Status Updates posted by Ghideon
Thanks for the rather large bunch of PMs.
I had some hope that my posts in the thread would show you some ways of analysing the problem, without math, so that you would see for yourself how and why your attempts at generating gravity will fail. I have exactly zero interest in your builds and your theories at this time. After your persistent PMs I took the time to check some of your last videos. It looks like I would expect when there’s air in the vacuum chamber, the paper moves around but I fail to see them move towards the wheel. Zero evidence of gravitational attraction. Joke: It looks like the paper is frantically trying to leave the container, does it mean you now have generated anti gravity?
In my 2nd last post in the now closed thread I tried to give you the opportunity to analyse the situation for yourself. Considering the short amount of time you to to answer my guess is that you didn’t look for the “flaw” in my reasoning that i deliberately put there. I was hoping that maybe you would connect the dots but obviously you did not, so I’ll try:
In my post I only described scenarios with ideal conditions. I excluded an obvious case where the device somehow seems to attract confetti but only due to an error in the setup.
Every movement of confetti is always due to errors in the setup and never ever due to gravity generation. Anyone with at least some basic knowledge about how gravity really works will spot some flaw in your rig.
Never will you convince anyone that your results has anything to do with generating gravity. The laws of physics does not work the way you say. Other tests, with many orders of magnitude better precision than yours, have already proved that your thinking is incorrect. The short version: Your ideas are wrong. Guys with better equipment have shown how and why you are wrong already.
I think beecee also elegantly pointed you in the right direction in his followup, referencing cases from the mainstream. Those guys at CERN had tried really hard to eliminate errors and probably had, at that time, good reasons to believe they had made groundbreaking discoveries. But sceptics found flaws, no faster than light neutrinos. In your case you will be stuck in an endless loop of modifications and discovered flaws, since we know the outcome of the ideal case you never will reach. This is as far as I am prepared to go and I hope we are done.
If you are still genuinely convinced that the effect is a a new type of gravity then you need some other kind of help than I’m able to offer.
(I’m familiar with Newton and some basics of relativity but physics beyond that I have to study.)
One possibility is that you start over, dropping all claims regarding gravity related theories and post a fresh question focusing on mainstream physics. How about something like; “I’ve been building a device to test an idea that I had. The idea didn’t work at all but I came across a spurious air flow effect that I need some help to understand. With the basic equipment I have at hand i’ve run some comparing tests using a vacuum cleaner and I fail to replicate the effect to a degree where I am able to make a statement about what’s going on. (here you could insert some description of the surprising movement of air etc...) Anyone on this forum care to make a guess?” Maybe you can learn a few things and get some more positive feedback than in your first thread?
I have no wish to continue discussing this topic.