Ghideon

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)

I agree. I would add that depending on the complexity of experiment it may require large funding and a large number of engineers. Examples for comparison: LIGO's Interferometer and CERN's LHC.

Is a soap bubble a valid analogy for the expansion of space? Most science-related discussions at home currently starts with questions from the kids meaning I need to use simple and concrete examples*. I find the the analogy with pennies on a balloon** useful when thinking about basic aspects of big bang and expansion of space. How about a modified balloon analogy with ”observers” that are more part of the analogy than us outside watching the balloon growing in 3D space? The goal is to have an equally valid analogy and replace the balloon surface with something where it, hopefully, would be easier to imagine an observer of the expansion. Imagine some very small creatures living in a very shallow puddle of soap***. The creatures stay all their lives in soap and they don’t go near the surface or the bottom of the puddle. The creatures don’t swim up or down and they have no knowledge of or interest in the possibility of a surface or a bottom of the soap or that there might be something outside/beyond soap. Now imagine that the soap from one of the puddles, with creatures in it, is used to blow a soap bubble. The creatures live on as usual in a thin layer of soap and swim around, ignorant of anything beyond or outside soap. Blow more air into the bubble. Now the creatures will become more and more separated from each other. From their point of view there is not a center, all of them believes all other creatures are moving away****. The more separated they are the faster they will seem to move away from each other. Question: is the soap bubble analogy as good/bad as a balloon analogy? If the analogy works I’ve some ideas about expanding upon it for other purposes. /Gideon (*) Requirement: Simple examples and analogies that also correctly describe some, possibly limited, aspect of mainstream science. If possible, easy to identify with and exiting enough to spark or maintain interest. Mathematical models are not yet an option but hopefully will be an option later on. (**) There may be more than one analogy using a balloon, for this post I refer to one from physicsforums, https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/balloon-analogy-good-bad-ugly/. Short version of some of the text: the Balloon Analogy is intended to describe: (1) The universe is expanding outside of systems that are gravitationally bound (2) The expansion has no center and everything is moving away from everything else. The Analogy: Think of each gravitationally bound system as a penny, and glue a bunch of these pennies onto a balloon that is only slightly blown up. Now blow up the balloon more. All of the pennies move away from each other uniformly, and those that are farther away from each other move away from each other faster than those that are closer together. No penny is the center of the expansion. (***) I haven’t found a soap bubble version of the analogy when searching so no source is given, plagiarism is not intended. Description is a bit childish but that’s intended in this case. (****) In reality there would of course be lots of things that may happen; the soap is fluid so creatures would drift around, nothing prevents the creatures from going to the soap surface etc.