugal force in one of the extant forces. Not sure if it's known to be there. I've often read engineers who think the same way. It seems to appeal to a mind set. Personally I don't subscribe.

Im not sure as to why you think it should be found to be among the extant forces. But how i see it is that a mass large enough (lets think about earth here) with a high velocity spin will pull other objects like a vacuum. Matter on the surface of the large mass is kept on the surface due to stronger forces like atmosphere. Where as objects outside the atmosphere that dont have a magnetic alignment the same as the large mass (earth) will be sucked down to join its direction of rotation. Objects outside the atmosphere that have same/similar magnetic alignment (moon) as the large mass can be repelled due to north pushing north and south pushing south poles.

Simply put, the earth is like a suction pump, pulling all matter close enough to be affected. But also i agree with what youve said about magnets. Magnetic attraction will most likely span further than the centrifugal force, but they both coexist together. Objects getting pulled increasingly faster as they get closer to the large mass (earth).

[witsend]

Im not sure as to why you think it should be found to be among the extant forces.

Perhaps I'm being too literal. If something is being pulled or pushed - generating momentum - then the associated force that you're suggesting would incur some kind of 'spin' momentum that would attract or repel objects - provided obviously that it's within range. Is that what you're saying? But that presupposes that the 'spin' - like a wind - can be experienced. Gravity then, in your book, is the 'thing' that sends a message to associated matter that in effect communicates that hey - 'here's an object spinning. This is how it's spinning. Let's get you moving to respond to that spin.' I'm trying to show you that the 'thing' that informs the one body about the other body - would, presumably in your book - then copy that spin somehow in order to send that message. That would mean that between those two objects in space there would be this something which you attribute to gravity which would then also be spinning. And that gravity message would somehow inform the distant body to generate a predictable and appropriate pattern of behaviour. Is that right?

If so, then think about it. That also means that gravity - if this is the 'message medium' would need to send an accurate message through the vacuum of space. That's the question here. How is that message transmitted? If, indeed, gravity itself is 'spinning' then is it spinning in relation to ALL our material bodies in space. If so it would be essentially varied and granular changing from one location to another. This would introduce localised variations to all parts of space that would render gravitational effects entirely unpredictable. If it was not itself spinning how does it message the two bodies in space to spin and orbit?

But how i see it is that a mass large enough (lets think about earth here) with a high velocity spin will pull other objects like a vacuum.

Not sure what you mean. Are you saying that vacuum is an 'object'? Or did you mean something else? A vacuum is widely assumed to be devoid of any objects. Therefore it is unlikely to experience that spin. But if you're replacing that vacuum with some gravitational field that spins - then we've got the same problems detailed above.

Matter on the surface of the large mass is kept on the surface due to stronger forces like atmosphere. Where as objects outside the atmosphere that dont have a magnetic alignment the same as the large mass (earth) will be sucked down to join its direction of rotation.

Adie - I'm lost here. Can't follow the argument at all. Our atmosphere is held bound by the force of gravity - whatever it is.

Objects outside the atmosphere that have same/similar magnetic alignment (moon) as the large mass can be repelled due to north pushing north and south pushing south poles.

It has puzzled our physicists that the moon is not responding to a gravitational pull. The best argument in support of this is that space is expanding. This somehow defeats what would otherwise result in a collision. But there are so many arguments against spatial expansion that most physicists themselves have given up on this. The most obvious example is that galaxies are known to collide. Therefore they must argue that some parts of space are expanding and some are not. And that then leaves us with a knd of granular or variable state in the vacuum of space - that would defy gravitational predictions. And our classicists win every time. They can always predict the effects of gravity. Which means that whatever gravity is - it is not granular - or it does not vary from one part to another. The moon itself does not have dipolar magnetic properties. There's been much speculated about the dark side versus the bright side of the moon. I think they've measured stronger magnetic fields extant on the dark side. But there is clear consensus that there's no overriding polar properties to explain a repulsion effect against our own fields.

But hey. If it's easier to imagine that gravity spins - then why not. Frankly it's got the merit of at least giving some kind of explanation. No-one actually knows what causes gravity. Interestingly dark energy needs to be just that - ENERGETIC - or moving. Which means that there's got to be some active force - not the passive scaffolding proposed by our string theorists. And those of us who subscribe to aether energy also propose an active force.

[Adie123]

Witsend - im gonna have to try come up with some kind of visual answer here. Its getting too text graphical and confusing lol

But to quote something Stealth mentioned earlier 'Once we actually do discover what gravity really is, we may all be surprised by the simplicity of it'

This is how i feel most top scientist dont think. Because its puzzled many a scientist for years. So most/all people think its some highly technical mysterious thing thats too difficult to get our heads around.

Im suggesting for you to free your mind of elaberate science and maths, and think simple. The answer doesnt always have to require a rocket sciencist hehe.

Anyhow, like i said, i'll try come up with some visual examples for you to understand my concept. *BOOTS UP 3DS MAX*

regards
Adie

[witsend]

Witsend - im gonna have to try come up with some kind of visual answer here. Its getting too text graphical and confusing lol

But to quote something Stealth mentioned earlier 'Once we actually do discover what gravity really is, we may all be surprised by the simplicity of it'

This is how i feel most top scientist dont think. Because its puzzled many a scientist for years. So most/all people think its some highly technical mysterious thing thats too difficult to get our heads around.

Im suggesting for you to free your mind of elaberate science and maths, and think simple. The answer doesnt always have to require a rocket sciencist hehe.

Anyhow, like i said, i'll try come up with some visual examples for you to understand my concept. *BOOTS UP 3DS MAX*

regards
Adie

Can't wait Adie. But don't think that I've complicated the issue. I agree. It's become way too complicated and to my simplisitic way of thinking - it seems that the more complicated the more impressed are our mainstream thinkers. Scarey. I'm all for simplicity. It's all I can ever manage. LOL

[CatLady]

Interestink me thinks....






TheTruthBeKnown

[sucahyo]

If plasmas were inclined to antigravitational effects then it would be impossible to contain plasmas within our own gravity fields.

No. I mean things get attracted by HV negative mass but blown away / repelled by pointed one. First related to candle fire shrink with corona coil bellow them, second to candle fire blown by electrode tip. I don't have big metal ball so I can't test if candle fire will be drawn by HV negatively charged ball. Or is it because HV corona by loosely spaced wire wound produce magnetism?