Jump to content

Generating Gravity


Theredbarron

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Ghideon said:

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? 

 

How would you suggest the vacuum chamber setup should go? I was thinking of epoxy and some polycarbonate with the cnc version of the wheel sealed up in there. I wasn't sure if I should have the motor in there or not. I can plug the holes for the air cooling part of the motor from both ends. As for the chamber pretty much shaped strong enough to hold a vacuum and glued together is what I was going to go with. and the wheel at a distance from the sides of the chamber as be out in the open

18 minutes ago, Achilles said:

You are very good at farting.

Is that the sound I make when I do this.

and this

Edited by Theredbarron
added details
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, t686 said:

I think it would be good to make two tubes separated by 90 degrees.

 

I thought about it, and if you have two tubes separated by 90 degrees, with one drive in one, the other drive 90 degrees.  You could have a variable drive connecting both inside that "groin" between the two tubes.  You could have the variable drive controller connected to a single hole that can open and close that separates between the two chambers to allow pressure from one to go to the other.  So all you would see in time is -hole open for 20 microseconds, hole closed for 250 microseconds, hole open for 60 microseconds, etc.  It would not be a one dimensional cellular automata (because only one on off cell).  The picture of the I call it half-dimensional cellular automata would be (c) in the picture below (the spacing in (c) is the spacing of the sequence in time of the "opening of the hole that separates the two tubes", ie the hole would be mostly closed with intermittent (instantaneous opening then immediate closing, so strike the 20, 250, 60 sequence of alternating on,off, you only care about the times of the ---instanatenous opening and then immediate closing---.  So you can see it's a sequence in time of a dirac delta function (instantaneous at instantaneous times in the infinite time sequence) of "immediate opening and closing of the hole" at sporadic times and different spacing.   I found the picture from Hooft's paper titled "The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" ie think about the energy levels you'd see, they would be spaced apparantly randomly as in the third picture on opening (and then immediate closing) small hole connecting two tubes at 90 degrees with their own individual drive (but with a variable drive joint connecting them).  The variable drive controller might be (ie how you control the variable drive that ultimately controls both or maybe the variable drive design) based on an analysis of what type of waves are entering the two tubes.  But the picture in (c) is an energy spectrum from two or more distinct cogwheel models, whereas having the variable drive (which is continuous) would have an infinite addition of distinct cogwheel models, which makes this design perhaps even more powerful than a quantum computer (or perhaps it is a quantum cellular automata but with an infinite sum of the individual cogwheel making up the resultant zeeman atom spectrum seen in (c) but so complicated that it defies analysis of what constitutes the individual member cogwheels that make up the sum).  But anyway, it would probably make a much more complicated smoke picture if you do encase it in a dome with smoke.

And, based on your design, both tubes would suck in air, so it may create like a bubble or pop, due to the tendency of not allowing any main air flow to go out (only secondary or residual air escapes in your design).  The fact that it's bubbling (look at video "shroedinger's smoke" on youtube and the cavitation of a trefoil knot), it would create tori and perhaps individual strings of air that have their own volition, and a very complex intelligent sort of result in that the strings of air could interact.

 

 

half.png

Edited by t686
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Theredbarron said:

Saying its false without testing it is not scrutiny. Its opinion. You yourself even said.

Saying that 300 years of gravitational knowledge is wrong and based on experiments and observations, we know that gravity cannot be generated in the Lab, or workshop, and to say it can, or infer that it can, is pseudoscientific nonsense. You have done no more then show some pretty questionable pictures, regarding some poorly conducted experiment, and then claimed to have created gravity, and then continue on with even more outrageous claims that defy what we already know, which on face value reflect that you either suffer from delusions of grandeur or are trolling.

Quote

That make you not qualified enough to say what it is.

Unlike you, I don't hide from my amateur status in this game, nor do I suffer the malady of delusions of grandeur, I'm simply quoting mainstream scientific data that has been observed and tested many many times.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, t686 said:

 

If you have a single motor that connects to a variable drive (which has variable difference in speed between the two rods that drive the two different tubes), you could have it that whenever there is a "crossing" where the speed of A increases, and A is lower in speed, Speed of B decreases and B is higher in speed or vice versa, the hole to exchange pressure is opened briefly.  The pressure difference may be the input to the variable drive, so that when the hole is open to exchange pressure briefly, it's a quantum event or feedback process (similar to neural nets you can have a feedback process that is a quantum process if you make the nerual net right, which they haven't done yet)

The only thing I could think it would do:  You know each tube sucks air in.  This set-up has two tubes connected at 90 degrees, so the openings are separated in space and it's like a half-donut.  The only thing I think it could do, is to create a standing type of wave halfway between the openings of the tubes (outside the two tubes, halfway in free space between the two tubes), so you don't get a clockwise rotation of air going around one opening of a tube through the instantaenous opening, out the other opening and back around again, ie the controller of the variable control is connected to a flowmeter that prevents that very thing from happening, so that you always have two separate flows going into both openings of the "gravity" double barrel device.  Right there halfway between the openings (not at the instantaneous hole at the groin, ie not there) but outside the two tubes halfway between the two openings would be a very complex standing wave if you design the controller to prevent flow (and the flowmeter would be outside the two tubes at the halfway mark).  And you could look at the smoke pattern right there.  ie You're looking at flow or air speed, outside the two tubes and halfway between the openings outside the tube, and not measured inside the groin where the instantaneous opening is.  So the whole set-up is to have at all times and no matter the probably slight difference in pressure between the two tubes, never a flow going (outside and through the instantaneous hole), but only a pressure flow INSIDE the two tubes.

Edit: And there may not need to be any opening in the groin connecting the two tubes, because by spinning one faster, you could generate a greater pressure, and you're only interested in the standing wave pattern outside the two tubes in free space at a halfway point between the openings outside.

Edited by t686
update
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Theredbarron said:

So let me get this straight. Just so I can understand. Your saying that gravity doesn't change from here to the moon but just that little bit correct? If that were true then we would weight about the same. One document that was posted earlier states that the gravity decreases from the north pole to the equator within even grater % then your saying. for both of those statements to be true you would have to weight about the same. That's what I got out of that. This link states that the slight change in gravity for that much smaller distance then from the moon makes a noticeable change in weight.

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

 

It might help if you actually read what I wrote.   I said the the Earth's gravity at Moon distance drops to 0.0028% of the value it has at the Earth's surface, not that it has dropped by 0.0028%

In contrast, the pull of gravity at the equator drops to ~99.81% of the value it has at the poles. (though you'd actually only weigh ~ 99.47% as much at the Equator. That extra reduction is due to the the centrifugal effect caused by the Earth' rotation.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far we have claims that [1] Gravity is generated in a workshop, [2] An orbit is actually a gravity assist sling shot manoeuvre, [3] That a tube vibrating on a bench with a fan is analogous to planets orbiting, [4]That it is the weight of air that keeps us on the surface of the Earth, [5] and all of this somehow explains Saturn's rings [:o] and finally [6] that I'm mad!  :P Oh the irony of it all! :D

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Strange said:
16 hours ago, Theredbarron said:

I'm claiming that the 300 miles of air above our heads is whats holding us down

There is no atmosphere on the moon but there is still gravity. 

You still haven't explained how there is gravity on the moon with no air to hold things down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Strange said:

You still haven't explained how there is gravity on the moon with no air to hold things down.

Did you see the picture of the mountain? the mountain is what moving the air so the mountain is what's generating the Gravity by use of air. Let me ask you this why doesn't the air leave our atmosphere at the equator? Newton's first law states that gravity would have to increase for an order for it to stay in the same path due to the centrifugal forces increasing. Like how the space shuttle leaves our atmosphere closer to the equator they say it's centrifugal forces or is it just that large mass of air moving at a thousand miles per hour behind it giving it a Tailwind. Let me guess Tailwinds don't exist either. Oh and just another note the atmospheric pressure all around the world is approximately the same just like our weight. So yes gravity is going to look approximately the same all around the world. Someone tell me why Newton's first and third law does not apply to this link.

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

The moons surface is rotating at a rate of approximately 10 miles per hour. Its moving through space at 2,288 mph. Stand by the moon as it passes you and tell me what you would feel. It is in a gravity assist sling shot around earth using newtons first law as logic. just liked the moons gravity effecting our planet. ours does the same back to the moon like newtons 3rd law as logic. The gravity on the moon as far as it has been measured is about 16.5% of earths. That would be the average around the whole planet since there is only one answer form NASA for that. Other wise I cannot answer that because I have not measured my calculations yet. This is the understanding and not hard core facts that im presenting. 

Everything in motion is included in creating gravity

I did this yesterday. I'm not going to make another wheel. I'm going straight to the vacuum chamber. I would like to point out the gap from the wheel to the motor. It would appear to be a chamber of some sort. The vacuum chamber will not be that close to the wheel at all. I'm going to ignite a smoke bomb inside the camber then if the smoke is lifted, it is in support of my argument. if it does not then this part is over. I can use that force for something else if I can perfect it. This video is just to show the difference with and without the wheel. 

 

Edited by Theredbarron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

I'm going to ignite a smoke bomb inside the camber

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?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

The gravity on the moon as far as it has been measured is about 16.5% of earths.

And, to ask for the fourth time, how is that possible when there is no atmosphere?

57 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

there is only one answer form NASA for that.

What does NASA have to do with it?

57 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

I'm going to ignite a smoke bomb inside the camber then if the smoke is lifted, it is in support of my argument.

Remember, you must do this twice: once with your machine not spinning and one with it spinning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ghideon said:

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?)

refer back to one of the videos on the smoke thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Theredbarron said:

Did you see the picture of the mountain? the mountain is what moving the air so the mountain is what's generating the Gravity by use of air. Let me ask you this why doesn't the air leave our atmosphere at the equator? Newton's first law states that gravity would have to increase for an order for it to stay in the same path due to the centrifugal forces increasing. Like how the space shuttle leaves our atmosphere closer to the equator they say it's centrifugal forces or is it just that large mass of air moving at a thousand miles per hour behind it giving it a Tailwind. Let me guess Tailwinds don't exist either. Oh and just another note the atmospheric pressure all around the world is approximately the same just like our weight. So yes gravity is going to look approximately the same all around the world. Someone tell me why Newton's first and third law does not apply to this link.

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

The air doesn't leave at the equator because the centrifugal effect is too small to overcome gravity, as per the link you gave.  4.39 cm/sec2 for the centrifugal effect and 980.665 cm/sec2 for gravity.   Thus in this "tug of war", gravity wins overwhelmingly.  The statement of gravity having to increase in order to maintain the same path refers to an object that in a free-fall trajectory. This is not the case for the atmosphere.  The air at the equator is actually moving too slow to maintain an orbit.  If it wasn't for the body of the Earth being in the way, it would fall inward.  As it is, the ground supports the lowest level of air and each layer of air supports the layer above it. ( and since air is compressible,  This causes air density and pressure to vary with altitude.)

The shuttle maintained it's orbit due to the fact that it was traveling fast enough at its altitude for gravity and the centrifugal effect to balance out (on average*).   So at 400 km above the Earth, acceleration due to gravity is 8.678 m/ss     The shuttle has an average speed of 7.669.6 m/s . Which, if traveling in a circle with a radius of 6778 km (earth radius +400 km), creates a centrifugal effect of  8.778 m/s2.  

* I say on average because I don't want to imply that this is some delicate balancing act where if the Shuttle were to lose a bit of speed it would come crashing into the Earth or if it gained a bit it would go flying off into space.  This is not the case.  A reasonable increase or decrease of speed would just put the shuttle in a different type of orbit, one that swings in closer to the Earth and then moves out further away. This elliptical orbital is actually the norm as perfectly circular orbits are just not practical to maintain.   To fling the Shuttle way from the Earth completely would require a velocity increase of 3175 m/s, and to bring the low point of its orbit down to the point where the vast majority of the Earths atmosphere is would require losing  98.4 m/s.

 

Edited by Janus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Strange said:

And, to ask for the fourth time, how is that possible when there is no atmosphere

Everything is creating gravity as it moves. including the surface of the moon. 

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

What does NASA have to do with it?

 

because its the moon and I haven't been there so its all I got.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Theredbarron said:

refer back to one of the videos on the smoke thing.

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Janus said:

The air doesn't leave at the equator because the centrifugal effect is too small to overcome gravity, as per the link you gave.  4.39 cm/sec2 for the centrifugal effect and 980.665 cm/sec2 for gravity.   Thus is this "tug of war", gravity wins overwhelmingly.  The statement of gravity having to increase in order to maintain the same path refers to an object that in a free-fall trajectory. This is not the case fro the atmosphere.  The air at the equator is actually moving too slow[i/] to maintain an orbit.  If it wasn't for the body of the Earth being in the way, it would fall inward.  As it is, the ground supports the lowest level of air and each layer of air supports the layer above it. ( and since air is compressible,  This causes air density and pressure to vary with altitude.

The shuttle maintained it's orbit due to the fact that it was traveling fast enough at its altitude for gravity and the centrifugal effect to balance out (on average*).   So at 400 km above the Earth, acceleration due to gravity is 8.678 m/ss     The shuttle has an average speed of 7.669.6 m/s . Which if traveling in a circle with a radius of 6778 km (earth radius +400 km) creates a centrifugal efect of  8.778 m/s2.  

* I say on average because I don't want to imply that this is some delicate balancing act where if the Shuttle were to lose a bit of speed it would come crashing into the Earth or if it gained a bit it would go flying off into space.  This is not the case.  A reasonable increase or decrease of speed would just put the shuttle in a different type of orbit, one that swings in closer to the Earth and then moves out further away. This elliptical orbital is actually the norm as perfectly circular orbits are just not practical to maintain.   To fling the Shuttle way from the Earth completely would require a velocity increase of 3175 m/s, and to bring the low point of its orbit down to the point where the vast majority of the Earths atmosphere is would require losing  98.4 m/s.

 

So there is no way possible that air can cause a draft as its being drug around the atmosphere. The air from the north pole is moving toward the equator due to the draft of the larger and faster moving mass of air and including the drafting from all the imperfections on the surface that are accumulating this force that are also moving very fast. The imperfections is where the gravity starts to generate. As the air from the surrounding environment is collected or created during is own creation add to the generation of gravity. The air form the north pole that is moving  meets the air form the equator a imperfect places around the earth the we call the Jetstream. That's where the draft from the hotter air around the equator is creating. Some of the air does escape the atmosphere due to nature being imperfect and those particular molecules are being influence by the force pulling them outward which is the vacuum of space reacting to the edge of our gravitational field or our atmosphere. This is just a rough guess based on my understanding of physics. Why does mine sound so much simpler and all the laws that everyone outside of the science community has to abide to? you still haven't actually answered why newtons laws are be negate in that document. Using your theory that cant be measured aka tested to disprove results is like me using mine to say your completely wrong without even testing it. Im using only the very basics to explain mine.   

 

rule number one of speculations forum 

"1. Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure."

14 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

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?

This would fall under your theory as the understanding on who that's supposed to go. If it doesn't lift it at that level of intensity it doesn't disprove or debunk anything.

 

rule 15 for a so ive got a new theory rules.

"15. All theories are of limited scope. Just because a theory does not address some point you want it to does not automatically mean it's wrong."

and

"16. Not understanding a concept, or discovering that it's counterintuitive, does not make it wrong. Nature is under no obligation to behave the way you want it to."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

This would fall under your theory as the understanding on who that's supposed to go. If it doesn't lift it at that level of intensity it doesn't disprove or debunk anything.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

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.

Yes in idea of the shape but I made it more aggressive then the surface of earth. The movement of those masses on earth, all of them will create a draft. Picture it without the atmosphere and every imperfection on the surface making this draft. At this point it would be like the moon but much faster and more draft.  Sometime during the planets birth gasses were closes enough to get collected by theses drafts. Accumulating that amount of air and then moving it with the mass on earth. Thus becoming apart of the gravitational field as per my version. The moon isn't spinning fast enough to collect an atmosphere. The field can only get as big as the effect of the total mass in motion that is crating this effect. The reason why it looks like it going thru matter is because that object itself is creating the gravity. like the smoke at the bottom of the vacuum chamber so the smoke will stay at the bottom even though the vacuum wants to pick it up. The chamber itself is moving at the surface speed. There Nothing that is sitting still that's creating gravity.

Edited by Theredbarron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

Everything is creating gravity as it moves. including the surface of the moon. 

because its the moon and I haven't been there so its all I got.

Let's see, the Moon makes 1 rotation every 27.25 days and has a radius of 1738 km.  This puts the speed at it's equator at 4.64 m/sec or ~10 mph.  1/100th that of the speed at the Earth's equator, so gravity on the surface of the Moon should be 1/100 of that of the Earths.  But it isn't, it is 1/6th of that.

So let's try another track.  Venus is pretty close to the same size as the Earth (6052 km radius vs. Earth's 6378 km) it is just slightly less dense.   But it also rotates very slowly. taking 243 days to make one rotation.   This give the surface speed at the equator of 4 mph.  Even slower than the Moon's. Yet it has a surface gravity of 90% of the Earth's.

It also has a thick atmosphere, but if it is the speed of the planet that holds the atmosphere to the planet, Venus shouldn't be able to hold on to it atmosphere.

But now I guess you are going to argue that its Venus' thick atmosphere that gives it its higher gravity.  But then we get back to the Moon which still has a much higher gravity than your idea would predict, and yet has no atmosphere.

You seem to keep bouncing around as what you claim causes gravity, changing the cause depending on the situation.  In reality, all you've ever offered is a bunch of hand-waving.   No actual predictions as to what your hypothesis would predict what should happen under certain given conditions.

For example, here's a simple one: exactly how much difference would there be in the weight of a 130 lb person if the Earth had no atmosphere?

Since you have of yet offered no numbers, I'll assume you have no idea.

Compare this to the present model of gravity. One that we understand so well that we can launch a spacecraft have it pass by a  moving planet at just the right speed distance and angle so that that planet's gravity changes its speed and direction in just the right way so that it passes by a second moving planet in just the right way such that the spacecraft's speed and direction is altered in just the right way to reach a third planet, and then after this flyby reach yet a forth planet.    Without being able to predict with very high precision exactly how that craft responds to gravity along its entire trip.  And that requires a very accurate model for gravity. 

And yet you expect us to take seriously a bunch of vague suppositions made by someone who couldn't even work out how Newton's Laws of motion applied to the atmosphere at the Equator.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Janus said:

Let's see, the Moon makes 1 rotation every 27.25 days and has a radius of 1738 km.  This puts the speed at it's equator at 4.64 m/sec or ~10 mph.  1/100th that of the speed at the Earth's equator, so gravity on the surface of the Moon should be 1/100 of that of the Earths.  But it isn't, it is 1/6th of that.

So let's try another track.  Venus is pretty close to the same size as the Earth (6052 km radius vs. Earth's 6378 km) it is just slightly less dense.   But it also rotates very slowly. taking 243 days to make one rotation.   This give the surface speed at the equator of 4 mph.  Even slower than the Moon's. Yet it has a surface gravity of 90% of the Earth's.

It also has a thick atmosphere, but if it is the speed of the planet that holds the atmosphere to the planet, Venus shouldn't be able to hold on to it atmosphere.

But now I guess you are going to argue that its Venus' thick atmosphere that gives it its higher gravity.  But then we get back to the Moon which still has a much higher gravity than your idea would predict, and yet has no atmosphere.

You seem to keep bouncing around as what you claim causes gravity, changing the cause depending on the situation.  In reality, all you've ever offered is a bunch of hand-waving.   No actual predictions as to what your hypothesis would predict what should happen under certain given conditions.

For example, here's a simple one: exactly how much difference would there be in the weight of a 130 lb person if the Earth had no atmosphere?

Since you have of yet offered no numbers, I'll assume you have no idea.

Compare this to the present model of gravity. One that we understand so well that we can launch a spacecraft have it pass by a  moving planet at just the right speed distance and angle so that that planet's gravity changes its speed and direction in just the right way so that it passes by a second moving planet in just the right way such that the spacecraft's speed and direction is altered in just the right way to reach a third planet, and then after this flyby reach yet a forth planet.    Without being able to predict with very high precision exactly how that craft responds to gravity along its entire trip.  And that requires a very accurate model for gravity. 

And yet you expect us to take seriously a bunch of vague suppositions made by someone who couldn't even work out how Newton's Laws of motion applied to the atmosphere at the Equator.

 

 

Did anyone measure that 90%

So how can you tell me your correct?

This is why it is debatable

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Theredbarron said:

Everything is creating gravity as it moves. including the surface of the moon. 

So we are not held down by the atmosphere? Make your mind up. 

1 hour ago, Theredbarron said:

because its the moon and I haven't been there so its all I got.

We don’t need to go there to know what the gravity is. Also, many organisations other than NASA have been to the moon. 

21 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

Did anyone measure that 90%

So how can you tell me your correct?

This is why it is debatable

Did you not actually read the post you are responding to? It explains how the gravity of planets is known. 

Also, you have ignored all the important questions from Janus. If you don’t answer them in the next couple of posts I will request the mods close this thread as being free of science.

30 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

Picture it without the atmosphere and every imperfection on the surface making this draft.

If there is no atmosphere then there cannot be a draft (draught). 

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

34 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

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.

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.*

24 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

Sometime during the planets birth gasses were closes enough to get collected by theses drafts.

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.

25 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

There Nothing that is sitting still that's creating gravity.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

Also, you have ignored all the important questions from Janus. If you don’t answer them in the next couple of posts I will request the mods close this thread as being free of science. 

What questions? All of the post show statements. Im may have missed this. 

 

13 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

 

 

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.

No. My version pushes the space around the wheel out first as to expand the matter or existence that is in there with centrifugal force. once the centrifugal force cannot exert and more in that space then it becomes a low density area for everything else to fill. That's what I'm doing with the wheel presumably. Im only using the air to then collect said matter. It will attracted lighter objects first. Then heavier as it collects whatever. However, The speed of matter determines the strength of the effect. Much like electrical pressure. The current in refrence to electricity would be the amount of inertia the collected mass has. Voltage goes up and risistance stays the same then current goes up. Speed of mass goes up and mass stays the same then inertia goes up. mass would then be the resistance

Edited by Theredbarron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

Did anyone measure that 90%

So how can you tell me your correct?

This is why it is debatable

 Probes have landed on Venus, put in orbit around it and Venus has been used "sling shot" spacecraft to other planets.   To land a probe requires you to have a good knowledge of its surface gravity,  Putting an object into an given orbit around it requires knowing its gravity over-all as does using it for a sling shot.  So yes, we have lots of direct evidence as to what Venus' gravity is.

 

1 hour ago, Theredbarron said:

So there is no way possible that air can cause a draft as its being drug around the atmosphere. The air from the north pole is moving toward the equator due to the draft of the larger and faster moving mass of air and including the drafting from all the imperfections on the surface that are accumulating this force that are also moving very fast. The imperfections is where the gravity starts to generate. As the air from the surrounding environment is collected or created during is own creation add to the generation of gravity. The air form the north pole that is moving  meets the air form the equator a imperfect places around the earth the we call the Jetstream. That's where the draft from the hotter air around the equator is creating.

None of which has anything to do with generating gravity.  Can moving air produce forces on objects? yes.  But unless you are dealing with tornado or hurricane force winds, They come nowhere near the the magnitude of the force of gravity on say a human body.    And these forces depend heavily on the shape and orientation of the object.  A sheet of paper will feel a much greater force if held facing a wind vs, being held edge on.   Yet the same sheet feels the same force of gravity whether being held horizontally vs. vertically.

 

1 hour ago, Theredbarron said:

you still haven't actually answered why newtons laws are be negate in that document. Using your theory that cant be measured aka tested to disprove results is like me using mine to say your completely wrong without even testing it. Im using only the very basics to explain mine.   

Because they are not being negated.   Newton's laws are being perfectly followed.  It is your claim that they are being negated that in error.  

If I hold a cup 3 ft above the floor. Newton says that if I let go, it will fall.  But if it were sitting on a countertop at that same height while I was holding it and I let go, it would not.  does this "violate" Newton?.  No.  Without the countertop , the cup falls due to the downward force of gravity. With the countertop, the countertop exerts an upwards force on the cup opposite that of gravity. 

With the atmosphere at the equator, three effects are in play:

Gravity, pulling down on the air

Centrifugal effect, acting to lift the air

Force by the ground acting upwards on the air.

Gravity is much, much stronger than the centrifugal effect, so when you combine the two, you still get a net downward force on the Air which is then counter-acted by the upward force exerted by the ground on the air.

If you were to remove the supporting ground (while still keeping gravity the same), the air would fall inwards, (just like the cup does if I let go of it when there is no countertop beneath it.)

All this is in accord with the proper application of Newton's laws.

The problem with the "basics" you are using to explain your idea is that they are based on misconceptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.