# Generating Gravity

## Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

No.

Ok. Newtons formulas still apply in your version, good. Then you do not need a tiny mass of smoke on the bottom of the vacuum container. The device will be able to lift the same mass of solid material. (By using math we could calculate the exact amount of paper or other material that would be required.)

We now have a device that is expected to generate "Newtonian Gravity"* (I know, this wording is not good) that lifts a given mass. Lets say you match the RPM of the wheel so that the paper lifts and that all other forces are removed so the levitation is 100% caused by gravity generation. Then your device is actually generating the same amount of gravity as the earth does as the gravitational forces are equal. Ok so far? You have created some sort of Lagrangian point (i think its L1). Does this describe the situation?

*Lets not add relativity just yet, that level of precision provided by Einstein is not yet needed I think.

22 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

No. It not just rotation that does it. Its moving at all

I think an expert in relativity may have something to say about this. But let us wait with that until we get past the basics of Newton, Ok?

• Replies 188
• Created

#### Posted Images

2 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Ok. Newtons formulas still apply in your version, good. Then you do not need a tiny mass of smoke on the bottom of the vacuum container. The device will be able to lift the same mass of solid material. (By using math we could calculate the exact amount of paper or other material that would be required.)

We now have a device that is expected to generate "Newtonian Gravity"* (I know, this wording is not good) that lifts a given mass. Lets say you match the RPM of the wheel so that the paper lifts and that all other forces are removed so the levitation is 100% caused by gravity generation. Then your device is actually generating the same amount of gravity as the earth does as the gravitational forces are equal. Ok so far? You have created some sort of Lagrangian point (i think its L1). Does this describe the situation?

*Lets not add relativity just yet, that level of precision provided by Einstein is not yet needed I think.

13 minutes ago, Janus said:

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.

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.

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.

Let me get to some of this. I dont have all the answers. I do however have a brain injury so my apologies for not instantly answering the questions about gravity. I'm not trying to compare it to that part of your theory right now. all my ramblings are to try to paint the picture. If I need to clarify what I mean then I will but straight forward questions at my level of ability to translate to your terminology is what I'm going to answer until common ground on what is being tested relates to the question. very rudimentary for now.

##### Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

I dont have all the answers.

Thats ok, I think I have far less answers than that.

3 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

I do however have a brain injury so my apologies for not instantly answering the questions about gravity.

I fully respect that and thats one reason for me to move at a slower pace and to try to untangle the ideas from your perspective. But the forum rules still apply (I think) so don't be surprised if this thread is soon closed.

Lets try to simplify a little bit further: Under perfect conditions (no static, perfect vacuum, zero gas molecules, no vibrations etc) do you genuinely expect the device to be able to lift a tiny bit of solid material by generating gravity? (I feel that I'm beginning to repeat myself).

##### Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Ok. Newtons formulas still apply in your version, good. Then you do not need a tiny mass of smoke on the bottom of the vacuum container. The device will be able to lift the same mass of solid material. (By using math we could calculate the exact amount of paper or other material that would be required.)

ok so paper in the chamber. I'm assuming confetti cut up or smaller pieces?

Its going to take me some time to get all the pieces together and do this just fyi.

17 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

We now have a device that is expected to generate "Newtonian Gravity"* (I know, this wording is not good) that lifts a given mass. Lets say you match the RPM of the wheel so that the paper lifts and that all other forces are removed so the levitation is 100% caused by gravity generation. Then your device is actually generating the same amount of gravity as the earth does as the gravitational forces are equal. Ok so far? You have created some sort of Lagrangian point (i think its L1). Does this describe the situation?

I know it doesn't sound like it right now but yes in a sense as to the differentials between the points and how it effects across the vacuum of space. This is just what I found as a commonality between my own personal observations and gravity.

22 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

*Lets not add relativity just yet, that level of precision provided by Einstein is not yet needed I think.

I think an expert in relativity may have something to say about this. But let us wait with that until we get past the basics of Newton, Ok?

Thank you

12 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Thats ok, I think I have far less answers than that. I fully respect that and thats one reason for me to move at a slower pace and to try to untangle the ideas from your perspective. But the forum rules still apply (I think) so don't be surprised if this thread is soon closed.

You have been spot on. I wont

14 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Lets try to simplify a little bit further: Under perfect conditions (no static, perfect vacuum, zero gas molecules, no vibrations etc) do you genuinely expect the device to be able to lift a tiny bit of solid material by generating gravity? (I feel that I'm beginning to repeat myself).

No I do not expect it to. I do however want to know if its going to instead of assuming it. I have a hard time believing in things. All I have ever seen from belief is war, violence and ignorance. I know its sounds dumb but that's my reality here.

I dont know if this makes any sense but the very first post I put says its not about if I'm creating gravity its about has anyone else created it. This is where I'm very bad a verbiage. I have never started chat on a forum before. It was meant to be an intro. What I meant was that has anyone created a force like this one? I have nothing to reference to. Look at all the video crap out there and reference whats this one is doing. I came here to try find good documents that I can compare to what this device is doing. Its not a planet so it wont act like one in other words.  This is how wild theory's like mine happen.

that's why just math isn't helping me much on this.

##### Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

I have a hard time believing in things. All I have ever seen from belief is war, violence and ignorance.

Skepticism is only a bad thing when you sit on the fence and don't decide which explanation to trust most. You're testing and experimenting, so if you do it right you'll find evidence in support of the best explanation. Many people claim to be skeptics but simply remain incredulous all their lives.

I don't want to take your thread off-topic, but it might help your perspective to make distinctions in your belief system. I've chosen to look at "belief" as the trustworthiness of the explanations you accept for various phenomena. Using the scientific method, we remove as much bias, faith, wishful thinking, and interference as we can, so the conclusions we come to are as trusted as we can make them.

Faith always claims 100% accuracy. In science, theory is as strong as it gets, and even the most researched theories are constantly being updated as new evidence is discovered. I think when you talk about belief causing war, violence, and ignorance, you're talking about faith, not trusted science.

##### Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I don't want to take your thread off-topic, but it might help your perspective to make distinctions in your belief system. I've chosen to look at "belief" as the trustworthiness of the explanations you accept for various phenomena. Using the scientific method, we remove as much bias, faith, wishful thinking, and interference as we can, so the conclusions we come to are as trusted as we can make them.

Faith always claims 100% accuracy. In science, theory is as strong as it gets, and even the most researched theories are constantly being updated as new evidence is discovered. I think when you talk about belief causing war, violence, and ignorance, you're talking about faith, not trusted science.

Thank you for this. Please could you give me an example of a distinction that I can try to discern? This would be much appreciated. Im trying not to just cut down everything. These are actual question's in comparison to the norm that I am not quite understanding as for the theory that I have goes. It may not be much to anyone here but that just means its doesn't matter as much either way. The tests though I am down for what ever is demonstrable that can tell me what this really is. I figured since my gadget is shows something happening I should be able to rule out with the same.

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

Lets try to simplify a little bit further: Under perfect conditions (no static, perfect vacuum, zero gas molecules, no vibrations etc) do you genuinely expect the device to be able to lift a tiny bit of solid material by generating gravity? (I feel that I'm beginning to repeat myself).

Would it mean anything if it did?

##### Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

I do however want to know if it's going to instead of assuming it.

I agree but I prefer to adress more modest topics than DIY gravity generation.

I don't want to stop you from running your experiments but there seems to be a problem* with your ideas. And/or with my understanding of mainstream physics, in that case other forum member will probably step in and correct me promptly, I'm also here trying to learn. This post will be rather long so take your time to read through and think about my ideas.

34 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

ok so paper in the chamber. I'm assuming confetti cut up or smaller pieces?

Ok! The machine is started and we still assume an ideal situation.

1: What will happen according to mainstream science is that the confetti stays where it is and nothing at all happens. If math was allowed in this thread I might speculate about the odds for this alternative.

According to your idea the confetti is gravitationally attracted to the wheel. We do not yet try to describe how this works, just stating that it is generating gravity, OK? The force, according to you, is dependent of the RPM (and possibly also the surface of the wheel or similar, but lets leave that for now). RPM is matched so the paper pieces are stationary more or less. Now we have two options I think:

2: Your machine generates "an exact copy" of "Newtons gravity" (vague, I know, but I think it holds for this thought experiment, otherwise I may need to describe this better). Anyway, the effect on the paper is that it is affected by two equally strong gravitational forces that are both following Newtons laws by 100%. The gravitational effect on the paper is exactly and 100% symmetrical as to what physical laws apply for the force up towards your wheel and down to earth. The effect from your wheel is at the most fundamental level an "exact match" Newton. The effect is so identical that you could remove your machine and replace it with a planet with earth gravity (we don't care about exact distance, but it would be possible to calculate it). The effect of the paper would be exactly the same since the gravitational effect generated by the machine exactly matches what Newton predicts for a planet with earth gravity. You could also do it the other way around. Use two machines at a proper distance, located in outer space, far from gravitational sources; the paper would behave like located at Lagrange L1, between two earths.

BUT: since your machine exactly copies Newton then Newton's laws apply for all masses around the machine, you can't isolate the effect to the piece of paper. All matter would start acting as if there was a second earth located in your workshop. If you genuinely expect this to happen then I have some more questions bit lets wait with those. (I would expect a visit when you visit Stockholm to receive the Nobel prize)

3: Your machine generates some new type of gravity that is not compatible with Newtons laws of physics, lets call this RedBarron gravity. RedBarron gravity is very different from Newtons gravity. It does not act on all nearby massive objects the way predicted by Newton. Completely new formulas are needed since the RedBaron gravity can be isolated to affect only confetti or to have a very different interaction with objects having greater mass than confetti. Now you do not only get the Nobel Prize, you also proved Newton (and Einstein I think) the be utterly and completely wrong.

Now the last question for this post: Which alternative do you honestly think is the most probable one. Do you think it is alternative 1 where you need to learn a lot more abut science before presenting a modified theory of gravity, or alternative 2 or 3 where you will soon receive the Nobel prize?

*)Some members might have the opinion that theres much more than one problem...

##### Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

Thank you for this. Please could you give me an example of a distinction that I can try to discern?

Faith: "I don't need reasons to believe with all my heart that my machine creates gravity. I'm sure of my belief in it, and that's all that matters."

Hope: "It looks as though my machine creates gravity. I really want that to be true, and I'm going to try to convince others to believe this way."

Trust: "I've tested my machine thoroughly, removing any outside influences that might interfere with my experiments. I've studied the underlying principles involved, and made sure to account for as many variables as I could. I've used the results to design other experiments that will test predictions based on those results, and my device has successfully behaved as predicted. As each result adds support to the hypothesis that my system generates gravity, and as the resultant preponderance of evidence continues to support my idea without any falsifying evidence, I feel increasingly stronger about my belief in it.

##### Share on other sites

Most probable is 1 clearly. I will return with a video as soon as I get a real wheel cut to eliminate vibrations primarily. Its not going to be soon.

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Using the scientific method, we remove as much bias, faith, wishful thinking, and interference as we can, so the conclusions we come to are as trusted as we can make them.

Faith always claims 100% accuracy. In science, theory is as strong as it gets, and even the most researched theories are constantly being updated as new evidence is discovered. I think when you talk about belief causing war, violence, and ignorance, you're talking about faith, not trusted science.

Very wise statements indeed! I certainly wish I could give it more then one like or up vote.

With regards to the scientific method I would like to use as the best example, Albert Einstein. A somewhat humble man, who did the research over many years particularly with formulating GR, and wasn't backward in using the research and discoveries of his peers, of the likes of Lorentz, Fitzgerald, Riemann, and others I have forgotten or am ignorant of.

My respect also goes out to Ghideon and the patience he has shown with utmost integrity. Patience obviously I havn't got! My only excuse is that I have seen many individuals over three forums [one now defunct] that have claimed to have over thrown many incumbent theories/models, most of course trying to topple Einstein and/or Newton, both regarded as being at the upper most echelon  of scientific knowledge, and prowess. Those same individuals invariably try and put the onus of invalidation if their pet schemes on others, and invariably and continually ask for "proof" of the incumbent model and almost certainly side step the tried and true scientific methodology.

With regards to the claims being made in this thread, it reminds me of the sensational breaking news a few years back. That experiment, showed that neutrino particles at the CERN Lab had arrived at a particular destination that showed that they had travelled faster then light. The experiment was run again...again the same Einstein defying results were seen.Big big news indeed!!!

Sceptical scientists from memory at the same CERN Lab later showed that a couple of anomalies had existed in the experiment, one being the incorrect attachment of a fibre optic cable, the other something to do with a clock synchronisation.

In more recent times an experiment called BICEP2  showed gravitational waves discovery was not really valid due to dust contamination.

##### Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

Most probable is 1 clearly. I will return with a video as soon as I get a real wheel cut to eliminate vibrations primarily.

Do you honestly think that your ideas have such a large possibility of success that it is actually worth doing? I had hoped my reasoning above would guide you; spend some time on learning basic of physics rather than continuing on your current build. But Ok, once you are back lets continue the discussion if the thread remains open.

But as a side note; do not stop building stuff! Just change the purpose! Can you imagine the number of mainstream science experiments you could do with a DYI high end vacuum chamber?

39 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

Its not going to be soon.

Normally there's a Nobel prize every year, no hurry.

##### Share on other sites

I would think a simulation would be good for this.  The reason you get suction during acceleration of the spinning cylinder, is that since the cylinder is ridged like the earth, if you imagine a "v" shape wave going from the spinning cylinder to the outer cylinder, during acceleration, the spinning cylinder rotates around to the same spot, so you have a train of identical "v"'s going to bounce off the cylinder (actually the leading edge is the original v, and the ones behind it are progressively altered slightly).  Also, having two outer cylinders connected to a center spherical chamber, with the two outer cylinders at 90 degrees, with only one spinning cylinder in the sphere, would have a different effect on a smoke cloud outside that apparatus.  I have a cellular automata that has 4 runners that are like 4 arrows and the leading edge doesn't change, but as you go further back from the arrow, there is slighter and slighter change, like in your cylinder.  You can find that pattern in the first post of "quantum computer" on conway life forum under username ntdsc.

Also, check your walking, some of you have a weak leg, so try to stand on that one leg without touching anything for 5 minutes, and then jump on that leg.  That's the leg you need to concentrate on.  You're gonna have to actually jump on that leg because it's not going to activate otherwise.

Edited by t686
##### Share on other sites

Also, you say the inside spinning cylinder is ridged or cut so it's ridged.  My cellular automata has a spinning oscillator at the center.  Your spinning cylinder is an oscillator because it repeats every 360 degrees of a turn.  The cellular automata I'm trying to make I believe should be first sphere wrapped (a function in Golly, a cellular automata program that causes opposite edges of the pattern to interact from a large distance).  I believe it then should be switched to torus wrap.  The torus wrap really isn't a torus (opposite edges interact) although it says it is.  It's -roll up the top and bottom- and -roll up the left and right-.  So I believe the torus function is actually two different cylinders.  My goal is to have the center oscillator balloon up, gyrate, and then throw a smaller oscillator down a stable curved line inside the flicker, by doing sphere then torus wrap.  The sphere wrap is unusual.  The pattern is a center large square shaped arrangement of pixels with 4 long diagonal lines.  I'm thinking about splitting the center large square pattern into 4 equal smaller shapes, which are then split up into the 4 corners of the grid, which is made to be sphere wrapped (I think you can split them up into the top left, bottom left, and top right, with nothing in the bottom right corner if you make it right, due to the weird sphere wrap and how you would rotate the 4 puzzle pieces to make it right), with the 4 diagonals and all consistent (to get it consistent you can -select- the pattern like you're going to copy it, and then use function -flip left to right in golly- to make a clockwise turn into a counterclockwise so everything is consistent.  If you make it right it would be a quantum computer.  If you try to make it, whatever you do, first select the function -----=make torus= to make the proper boundary, and then switch to sphere for the first play of the pattern.  Why?  Because the pattern is a mirror, and the clockwise, the top left diagonal is one cell longer than the top right, and you can look at it because the center large square shaped collection of pixels has shifted corners of the square.  And you have to select make torus first, because it always selects the entire pattern correctly, otherwise the center oscillator will not spin (believe me I've tried to eyeball it, and the app that is the torus selection gets it right), and then you can switch to the sphere wrap with the same boundary length (it's a square).

Edited by t686
##### Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Theredbarron said:

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

!

Moderator Note

OK, this is enough.

You've been asked for calculations and/or a model, and that (or some other way to falsify an idea) is required in order to sustain a discussion in speculations. Since you have not provided anything of this nature (and have declared that you will not), we're done here.

Do not bring this topic up again.

##### Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

×