# Generating Gravity

## Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Theredbarron said:

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

Another suggestion: make few small holes in the middle of the sheet of paper you used in this arrangement and try again, with the holes positioned at the center of the tube. In this way the air flow should be reestablished and the paper should hold much better than without the holes. This would be a conclusive proof that the air flow created by the vortex is pushing the paper towards the tube and not the gravity "generated" by your contraption.

LE: maybe you didn't understand what I meant with the vortex and the air flow, so I repeat: the wheel inside the tube, rotating fast, makes the air in the tube to rotate (the vortex) and then the centrifugal force pushes the air towards the wall, creating low pressure in the middle (along the rotation axis) and high pressure near the wall. That's why the air is sucked in in the middle and flows out along the walls (the air flow).

Edited by DanMP

• Replies 188
• Created

#### Posted Images

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.

How can newtons third law not apply in that case?

Edited by Theredbarron
termenology
##### Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Theredbarron
##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Theredbarron said:

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

You are making things up. The earth is in a simple orbit...a combination of free-falling around the Sun, and a tendency of wanting to fly off at a tangent into space: Newton's first law.

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.

The rest of that jumbled text and what you are trying to say, I'm unable to decipher.

20 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

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.

Saturn's rings are already adequately explained as are the orbital anomalies of some of its moons, such as the orbital swap pair of Epimetheus and Janus, and the other "Shepherd moons" that exist with Saturn and Jupiter and that help in maintaining the observed narrow bands of the rings.

##### Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Theredbarron
##### Share on other sites

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

##### Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Theredbarron
##### Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

Yes thank you.

Which has SFA to do with generating gravity in a Lab, Workshop, or backyard shed.

##### Share on other sites

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.

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Theredbarron said:

Yea but it does have to do with my theory that's were I went with it just for examples.

You keep saying that but I still fail to see any connection.

Quote

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.

Orbital parameters are what they are and depend on mass of both bodies and speed. This also has no connection to generating gravity in the Lab, workshop or garage.

Quote

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.

Forget me saying its possible....it is and has been demonstrated many many times with many man made probes, but still has SFA to do with your claim of generating gravity in the Lab.

Edited by beecee
##### Share on other sites

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

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Theredbarron said:

I'm using examples in space on how planets interact with each other based upon my theory.

You havn't got a theory nor a model, simply some speculative hypothetical.

Quote

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

Planets per se do not create gravity. Spacetime curves, warps or twists in the presence of mass/energy, and we recognise it as gravity.

##### Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Theredbarron said:

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

You need to understand what gravity is, have you done the reading I asked you to? When you understand what gravity is and how it works, you will realise how ridiculous the idea of „creating gravity” with a contraption on your desk is.

Our 3 spacial dimentions and time are connected together in a single construct called spacetime. The reason for this connection is that both time and space react to mass and energy...when you are in empty space where there are no planets, stars or moon’s close to you, spacetime is „flat”, if you are close to a body of mass in space, spacetime gets „curved” and that curvature is gravity. Space gets curved and we perceive that as gravity, time is affected to, it runs at a different rate for you when you find yourself in that curved space. Earth has mass and that mass generates the spacetime curvature which we perceive as me and you weighing a certain amount of pounds on our scales when in fact it is the spacial dimentions that are changed due to earths mass. Spacetime is curved on earth and its flat when you go to the earths orbit. The reason for that curvature is always mass or energy, and its a lot of mass and energy that can change the shape of spacetime, its literally hundreds of billions of tonnes of mass that is needed to curve spacetime enough so you can feel it. Its all about geometry when you try to figure out how gravity affects things...everything you know including light is affected by that curvature and you feel it as gravity.

What I wrote is sloppy physics wise and theres still a lot more to it. I tried to put things into as simple words as possibe for you, I suggest you start asking questions instead of arguing, I promise things will get clearer and very interesting when you do that.

Edited by koti
##### Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Theredbarron said:

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

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.

##### Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Theredbarron said:

How is it sounding so far?

Like a load of total rubbish and nonsense - like you are trolling for the fun of it.

##### Share on other sites

11 hours ago, DanMP said:

Another suggestion: make few small holes in the middle of the sheet of paper you used in this arrangement and try again, with the holes positioned at the center of the tube. In this way the air flow should be reestablished and the paper should hold much better than without the holes. ...

I was tired when I wrote that ... and now, rethinking it, I realized that the outer flow, all around the rim, would push the paper off. The paper would hold better only if you make few holes in the tube walls, so that the outflow would be directed through that holes and not/less around the rim.

Anyway, the best suggestion is the one with the strip of paper and the tweezers, but, on the other hand, you seem to lost interest in proving your contraption and keen to write what

2 hours ago, DrP said:

... a load of total rubbish and nonsense ...

##### Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Theredbarron said:

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.

That’s not true. Hang a weight from a very long thread. If your machine generates a force that pulls the weight sideways then it will not have to oppose Earth’s gravity very much. The longer the thread, the better as this means there will be less vertical displacement.

Also, as someone noted earlier, if it is gravity then a more massive weight will experience a greater force and therefore a larger displacement.

If you actually had a theory you would be able to predict the magnitude of this force.

##### Share on other sites

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

##### Share on other sites

Just now, Theredbarron said:

Talk your way out of that

no need for anyone to do that - because most of it is drivel and you have presented nothing but a clear misunderstanding of the science involved with attraction due to gravity.

##### Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Theredbarron
##### Share on other sites

Just now, Theredbarron said:

You cant answer the questions with fact is why you say that.

What questions in particular?

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.

12 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

the whole point of gravity it attracts matter.

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.

##### Share on other sites

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?

##### Share on other sites

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.

5 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

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?

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.

##### Share on other sites

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

##### Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Theredbarron said:

Tell me this. If I were to change out the wheel with one that does not support my theory,

What are you even talking about? What theory?

So far - you spin a wheel in a tube (which will OBVIOUSLY create air currents and movement) and claim that, what? Gravity is being distorted by the spinning wheel and directed through the metal pipe to pull on the tissue?  Is that your speculation?  Come on!! it is totally ridiculous and falsifiable by many reasons already given which you have ignored or rejected either from a lack of being able to grasp the concepts or through a deliberate choice to just wind people up.

5 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

In relation to my wheel all air is moving to the center.

Yes it is...  and it sucks in more air from outside which is moving the tissue. The wheel moves the air because it physically interacts with it when it spins. Nothing to do with gravity at all and all to do with fluid dynamics  -  as you well know.

3 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

How is gravity not directional?

It's omnidirectional. You cant channel it through a pipe and you know it. Bye.

##### Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

×