Ghideon

I have Ideal vacuum (more or less) and some dust on the bottom of the container. So just to clarify (maybe this is what I should have asked from the beginning): In a vacuum chamber, not ideal vacuum, is the pressure of the remaining air pretty much the same everywhere? There is not a "varying degree of vacuum" at different heights.

In another thread a forum member linked to a video that displays the behaviour of smoke in a vacuum chamber*. I had some off topic doubts about the setup and the displayed effect and I wish to discuss** in a fresh thread. Focus is on a scientific explanation of the generic case rather than possible errors, cheats etc in one specific movie. Situation: We have a commercially available vacuum chamber*** operating as specified. The vacuum pump has created the best vacuum it can. Inside the chamber there are small items capable of generating smoke (matches, a piece of fuse etc) without requiring oxygen. In all cases the smoke seems to settle in the bottom of the chamber. The effect was explained something like there’s vacuum above the smoke. As long as there is just a little smoke, gravity just pulls it down. But if the smoke “falls down” in the vacuum to form a misty layer at the bottom of the container, shouldn’t remaining air do the same; “fall down” and form a transparent layer (before any smoke is added)? And if remaining air is in the bottom of the chamber, why is the pump connected to the top? At this time I am not able to formulate an exact question, but hopefully some of the responses will help. Initially I think of something like “How do one model low pressure gas in earth gravity” or “What would a highly sensitive pressure gauge show if it is moved around in the container, any measurable variations?”. But I also speculate about “smoke” in this case; is it an opaque gas or airborne particles? And does that have impact of the effect in the video? My initial guess was that smoke is particles and they fall to the bottom due to low pressure. But I don’t consider my guesswork to be science and I would appreciate some help. *Video: https://youtu.be/Yb2YuC7UbwI **from a mainstream scientific point this time *** By that I mean the setup is utilising “less than ideal vacuum”

Do you honestly think that your ideas have such a large possibility of success that it is actually worth doing? I had hoped my reasoning above would guide you; spend some time on learning basic of physics rather than continuing on your current build. But Ok, once you are back lets continue the discussion if the thread remains open. But as a side note; do not stop building stuff! Just change the purpose! Can you imagine the number of mainstream science experiments you could do with a DYI high end vacuum chamber? Normally there's a Nobel prize every year, no hurry.

I agree but I prefer to adress more modest topics than DIY gravity generation. I don't want to stop you from running your experiments but there seems to be a problem* with your ideas. And/or with my understanding of mainstream physics, in that case other forum member will probably step in and correct me promptly, I'm also here trying to learn. This post will be rather long so take your time to read through and think about my ideas. Ok! The machine is started and we still assume an ideal situation. 1: What will happen according to mainstream science is that the confetti stays where it is and nothing at all happens. If math was allowed in this thread I might speculate about the odds for this alternative. According to your idea the confetti is gravitationally attracted to the wheel. We do not yet try to describe how this works, just stating that it is generating gravity, OK? The force, according to you, is dependent of the RPM (and possibly also the surface of the wheel or similar, but lets leave that for now). RPM is matched so the paper pieces are stationary more or less. Now we have two options I think: 2: Your machine generates "an exact copy" of "Newtons gravity" (vague, I know, but I think it holds for this thought experiment, otherwise I may need to describe this better). Anyway, the effect on the paper is that it is affected by two equally strong gravitational forces that are both following Newtons laws by 100%. The gravitational effect on the paper is exactly and 100% symmetrical as to what physical laws apply for the force up towards your wheel and down to earth. The effect from your wheel is at the most fundamental level an "exact match" Newton. The effect is so identical that you could remove your machine and replace it with a planet with earth gravity (we don't care about exact distance, but it would be possible to calculate it). The effect of the paper would be exactly the same since the gravitational effect generated by the machine exactly matches what Newton predicts for a planet with earth gravity. You could also do it the other way around. Use two machines at a proper distance, located in outer space, far from gravitational sources; the paper would behave like located at Lagrange L1, between two earths. BUT: since your machine exactly copies Newton then Newton's laws apply for all masses around the machine, you can't isolate the effect to the piece of paper. All matter would start acting as if there was a second earth located in your workshop. If you genuinely expect this to happen then I have some more questions bit lets wait with those. (I would expect a visit when you visit Stockholm to receive the Nobel prize) 3: Your machine generates some new type of gravity that is not compatible with Newtons laws of physics, lets call this RedBarron gravity. RedBarron gravity is very different from Newtons gravity. It does not act on all nearby massive objects the way predicted by Newton. Completely new formulas are needed since the RedBaron gravity can be isolated to affect only confetti or to have a very different interaction with objects having greater mass than confetti. Now you do not only get the Nobel Prize, you also proved Newton (and Einstein I think) the be utterly and completely wrong. Now the last question for this post: Which alternative do you honestly think is the most probable one. Do you think it is alternative 1 where you need to learn a lot more abut science before presenting a modified theory of gravity, or alternative 2 or 3 where you will soon receive the Nobel prize? *)Some members might have the opinion that theres much more than one problem...

Thats ok, I think I have far less answers than that. I fully respect that and thats one reason for me to move at a slower pace and to try to untangle the ideas from your perspective. But the forum rules still apply (I think) so don't be surprised if this thread is soon closed. Lets try to simplify a little bit further: Under perfect conditions (no static, perfect vacuum, zero gas molecules, no vibrations etc) do you genuinely expect the device to be able to lift a tiny bit of solid material by generating gravity? (I feel that I'm beginning to repeat myself).

Ok. Newtons formulas still apply in your version, good. Then you do not need a tiny mass of smoke on the bottom of the vacuum container. The device will be able to lift the same mass of solid material. (By using math we could calculate the exact amount of paper or other material that would be required.) We now have a device that is expected to generate "Newtonian Gravity"* (I know, this wording is not good) that lifts a given mass. Lets say you match the RPM of the wheel so that the paper lifts and that all other forces are removed so the levitation is 100% caused by gravity generation. Then your device is actually generating the same amount of gravity as the earth does as the gravitational forces are equal. Ok so far? You have created some sort of Lagrangian point (i think its L1). Does this describe the situation? *Lets not add relativity just yet, that level of precision provided by Einstein is not yet needed I think. I think an expert in relativity may have something to say about this. But let us wait with that until we get past the basics of Newton, Ok?

The above statement is crucial, please answer. I'll try to formulate differently: According to Newton I think that gravitational attraction depends on the mass of the bodies and not on their state (gas/solid/liquid). Are your version of gravity different? Is gravitational attraction greater for a certain mass of gass than for the same mass of solids? Note that I respect your wish to avoid math and the discussion therefore is inherently imprecise.* Ok, but now we are getting outside my comfort zone, I have limited knowledge of cosmology, but according to your "theory" how fast would the first hydrogen atoms have to rotate to be able to start forming the first stars? Feel free to postpone this question till later, I think we have had enough to discuss already. I didn't get that sentence; a celestial body that does not rotate has zero gravity? * If this kind of discussion breaks forum rules that is not my intention.

Ok. I think I finally begin to understand parts of your ideas. Of course I think they are completely wrong but that shouldn’t get in the way for some discussion. I have some basic knowledge about gravity (The theories from Newton and Einstein and others) but limited understanding of your version so the questions may seem rather basic or repetitive. Ok with that? Is the following interpretation correct: The spinning wheel you create is supposed to resemble a miniature version of the earth. It has small bumps on it that resemble mt Everest etc. When rotating the wheel at very high RPM some new and undiscovered effect will be revealed; the weel will attract matter by generating gravity. This previously undiscovered version of gravity acts differently on gasses and solids so you must have gas/air/smoke near the device to be able to display the effect. Is this correct? If so I’ll get back with some other questions.

My bad, "smoke bomb" refers to something much more potent in my (local) vocabulary. But what about using solid material as I suggested earlier? Just show how the device is capable of lifting pieces of paper in complete vacuum?

If you run the setup in a smoke filled container so it's impossible to see whats happening how is that going to support your ideas? (Or do you have a really small bomb or very large vacuum chamber?)

If I put my pedantic head on for a while then your comment dimreepr actually seems like scientifically sound reasoning and not a joke One reason why I asked about freezing in my first post. In the area where I grew up it was not uncommon for subsurface ice to push stones upwards: ref https://www.skogskunskap.se/vagar-i-skogen/drift-och-underhall/slitage-nedbrytning-och-skador-pa-vagen/skadekatalogen---vad-kan-vi-gora-at-vagskadorna/

Some thoughts: The bottom of the crack is very close to what looks like a solid construction not covered by water. Is the part of the wall (that has not failed) resting on top of this structure? See blue arrow in picture. The red arrow shows some sort of structure under water. Does that continue in under the failing part of the wall? If so, is the gap at the green arrow a crack? Does it look like the thing underwater at the red and green arrow has moved down?

If it's easy to do then by all means go ahead and try. But as long as you perform the experiment in air i think you will have no evidence that gravity generation is involved. The machine just acts as some sort of fan or similar, I would prefer to discuss the setup in vacuum. But lets try this idea as a way to find out what your setup is doing: Use a vacuum cleaner, start it and let it run. Air flows out from it somewhere. Now stick a paper to the inlet. The paper will get stuck and stay there even if no air is allowed to pass into the vacuum cleaner. No air will flow out from the vacuum cleaner. Does the vacuum cleaner generate gravity? Does the behaviour of the vacuum cleaner now look very similar to the phenomenon in your video?

That post at least shows more of some sort of scientific approach, I think. Are we still talking about the hypothetical case where you have access to a vacuum chamber?

Thanks for the update! +1

Cool, I had not seen that experimental setup before. This is a better explanation of what you expect to be the outcome of the experiment, thanks. Now lets move on with some ideas. If you do not use smoke but instead put something small and solid in the vacuum chamber, do you expect the machine to be able to pull it up? For instance small pieces of paper or some dust? Again, preposing that static electricity, vibrations etc has been eliminated. I understood that. That is why I try to figure out though experiments or modifications to your setup that you may begin to learn from in your own pace. Then you might start questioning your ideas and try to figure out why your observations may differ from what you expected.

I asked what you expected to be the outcome if your original test was performed in a vacuum chamber, not in a vacuum chamber with smoke added. I was under the impression that you wanted to test if the machine generates gravity and by "gravity" I mean the mainstream version of gravity. Now, after reading your description of the "theory" it sounds more like you want a device that is capable of moving some smoke and air to support your personal idea about gravity? Nothing wrong with experimenting and building stuff, I genuinly respect that! But your current approach is not going to result in any evidence that you have found something new about gravity and the movements of planets. As long as the setup requires air to display the effect it looks more like a not so efficient fan.

I am curious; did you find out what happened?

I'll try to help you with some other ideas that you could test with your setup but I need more information about the theory. Does your theory require the air to be present for the setup to work?

If you were given the opportunity to test your setup in a vacuum chamber, what is the expected outcome according to your theory? When there is no air present, does the device still generate gravity and affect the paper? Let's presume that static electricity, vibrations and other problems are eliminated.

I agree. And of course I do not think generated gravity is part of the explanation for the phenomenon in the movie (until all other causes have been eliminated by using proper scientific methods). Idea: If the machine generates gravity, it should have a greater effect on a massive object. If you test with a brick, does it move across the table?

On many bike models it is easy to access the fuel line, the thief doesn't need to tamper with the gas cap. A locking fuel tap may give som additional security, Google for "locking fuel tap motorcycle".

Guesswork from what we have so far: If there was an old wooden wall built before the current one, is it possible that the stone wall was build at exactly the same location? Since the wood under water may have been well preserved it was used as a foundation. Now, after hundreds of years, the old wood is decomposed and cannot support the stone wall. This caused the stone wall section to move almost straight down.

Was the wall built on top of parts of an older structure? An old wooden construction could possibly have supported the wall for a long time. Here is an example; oxygen-poor and humid environment slows down decomposition of organic material.

Is the water frozen in winter? (If the river is near your location in your profile then I guess not, according to a quick googling)