gravity waves found

[witsend]

@Cat, Your post is somewhat 'snide'. Was that intended? And there's an implication that we posters are 'pretending' to authority. Nothing could be further from the truth. I do hope that you're not trying to give this general impression. I must say that until this last post I assumed you were admin. Now I've been obliged to rethink this. Perhaps you can enlighten us.

Back to your tests and on the properties of that foil. I've got a customer care line number now that I'll be contacting later - when they open. I'll get back to on this when I know more about the specific properties of that foil. It's no good my doing a video on that phone in a glass number - because it does not ring. It's difficult to prove a 'failure'.

[witsend]

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?

Hello sucahyo. I can't understand this post in connection with your quote. But I'll tell you what. Mainstream have never actually been able to define 'fire'. Plenty to say about it's heat and how to measure that. But no explanation for the property of the 'flame' itself.

It's extraordinary when you think about it - but it's been with us for centuries and we still do not know what it is. I don't think it's generally thought of as plasma. But what I think you're proving there is that it's influenced by electromagnetic fields - and that's really interesting. The argument would be something like this. Plasmas can emit light. Fire emits light. Plasmas respond to electromagnetic fields. Fire responds to electromagnetic fields. Therefore 'fire' = plasma. I'm entirely satisfied that this argument would not wash. But frankly - I LOVE that argument. And I really do think that you're pointing to something very novel and very interesting here. As mentioned - I don't think anyone has assumed that 'fire' is a 'plasma'. It would be groundbreaking if you could explore this more thoroughly - perhaps?

What intrigues me about 'fire' or 'flame' is that it never results in changing the atomic matter of the material it burns. It simply changes the bound state of that material. Lots of flame - everywhere - everything can burn - but we're still left with the atoms that were burnt. Just that they've turned to ashes or to gases and they're no longer identifiable as the 'thing' which they were prior to burning. In my book it may very well be a kind of elementary 'plasma'. The early concepts of matter included Fire - with earth, air water and so on. Maybe they were onto something.

[sucahyo]

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

That is hard to conclude. some scale show different measurement if you push them at different side. Can you try again with hanging bag?

[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?

[CatLady]

Interestink me thinks....






TheTruthBeKnown

[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

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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

[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