cold plasma found above earth raises questions of einstiens "gravity is a fundimental force"

reply to post by XPLodER


..so pysorg started to explore the ideas of Walter Russell..?
finally

thanks for the post

Originally posted by -PLB-

because (Wikipedia):

The effects of electrogravity have been searched for extensively in countless experiments since the beginning of the 20th century; to date, other than Brown's experiments and the more recent ones reported by R. L. Talley,[2] Eugene Podkletnov, and Giovanni Modanese, "no conclusive evidence of electrogravitic signatures has been found".

The report I posted shows that most the aviation companies were pursuing this work based on T.TBrowns work.. then it went classified. If they can't talk about it who will? I think they took control of the entire scoentific community to prevent these technologies from going public.

Did you know that Podklletnov said he got the idea to do his work from information his father had gotten in WWII that the Russians had gotten about Viktor Schauberger's work.. The guy whose work validated T.T brown's...

Schauberger was the grandfather of flying saucers.. America obtained his work from the Nazis at the end of WWII. Pilots saw his devices flying over Germany - called them Foo fighters. They looked like glowing balls of fire.

It may be proven to be different effects but it is certainly plausible.. it's the best bet at this point.

Why is it the best at this point? To me it seems pretty obvious that gravity exists in environments completely neutral of electric charges. Even if there is a connection between emf and gravity, that does not mean that gravity is a side effect of an emf. It can simply mean that gravitational forces can be created by other means than mass. But as long as this has not been shown by experiments, it remains scifi.

Which environments are nuetral? I think they are homogenized by the environment.. We are just so engulfed by it because of the immensity of the planet we don't realize it.

And sure.. maybe there is much more to it than it being side effect of electromagentism but why assume that? It seems like over complicating things unnecessarily. And as I said there is a lot of evidence showing it's real.If you dig into it it seems as if it's an absolute certianty. The only thing I think that could prevent that is if there is some even more immense conspiracy trying to make us all believe this.. but that seems far less plausible.

Originally posted by 8311-XHT
The report I posted shows that most the aviation companies were pursuing this work based on T.TBrowns work.. then it went classified. If they can't talk about it who will? I think they took control of the entire scoentific community to prevent these technologies from going public.

Did you know that Podklletnov said he got the idea to do his work from information his father had gotten in WWII that the Russians had gotten about Viktor Schauberger's work.. The guy whose work validated T.T brown's...

Schauberger was the grandfather of flying saucers.. America obtained his work from the Nazis at the end of WWII. Pilots saw his devices flying over Germany - called them Foo fighters. They looked like glowing balls of fire.

It is all fine by me that you believe that anti gravity exists. To me it is just a funny story. I do not believe that governments or companies are capable of collectively suppressing technology for such a long time. Of course I like to be proven wrong, as it is cool technology.

Which environments are nuetral? I think they are homogenized by the environment.. We are just so engulfed by it because of the immensity of the planet we don't realize it.

I can think of a number experiments. For example, see if a charged object is pushed into space or not. If both a negative and positive charged object falls down to earth, we can be pretty sure there is no E field acting on them, but instead it is another force (which we call gravity). Another experiment is the measure the potential difference between the 1st floor of a skyscraper and the top floor. Another example of a gravitational field without an E field is a neutron star.

I don't see any reason to assume that there is an E field of any significance around the earth (as in, explaining why we do not fall off), and I see many reasons why there isn't.

And sure.. maybe there is much more to it than it being side effect of electromagentism but why assume that? It seems like over complicating things unnecessarily. And as I said there is a lot of evidence showing it's real.If you dig into it it seems as if it's an absolute certianty. The only thing I think that could prevent that is if there is some even more immense conspiracy trying to make us all believe this.. but that seems far less plausible.

Who says there is much more to it? A different explanation in no way means there is more to it. It can even be a much simpler explanation. And I don't believe in absolute certainties either. I will read the document you linked but I doubt it will convince me.

reply to post by -PLB-


That's not gravity, that's volume of air. This is why no scientist has ever been able to prove gravity exists. You can however do a simple math calculation for volume displacement and what you do know, the calculation works for rockets without gravity calculations. This is also why no one has ever measured this "mysterious force". It doesn't exist. The reason you get pulled down is simple. Your body has elements in like iron and lead. so the earth's magnetic field pulls your elements down to it like a magnet would. This is also why they have discovered that pure helium and hydrogen escapes the atmosphere and they can't explain it. That's simple to explain too. The earth's atmosphere has holes in it where the helium and hydrogen escape because they are lighter than the volume around it and therefore go into space. SO if there was this gravity nothing should be able to escape, so it's a pseudo name given to the obvious of magnetism there staring at you in the face.

reply to post by TWISTEDWORDS

That's not gravity, that's volume of air. This is why no scientist has ever been able to prove gravity exists. You can however do a simple math calculation for volume displacement and what you do know, the calculation works for rockets without gravity calculations. This is also why no one has ever measured this "mysterious force". It doesn't exist. The reason you get pulled down is simple. Your body has elements in like iron and lead. so the earth's magnetic field pulls your elements down to it like a magnet would

Please, please tell me you're joking. Since when is lead magnetic? (I'm not even going to ask about the volume of air part.)

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by TWISTEDWORDS

 

That's not gravity, that's volume of air. This is why no scientist has ever been able to prove gravity exists. You can however do a simple math calculation for volume displacement and what you do know, the calculation works for rockets without gravity calculations. This is also why no one has ever measured this "mysterious force". It doesn't exist. The reason you get pulled down is simple. Your body has elements in like iron and lead. so the earth's magnetic field pulls your elements down to it like a magnet would

Please, please tell me you're joking. Since when is lead magnetic? (I'm not even going to ask about the volume of air part.)

So you are trying to tell me that non-ferrous metals cannot be made magnetic?

It is clear you do not understand volume displacement in air. That's how they design rockets, they use volume displacement calculations and not gravitational ones. They know the surround air and volume is what needs to be overcome.

Rocket 1Rocket 2

reply to post by mnemeth1


I had a much more detailed refutation of all but one of your examples. Unfortunately, the entire thing vanished when I hit "post." Not without frustration, I will limit myself to this one example:

Predictions of no ice on comets, double flash of deep impact explosion, finely divided dust, etc..
www.thunderbolts.info...

Here are the most relevant predictions from that site:

An abundance of water on or below the surface of the nucleus (the underlying assumption of the “dirty snowball” hypothesis) is unlikely....

Copious X-rays will accompany discharges to the projectile, exceeding any reasonable model for X-ray production through the mechanics of impact. The intensity curve will be that of a lightning bolt (sudden onset, exponential decline) and may well include more than one peak.

www.thunderbolts.info...
[Emphasis mine. --DJW001]

Here is what actually happened:

X-rays reveal 250,000 tonnes of water released by NASA Deep Impact Spacecraft

Over the weekend of 9-10 July 2005 a team of UK and US scientists, led by Dr. Dick Willingale of the University of Leicester, used NASA's Swift satellite to observe the collision of NASA's Deep Impact spacecraft with comet Tempel 1.

Reporting today (Tuesday) at the UK 2006 National Astronomy Meeting in Leicester, Dr. Willingale revealed that the Swift observations show that the comet grew brighter and brighter in X-ray light after the impact, with the X-ray outburst lasting a total of 12 days.

"The Swift observations reveal that far more water was liberated and over a longer period than previously claimed," said Dick Willingale.

www.spaceref.com...

[Emphasis mine. --DJW001]

To summarize the rest of my post as briefly as possible, I tracked down Alfven's paper on planetary system formation and gave it a cursory browse. He points out that the initial interactions in a condensing interstellar cloud would be electrical. This makes sense. The dust and gas would be ionized by the interstellar medium, and electrical interactions would predominate until planetisemals became substantial enough to perturb and attract one another gravitationally. The most important point about the paper is that he at no point substitutes electromagnetism for gravity. He clearly seeks to delineate which forces are responsible for each aspect of planetary formation. He not only does not claim that gravity does not exist, he relies on the "Newtonian Field" to explain just the sort of things we have known it does for over 300 years.

To relate this to the OP: No, finding a new way to measure "cold plasma" in space in no way challenges the framework of relativity.

That's an interesting theory... what if cosmic rays interact with matter when they hit imparting it with an electrical effect creating gravity? Add that to a rotating mass and this could explain how gravity is created.

Dr. Judy Wood talks about somekind of interferometry effect being used in 9-11.... as does Hutchison with his experiments.

Intererometry to my knowledge is at least two interacting "forces". I thought this might be the key to Leedskalnin's work at Coral Castles as with the makers of the Giza Pyramids..

In the Giza pyramids someone theorized that there was a pulse generator being created with water creating a vortex at the base of the pyramid... the Queen's chamber also produced somehting combining different chemicals there.. and the upper portion in the King's chamber had somekind of vents that were tuned to a microwave.. could these be interferometry elements?

This documentary has been quite frequently discussed here on ATS. Seems that it may enjoy a revival in light of these recent observations which so strongly validate it's hypothesis.



More threads here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by treesdancing
This documentary has been quite frequently discussed here on ATS. Seems that it may enjoy a revival in light of these recent observations which so strongly validate it's hypothesis.

What recent observations validate this hypothesis? Where is the data?

As pointed out already, the observations mentioned in the OP do nothing to validate this theory. Where is the data to support the contentions in the OP relative to gravity when the article cited in the OP doesn't even mention gravity?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by treesdancing
This documentary has been quite frequently discussed here on ATS. Seems that it may enjoy a revival in light of these recent observations which so strongly validate it's hypothesis.

What recent observations validate this hypothesis? Where is the data?

As pointed out already, the observations mentioned in the OP do nothing to validate this theory. Where is the data to support the contentions in the OP relative to gravity when the article cited in the OP doesn't even mention gravity?

there's no need for "data to support the contentions in the OP relative to gravity" because this is a discussion. not a scientific validation.

there's no harm in presenting a video for consideration in the context of the thread.

no need for policing thought. all information is fair game for intelligent discussion.

Originally posted by remembering
So is what this article is saying is that Leedskalnin was correct all the time??? That what appears as gravity is caused by magnetism (even elector magnetism) and that an independent force called gravity does not really exist.

Uh, let's start with the obvious question.

Protons and electrons have opposite electromagnetic charges, +1 and -1. Their coupling to the E&M field, both as feeling force and in causing E&M waves is directly proportional to their charge.

Why is it then that, as mass, a proton and electron have inertial and gravitational charges of the same sign, but a proton is a couple thousand times bigger, and not any even integer multiple thereof? Why does gravity apparently couple to everything (including zero mass photons), unlike other forces, where say an uncharged point particle (neutrinos, Z0) has no electromagnetic interaction.

From the get-go, gravity and electromagnetism look pretty different, other than their long range nature.

If they can be unified, the details must be very nontrivial and you have to explain the apparent symmetry breaking on the energy scales of our normal life to make them act so differently.

That's an interesting theory... what if cosmic rays interact with matter when they hit imparting it with an electrical effect creating gravity? Add that to a rotating mass and this could explain how gravity is created.

If that were true then the universe would look totally different, as gravity would depend on local details of cosmic ray interactions, and could be replicated in a particle accelerator. But it doesn't. The effect of gravity as we understand and measure it on earth can explain how stars look and act of wildly different sizes, and up to galaxies as well.

Remember, physical theories have to explain the wide variety of experimental observations. The standard ones do the best we can at the moment. If you have a new theory you have to see how well it explains other existing accepted observations, including boring ones made hundreds of years ago.

Originally posted by TWISTEDWORDS
reply to post by -PLB-

 

. This is why no scientist has ever been able to prove gravity exists.

Except maybe this obscure guy called Isaac Newton.

.....

This is also why they have discovered that pure helium and hydrogen escapes the atmosphere and they can't explain it. That's simple to explain too. The earth's atmosphere has holes in it where the helium and hydrogen escape because they are lighter than the volume around it and therefore go into space

Stop, you lost me with lighter. if there's no gravity, then how can anything be lighter or heaver than the other?


More seriously, science knows perfectly well why helium and hydrogen can get lost, it's because they aren't at 0 degrees Kelvin, the molecules have kinetic energy and a probability distribution of velocities which can be computed and experimentally measured. And thus some have sufficient to overcome Earth's well-established gravity and become dynamically unbound.

Haven't there been some announcements recently that E=mc^2 only holds at certain scales, and that there is a link between very large gravitational fields and the weak nuclear force ?

You know if " gravity " =0 in the center of all classical Newtonian objects, we don't quite have a grasp on the mechanics.

What about the fact that the pyramids are homeomorphically mapped to certain constellations, and homeomorphic mapping is how to smoothly preserve functions between two different topological domains ?

en.wikipedia.org...

We do have a pretty good idea the universe is shaped like a doughnut

en.wikipedia.org...

And we know Grigori Perelman

en.wikipedia.org...

found that by applying Ricci flow on the topology of toroids, through his proof of the Poincarre conjecture, that singularities can occur.

en.wikipedia.org...

" Every simply connected, closed 3-manifold is homeomorphic to the 3-sphere. "

Of course,...Perelman turned down the million dollars for solving the prize, as well as the Fields medal.

And he stepped away from math to avoid solving the problem of smoothness in 3 dimensions ( The Navier-Stokes equations ) which is PROOF of existence.

en.wikipedia.org...

" I've learned how to calculate the voids; along with my colleagues we are getting to know the mechanisms for filling in the social and economic "voids". Voids are everywhere. They can be calculated, and this gives us great opportunities ... I know how to control the Universe. So tell me — why should I chase a million? "

~ G. Perelman.

That's why the universe is holographically projected from the " edge ", and why during certain cosmological alignments happening, there is a direct line of force allowed to propagate through overlapping gravitational fields on large scales.

" Holographic universe " and all.

What insight could Grigori have possible had involving magneto-ionic flux tube couplings with magnetotelluric currents and Ley lines being homeomorphically mapped to anisotropies at the " edge " of the universe during certain times ?

...that's my random thoughts, don't know if it contributes much though

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by treesdancing
This documentary has been quite frequently discussed here on ATS. Seems that it may enjoy a revival in light of these recent observations which so strongly validate it's hypothesis.

What recent observations validate this hypothesis? Where is the data?

As pointed out already, the observations mentioned in the OP do nothing to validate this theory. Where is the data to support the contentions in the OP relative to gravity when the article cited in the OP doesn't even mention gravity?

Perhaps I should have used the word "support" rather than "validate". Apologies for my poor choice.

Genuine scientific discovery is a process of observation, hypothesis and validation through further quantatitive observation and measurement, which in turn supports or invalidates the hypothesis. Observations of the cosmos have never been adequately supported by the gravitational hypothesis, hence the introduction of ideas such as dark matter to account for observations which cannot be accounted for by gravity alone. As our technology improves, so we are to observe, quantify and identify energy which was previously categorized as "dark".

I expect that new observations coming from recent tech such as that on board the solar dynamics observatory and other space-based instruments are going to challenge the consensus scientific views about the nature of the universe. Any "consensus" science is, of course, no longer really science because the essential quality of iterative discovery has been stunted by religious belief. Any belief that a standing scientific view is beyond challenge is the antithesis of true science, and naive.

Im kinda sad that this thread has more of a gravity theme going on, but then I can see how its all related.

National Geographic has an article on this as the OP's

Similar to the way cold plasma is created, sunlight strips electrons from spacecraft materials, making their hulls positively charged. Like two matching magnetic poles, a spacecraft would simply repulse any cold plasma around it.

I'm looking forward to more data about +/- charged bodies in space and how it relates to space travel, weather, comets and the like!