# Last Attempt For An Understanding

## Recommended Posts

Watch the video on this site and tell me thats not what I have been posting about here on this site. This is exactly what I have been trying to point out gravity. Notice the rotation. Thats weird how thats what I have been saying about gravity! Just because I cant make sense of it doesn't mean I'm wrong. The waves are density differential. The lower density allows higher density to move to and same goes as higher density pushes into lower. The surrounding matter including gases change gravities effects because of density. The faster its moving the stronger the attraction. Slower rotating planets have much less gas surrounding them. It even says on the site "The strongest gravitational waves are produced by catastrophic events such as colliding black holes, the collapse of stellar cores (supernovae), coalescing neutron stars or white dwarf stars, the slightly wobbly rotation of neutron stars that are not perfect spheres, and possibly even the remnants of gravitational radiation created by the birth of the Universe."  Not Perfect spheres. The imperfection of the surface of a rotating mass effects the total gravity that can be generated by said mass. All Im saying is that gravity has everything to do with motion. The first paragraph speaks about massive accelerating objects creating said waves. If I placed this wheel in a tube with both ends open. It will hold a piece of paper on each end. I have already done this. Air is matter. The use of air in that situation is how the gravity is being created. The surrounding of the wheel has air around it so its going to effect it first. Then the paper is pulled in by the Moving Air. We are standing in the draft path of what is rotating. Not all planets are like earth so it just so happens that we have a lot of gas surrounding our planet. Mars is about half the size and the surface speed is about half of earth and the gravity is about half of earth. The atmosphere is mad of co2 for the most part which is less dense then our atmosphere which temperatures come into play there. Gases can move objects and draft them as well. A venturi is gases drafting. The surface is what attract and holds the gases of a planet. The density of the gases along with the surface imperfections and speed and size determines how much the planets can hold. Even the planets effect the gases around it much like the wheel that I made if you have been paying attention. If our planet stopped rotating or slowed down escape velocity goes down. At a certain speed the surface loses its attraction which reduces what it can hold. If it gets to low it will rip our planet apart. So gravity relies on the planet rotating not just occupying a space.

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/what-are-gw

##### Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

At a certain speed the surface loses its attraction which reduces what it can hold. If it gets to low it will rip our planet ﻿apart.﻿﻿ So gravity relies on the planet rotating not just occupying a space.

(Bold by me)

That seems unlikely, to say the least. How come Venus is not ripped apart? It rotates once every 243 days.

(Several of the many other misunderstandings in your post was addressed in detail in a previous thread)

##### Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

Watch the video on this site and tell me thats not what I have been posting about here on this site.

No, it isn't.

From what I remember you had vague claims about gravity being caused by rotation. It isn't.

The video is about gravitational waves, not gravity.

45 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

The waves are density differential.

No they aren't. They are distortions in spacetime.

The rest of your post seems to be the same incoherent muddle as all your previous posts

45 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

Th﻿e first paragraph speaks about massive accelerating objects creating said waves.

Creating waves. Not creating gravity (that is just created by the presence of mass, not rotation).

45 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

Air is matter. The use of air in that situation is how the gravity is being created.

Your vacuum cleaner does not generate gravity, it sucks air.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

That seems unlikely, to say the least. How come Venus is not ripped apart? It rotates once every 243 days.

Venus atmosphere is about 200 times shorter then ours and the speed is also over 200 times slower then our planets. The exit velocity of that size of mass moving would almost have to stand still for the planet to rip apart. Venus is not standing still. Plus it already has a bubble of gasses around it that would have to be ripped from the planet first before the surface is effected. An its spinning the opposite direction which is an opposing force against the rest of its surrounding which may be a factor.

Its not simply just sitting there

##### Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Theredbarron said:

It even says on the site "The strongest gravitational waves are produced by catastrophic events such as colliding black holes, the collapse of stellar cores (supernovae), coalescing neutron stars or white dwarf stars, the slightly wobbly rotation of neutron stars that are not perfect spheres, and possibly even the remnants of gravitational radiation created by the birth of the Universe."  Not Perfect spheres.

Gravitational waves are not what mediate gravitational force.  A non accelerated mass has a gravitational field and will attract another mass without producing any gravitational waves nor are gravitational waves required for this attraction .  Gravitational waves are produced by accelerating a mass and are are a separate effect than gravitational force. Neither do they add to the gravitational attraction of the mass.    An asymmetry in a rotating system of masses will produce gravitational waves, but this is  not the same as producing gravity.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Janus said:

Gravitational waves are not what mediate gravitational force.  A non accelerated mass has a gravitational field and will attract another mass without producing any gravitational waves nor are gravitational waves required for this attraction .  Gravitational waves are produced by accelerating a mass and are are a separate effect than gravitational force. Neither do they add to the gravitational attraction of the mass.    An asymmetry in a rotating system of masses will produce gravitational waves, but this is  not the same as producing gravity.

Ok so the wave would be more or less the effects of a change in gravity? What does it mean by accelerating a mass exactly?

Edited by Theredbarron
extra question

##### Share on other sites

Actually what I want to do is take the real test. The irrefutable one. What I'm having trouble with is which one it is? I know its air that you see but there's no way I'm going to sit here and try to convince with words on how thats relevant because I have tried. I get that I'm slumming it down here but if thats what it takes to find this answer then so be it. So I thought another experiment. As you can see there is a lot of biasness to anyone that comes on here like I have. Not that its all undeserving just dont let it blind you too much. I'm not trying to be confrontational. I said I wanted to know and this is how I'm going to answer it. If I can prove it to you here then I can prove it anywhere otherwise its a bust right? Visually that is. I did not say any numbers where wrong. I'm only proving functionality. How can I do this? My theory without getting to deep is that gravity is created by density differentials by use of drafting from surface imperfections of a rotating mass. I have created a wheel to replicate this effect and it does. I thought placing a bubble level perpendicular to the rotating axis with a camera watching it on a bigger wheel could do it. The idea is that if the air in the bubble level goes to the top then the rotation is effecting the matter through the material which would prove what my wheel is doing. That or making a trike thats accelerated off of a version of this.

##### Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Theredbarron said:

If our planet stopped rotating or slowed down escape velocity goes down. At a certain speed the surface loses its attraction which reduces what it can hold. If it gets to low it will rip our planet apart. So gravity relies on the planet rotating not just occupying a space.

The rotational velocity of the earth is slowing gradually, ever so  slightly due to tidal gravitational effects with the Moon.This will continue until in about 3 billion years or so [give or take] Earth will have the same side facing the Moon, just as the Moon at this time only presents one face to Earth, and a day will be equal to a lunar month and we will be tidally locked.

The surface of the Earth will not lose its attraction ability via gravity, in fact at a guess I would say the escape velocity would increase slightly as centrifigal force would be absent. If though the Earth stopped rotating suddenly, anything not attached ,like us, would go flying off at a tangent at about 1000mph.

Any ripping apart is just nonsense.

##### Share on other sites

I want to understand what you are saying but I have no knowledge of the subject.

say it in your own unique words

##### Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Theredbarron said:

Actually﻿ what I wa﻿nt to do is take the real test. The irrefutable one. What I'm having trouble with is which one it is?

You need to produce a replacement to Newton’s Law that includes the factors you think are responsible for gravity. Then show that this correctly predicts the orbits of moons, planets, comets, etc.

9 hours ago, Theredbarron said:

How﻿ can I do this? My theory without getting to deep is that gravity is﻿ created by density differentials by use﻿ ﻿of drafting﻿ fro﻿m﻿ surface impe﻿rfecti﻿ons of a rotatin﻿g mass﻿.﻿

One problem with your previous demonstration was that you had a tube with an open end. You need to put your spinning wheel inside a completely sealed container (or, at least, place a solid barrier between the wheel and the test mass).

The other problem is that you were waving a piece of paper in your hand and claiming the movement was gravity and not you or air movement.

So, for a test mass, use a large piece of lead hanging by a long thin wire. This should be well away from the opening of the tube (if you insist on keeping that). You can then measure the movement of this weight when you run your motor.

This would be an improvement over your original crap experiment, but still not definitive. There are all sorts of other factors you would need to eliminate: vibration, magnetic fields from the wiring, air currents, electrostatic charge, ...

##### Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Theredbarron said:

What does it mean by accelerating a mass exactly?

In this case, it is two large masses (black holes or neutron stars) orbiting one another.

##### Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

You still have provided no math to support your idea, and your last thread was closed after 8 pages, so you have had plenty of opportunity to present some science, rather than hand-waving.

You were also told not to bring the topic up again.