Theredbarron

23 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

 

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. 

 

Would it make sense to put a different wheel in that does not support my theory like a perfect sphere? Would that still create static electricity? Also my other question would be if I were keep everything the same and run it with a different wheel that does not support my theory and it does not pull the paper towel to it, would that mean that the force is relative to my wheel?

Maybe I should take a science class so I can learn to ignore suggestions in a speculations forum

I'm claiming that the 300 miles of air above our heads is whats holding us down due to the effect that is happening at the edge of our atmosphere. take this mountain for example. see how the air is appearing as if the mountain is moving. That's because it is. if that mountain passed you at the speed that it is traveling right now and you were standing still. By still I mean not moving with the surface. The speed differential would be 1kmph or more depending on the speed of the surface where the mountain is. You can feel a semi pass you at 60mph. Why wouldn't you feel the mountain in that same case?

Electro magnetism is invisible. We can create it. So why not go down this road and see. 

The differential from space to our atmosphere is where this is happening.

I do have calculations. You just wont accept them so I'm not going to show them. If you cant answer my questions explaining why instead of just saying its not possible then you dont have an answer is what I'm getting at. I dont want whatever math you are doing. This is purely basic. If the math is something that I can use not to only reason it but actionable information then I will use that. I'm not that far into developing a theory yet to try and use equations to explain. I have to have something concrete to go off of to use my calculations. Not just an assumption .  If this is so simply not gravity then tell me why with demonstrable evidence.  I'm going to bring demonstrable evidence. Documents that clearly demonstrate what your saying or video of examples. You can use things like what I just used. I'm still developing this theory so I dont have all the answers. I came here to try to find some other logic that I can use to try to eliminate things. Like the static charge that I'm going to test. As far as my theory goes this is what I'm going to call it till I'm shown otherwise because by my theory's definition this would be considered gravity. This does not mean that I'm saying its fact. Its a Theory. Can you solve math without even understanding the equation? How can you solve this without even understand the equation? simply dismissing it is not solving it.

You dont have to solve it. I just wanted to know what you think it might be. Not what you think it isnt

Tell me this. If I were to change out the wheel with one that does not support my theory, would that make it definitive that my wheel is generating if the effects go away?

Just now, DrP said:

Mate - it is clear that the movement of the tissue is due to air currents sucked into the tube by the air that is sucked in due to the rotating 'fan' that you have in the tube.

You can't  -  you measure the FORCE felt from it's influence.  The force between 2 masses is as follows (iirc):

F = G.M1.M2. / 4piEor^2

G is a constant.

M1 and M2 are the masses of the 2 objects

r is the distance between them

4piEo is another / is part of the constant that crops up a lot.

 

Forces are easy enough to measure. It isn't so easy to prove this equation on the bench though because the forces between objects due to their masses is very small. VERY small....  otherwise we'd be crushed on the earth.....  which is massive.  The attraction isn't directional either  -  which adds more weight to my argument (or obvious fact) that the movement of the tissue is from air movement. We can literally see it in your set up in the video - it is air being sucked in. You can tell that because the tissue is being 'sucked' towards the tube exactly the same way it would if it were being 'sucked' by a fan in the tube or some spinning weight.  It is clear. I'm not sure why you aren't believing it.

 

 

 

How is gravity not directional? Its is whats holding us to earth right? Dont give me this crap about roundness and how up is down in some areas. In relation to earth all gravity points to the center. In relation to my wheel all air is moving to the center. 

I used the tube so you can see it pull the air in. Again air is matter and if its close to the gravitational field it will attract to it. It uses the matter that is between the force and the paper towel to attract it. This is what my theory proposes. Like a string made of air

1 minute ago, DrP said:

What questions in particular?

The reaction of forces with gravity?

2 minutes ago, DrP said:

What do YOU think will happen to smoke in a vacuum chamber?  The fact you ask the question about smoke in a VACUUM chamber is very telling.

Have you seen smoke in a vacuum chamber on earth? It moves to the bottom. My wheel being above in the chamber should pull the smoke up into the area where it would act as an atmosphere around the wheel. 

7 minutes ago, DrP said:

 

Very very weakly it does, yes....  according the equation I put up earlier. It is measurable exactly and the experiments are reproducible exactly every time to confirm it.

 

If you use the same measurements of gravity that the measurements are based upon the theory and not the basic laws of physic which have been stand for longer then your logic that you are trying to pass off as fact. I am fixed on testing this. I have to be able to remake it to demonstrate that is not or it is by eliminating what some people have suggested. It takes more then a day to do that. 

What I would like to know is how are you measuring gravity?

The difference is that the matter itself moving is what is creating it is where this is going. it is invisible because air is invisible and air can create an attraction with the venturi effect. Are you going to tell me the carburetors dont work now. Air can pull air even when its not enclosed in a tube or anything else. They also made sprayer that use air to spray liquid with this same effect. This exact effect is what I'm predicting in happening on the rim from our atmosphere with the large very fast moving mass of air around the equator. That  amount of air passing you at those speeds will definitely pull you in. Just like the attraction that happens when a train or a bus or a semi passes you except all the time and a whole lot faster. Why wouldn't that cause an attraction?  

You cant answer the questions with fact is why you say that. Changing one of the most proven laws of physics to prove your explanation is just like me say this test that I came up with based upon my theory is how its proved. Instead of me doing that I used the basic laws of physics. Use the basic laws to explain gravity because my version does and came up with a demonstration just like newtons third law did when it was figured out.

Your arguing the demo and not the theory. You say gravity cant be created but then how can it exist? In order for existence to happen something has to be created which is the part where its made. No matter what the existence is it has to be created first otherwise none of us would be here.

4 hours ago, Ghideon said:

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. 

 did you want me to use the paper instead of smoke because it would still mean the same thing if it pulls either the paper or the smoke within a vacuum chamber even if it doesn't have a tube on it.  according to your theory of gravity should have tracked every possible molecule that's involved in that vacuum chamber so if this does that then it proves both correct because that's the whole point of gravity it attracts matter. Unless you can disprove that gravity attracts matter or prove to me what my wheel inside the tube is creating when I used demonstrable physics that has been proven by the basic laws of physics like Newton's third law that I referenced earlier and debunked their entire logic with basic physics. That fact that I linked that someone used cannot debunk Newton's third law just because they explain something. Newton's third law is able to be demonstrated. If that link that I sent you is true then Newton's third law is not. Talk your way out of that

I'm using examples in space on how planets interact with each other based upon my theory. The reference to creating gravity is how the planets create gravity. Reread what I posted earlier then it might make sense as to why I'm referencing that

Yea but it does have to do with my theory that's were I went with it just for examples. I'm not very good at explaining things to were you, as more involved in the science study area I'm assuming" would be able to understand. Is more of a translation issue or where to even begin. The demo thing is to demonstrate it. That doesn't make the device the theory.

The planet assist is going to be very subtle as to maintain a speed or it will fly off the tracks. I think that newtons first law still applies. 

42 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

As the planet passes the sun closes going toward the sun gravitational pull accelerating it enough for it to swing slowing due to the suns pull from behind then doing it again.

The sun accelerates the earth as it comes to it were the closer part of the orbital path is due to the sun and the earths own gravity. as it passes the sun it then now is getting pulled at an angle from behind slowing it enough for it to swing back around to the other close spot in the orbit. This is what I'm speculating just based upon my own. 

If you say its possible for the slingshot gravity assist work in space then that would be supporting my claim. That's how I see it.

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

The planet is still in an orbit albeit an ellipse. A sling shot gravity assist is as stated.

Yes thank you.

13 minutes ago, beecee said:

 

A sling shot is when a probe such as the Voyagers, Galilleo, Cassini etc need a gravity assist to access more speed and also change of direction. The energy is taken from the orbital path of the prime body/planet.

As the planet passes the sun closes going toward the sun gravitational pull accelerating it enough for it to swing slowing due to the suns pull from behind then doing it again.

The sun accelerates the earth as it comes to it were the closer part of the orbital path is due to the sun and the earths own gravity. as it passes the sun it then now is getting pulled at an angle from behind slowing it enough for it to swing back around to the other close spot in the orbit. This is what I'm speculating just based upon my own. 

I argue this because I used my theory to explain Saturn's rings. The loose orbing matter will gradually move to the fastest moving area of the planet due to the higher gravitational pull. Newtons third law applies here. 

That planet is moving at 21k mph at the surface approximately. It happens to the planets moving faster at the surface then most other planets base on my theory.

2 hours ago, Ghideon said:

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?

 

I meant to answer the vacuum question. What I hope to see is that it will lift the smoke up into is field.

To continue

So I thought if I spun that chamber that I was discussing with the hole to the outside of the rotation. 1 rotation per second would be considered 1k cubic ft displacement calculated like a pump.1 in 1 out. But the only thing about it is that it would not pump because there's nothing going in. That's not very useful to use so it would get ignored.  I wondered how far I could expand what was in the space that is moving before it becomes a depression due to the venturi that is happening at the opening. It whistle with a hole shaped like a circle at first. With this wheel since I had to try to make that same effect but with metal it became a money thing. It was either make it by hand just to see if its worth going any further to answer my questions. Yes mine has a lot to do with the air at first but again as you can tell this is not a high quality piece of crap. Its a rough cut. That what I mean by the start of it all. Im not going to take this to the bank until something actually comes from it. Not that its going to but still. The wheel is doing what I thought it would. Yes the air will be squeezed in there. Yes it will stop accumulating air once the strength of the wheels design and environmental variable allow it to. I dont know if you caught that last video but the full sheet of paper weighs more then the paper towel. My thought is that inside the bigger diameter tube is a larger airspace. With that airspace comes matter. If that matter gets attracted to the wheel as it spins and begins to move with it, it would now become part of the field. What I mean there is that the air would move perpendicular to the tube causing a draft like effect between the surface of the tube and the air since the air is rotating with the wheel at this time. Thus making the field bigger.   

Just like our planet is doing on the edge of our atmosphere.

It looks like our planet is sling shotting around the sun without any other forces effectively interrupting it.

Another part would be like the core of the planet. Its assumed for the most part but the best that mankind has. If it was spinning very fast like a star or something observed in space moving all that gas inside there it would hold our crust together like a vacuum seal once solid began to form around it during its creation. The gravity part in the core would be along the solid part of mantle because all the gas and loose liquid matter would be creating and atmosphere not unlike how ours is but made up of hot gasses and other stuff. And at higher pressures due to the temps and speed. Now it has 2 fields in a planet. one in the core and one from the surface. If the material in the crust is a conductor and or magnets which there is. The liquid matter, including metals,  from the mantle and possible core would be passing by it at a high rate of speed. Now its generating a magnetic field

I dont know if the basic are even being tested. Just maybe the perception of it.

The surface of the equator is moving faster the poles as to generate more centrifugal force. Since for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction, the increase in the centrifugal force would require gravity to increase to compensate in order for you to weight even close to the same. The force at the pole is measure at a speed of 1 rotation per day. That's not a lot of force. Our planet is oblate. It shows that the centrifugal force is much larger then the poles at the equator. So doesn't it make sense that if you increase one you would have to increase another in order to keep the almost exact same value. nature is not perfect. its natural. That tiny difference from the north pole to the equator cannot explain or quantify the immense difference in centrifugal force at the equator without gravity increase to compensate. This is what was presented to me.

https://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a11511.html

How can newtons third law not apply in that case?

Its kind of like a twisting and squeezing effect and it would look like this I would imagine but a lot faster at this size and in our atmosphere

 something a little like this if you could take a still shot.

13 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

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?

 

Sort of. On earth it does. That why I want to do a vacuum tube one. Air defined in my theory is actually a state of density in comparison to all things existing. Picture solid at the top being positive and below vacuum being negative. It goes solid liquid gas 0 vacuum neg. Most dense to least. What I figured this from is that in space if you opened an airlock chamber that is 1k cubic foot and, just for easy of calculation, it took space 1 second to balance the chamber. it would be 1k cubic ft per second. Hold that thought 

A venturi will cause a drag and pull effect correct? 

I wondered what would happened if you moved that chamber in a manner to create a venturi. Does it just whistle was what I asked. No its doesn't. I made one and it did whistle then it exploded. So I thought I should make one from metal just to be sure its not going to come apart. What I had trouble with was what shape it should be to do this. That's when I started looking for similarities between planets and trying to determine what would happen to the matter that is in the chamber. Wouldn't it just keep expanding to a point to where it becomes a depression is what I thought. Keep in mind I was one day just kidding in saying I wish I could solve gravity. I was working on something else when it dawned on me. Semi trailer drafting.

A straight line can be curved correct? 

So if a semi can draft us a 60 what could a bunch of mountains and air and buildings and water and people do at 1k mph?

How is it sounding so far?

40 minutes ago, beecee said:

Challenge all you like, and when all the "other east stuff" is out of the way, your results will most certainly  align with some natural already known physics. I don't believe we will be seeing you in Stockholm in November, sorry. 

isn't this speculations. its not like your the one to qualify anyone for it anyways.

I dont even know what that is because it doesn't matter to me

                     Mine                                                                      Yours

if no attraction from the outside                                     if no attration from the outside 

then it confirms what I haven't                                         then not gravity

even said yet.

if both statements are true then how can any be false not just because

They are in fact both true is the point and this one is not made to be able to do that even if yours says it cant be made. This is what im challenging. I cant until the other easy stuff is out of the way. Is that too much to ask

4 hours ago, DanMP said:

 

Did you read my smoke proposition? What do you think of it?

 

Yes I did. My camera sucks and it doesn't realy show it well. I want to put it in a see-through vacuum chamber with a balanced wheel of course and then use smoke. Would that be a better way?

1 minute ago, beecee said:

You seem to be saying or suggesting here and elsewhere that gravity can be shielded? It can't, period! This is why you have been advised to cover the end of your device. If your hypothetical is correct [which it isn't] then movement of air, EM effects [depended on the nature of the shielding] can be shielded.  

Yes by the way everyone is taught that would be correct. Its exactly what I'm saying just at certain intensities is why it still supports what we have been taught. I am not suggesting that mine is creating the intensity of what we can observe in our space. If I were to create a wheel strong enough that is accurately made it may do just what you want due to its ability to generate a strong field. Electromagnetism does the same thing. Not all electromagnetic fields pierce the materials that it normally would if the intensity was too low. That's the resistance. like the tube as of right now is the resistance. I cannot perform that test because its not at that stage yet. 

Like I've said this is just the start whether it is or its not. 

Here's another view of a version I made before.

15 minutes ago, t686 said:

I would guess it  has something to do with the tube being a cylinder.   If you look at the video of the one with the mirrored inside surface, the artefact of having holes in the back only show the topology of the cylinder and has nothing to do with the holes.  Perpendicular to the cylinder, parallel lines perpendicular to the cylinder, in the reflection will cross over each other forming repeating circles side-by-side on two sides of the inside cylinder.  That makes me believe that tubes of air (perpendicular to the back wall of repeated circles, and the cylinder's mirror surface shows how they cross in the mirrored reflection or fold over each other on only two sides, with the other two sides remaining parallel lines in the reflection (looking at the reflection of the back line or holes or whatever they are, it has something to do with the topology of a wrapped cylinder) emanating from those fictional repeated circles could pull in air through some effect although I don't know the effect yet.

Okay. This is good stuff. Yours is a little more complicated then static. What can I do to eliminate this? Would reducing the vibrations increase or decrease this effect? Or would stopping or increasing the reflection change what its doing? I have plans on getting a wheel cnc but it would be nice to know this stuff before I spend the money. I dont know if that makes any sense. I pretty much have nothing to lose but a little amount of cash.

35 minutes ago, Strange said:

You have had a few plausible suggestions already:

• Mechanical movement of the air (like a fan) - sealing the other end of the tube won't eliminate this possibility. You need to seal the end near your "sensor" (i.e. the piece of paper).
• Electrostatic force produced by mechanical motion of whatever is inside the tube
• Just random vibrations in the machine wobbling around on the bench and the piece of paper you are frantically waving around -- basically, until you address the shoddiness of your setup, then anything possible

okay  I will be back with a better demo

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

My question is: what happens if you eliminate the possibility of mechanical movement of the air by covering the end of the tube?

I can do this but first you would need to understand what my theory is. My theory argues the logic on who gravity pulls through matter instead mine shows how the matter is creating it. I get that for example earths gravity and how its holding us here and it looks like it pierces matter. I understand that this would prove you correct in that it doesn't hold or move the paper towel with the end capped but it would at the same time demonstrate my theory to be correct as well. Mine says the opposite in that manner unless the paper towell is move with the field in which case this one is moving 6k rpm or more. 

2 minutes ago, DrP said:

A brick, being heavier than a paper towel, would be effected by gravity more than the towel.  The attractive force between 2 objects is equal to a mix of constants multiplied by the mass of each object divided by the square of the distance between the objects. 

Let me clarify what I meant. I'm on earth and earth has gravity. The gravity of earth is stronger then my machine. So my machine would have to be strong enough to oppose earths gravity. That's what I meant by weight. 

6 hours ago, beecee said:

 

You cant even give me something to test this with? All you have is a bunch of words making you sound smart. My theory actually supports all that crap that you keep telling me just no the way your think. so stop assuming and prove me wrong. or stop talking.

2 hours ago, DanMP said:

Just put a wooden board between the black tube and the paper. Air flow and electrostatic pull should be stopped or diminished while the gravitational pull should remain the same. Do that and then come back. Otherwise it is just wasting of our time.

I understand this logic. The only deal with that is its solely based upon another theory then mine. There is a reason why it doesn't pull through matter at this level of intensity. can magnets go through everything at all levels of intensity.?

4 hours ago, DrP said:

I think we all know the answer to that one already.

is a brick in comparison to a paper towel? so its pretty obvious then now isn't it. 

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Air that is moving. Anywhere, for any reason other than your conjecture. You have moving parts, which cause air to move. Equipment heats up, which causes convection, which is air moving. Whatever. You have to eliminate all possibilities except your mechanism.

It's one thing to ask, "What is going on here?" but quite another to say, "It's gravity that's doing this." Very different situations.

If it was a cup warmer we wouldn't care how it worked, as long as it warmed the cup. But if you said it warmed the cup by magic, well, then, we'd have questions.

No, gravity is not only observed in motion. Ever stand on a scale?

And we could eliminate gravity as the cause in your device. Measure how quickly the paper towel moves, and you could estimate the acceleration involved. It's going to be substantial. Then confirm that your device does not have any effect on more massive objects. Only lighter ones, that are affected by air currents.

 

is that scale moving on the surface of earth? so now what are the result sense the scale that is supposed to be sitting still is moving at 1k mph. gravity effects air with my theory so yes the air is going to move just like it would anywhere else except that high pressure is supposed to move to low pressure yet all the air wants to in the tube and not out. sounds like a low pressure are with heat somehow. so now the air is doing the opposite of what it normally does in our environment. So yes the molecule in the air like nitrogen and oxygen have weight just like everything else. Are they excluded for what your understanding of gravity is?

5 hours ago, koti said:

Look man, I’m assuming you’re not some nutcase trying to hoax people on youtube and you’re genuinely interested in finding things out. Am I right assuming that?

If that is the case,

1. Ground the pipe (if its metal, if its PVC you wont be able to) Tape a bare wire to the pipe and the other end connect to the ground (your vice or some other big chunk of metal should be enough for this purpose) You can also use an ESD set if you have one around the shop.

2. Use your multimeter to check for presence of static charge. Set it to measure „amperes” and be sure your meter has an option to retain a reading as the neasured discharge will take a microsecond or so only. Use tape to attach the myltimeter probes to the pipe. If the pioe is PVC it probably won’t work. Practise by rubbing a sweater or your bare feet on a carpet and measure that with your multimeter to get a readout by using the probes on your hands.

3. Use a feather instead of the paper to get a better idea of where and how much of air movement occurs. There might actually be both factors playing a role here at the same time - electromagnetism and air movement.

4. Read the wikipedia article I linked you to on gravity. Come up with questions and post them here, there are PHD physicists in this very thread who will answer all the questions you have, you can learn a lot from them. 

5. Forget about hope you discovered how to „generate gravity” There is no way that could have happened, learn the basics of gravity what it is and how it interacts and you will laugh yourself a year later at this whole thing.

I think its cool youre doing the experiments and I fully support you in this. Providing you’re not a nutcase or deliberately trying to find out how to hoax people.

Thank you. I am fully aware of nothing coming from this. I dont even care if its gravity but there's only one way to know for sure no matter how ridiculous it seems. I am defiantly going to use this information and try it out though. Its pretty fun. I'm not even involved in the science world at all with my life. I dont even have the background to show. I just dont want to leave any stones unturned no matter what. Nobody is going to do this for me so here I am. 

I did have a quick questing though. would making a wheel that does not use my theory replicate the static? 

The air is for the demonstrate of its effects. Gravity by all means attract matter correct? 

So what material could I use or do to the material to get rid of the static charge causing it to attract? 

What do you think I would need to actually try to test it and remove any possible way of it having a static charge? Not joking. I will do it. This is why im here on this site because for the obvious reason it would be kind of hard to do this and have this amount of feedback from multiple source anywhere else. Agreed?

If I made a different wheel not using my theory and spun it the same just to eliminate my theory completely from it should it do the same? I will keep the vibrations by purposely making it imbalanced to keep that variable. 

 If the tube was metal would that make a difference?

I hope you can see why I made it this way. It for exactly what I'm getting out of you right now. Modifiable is the new ugly