a drop of water orbiting a nitting needle in space

Originally posted by moebius
The idea to use electric charge to explain gravity is just broken. While the equations, effects look the same there is one very important difference between them. There are two electric charges but only one gravitational(mass).

Lets say we wanted to argument that things are attracted to earth surface due to a charge difference. Assume the earth had an overall positive charge. The sun attracts the positive charged earth, thus must be negative. But what about the charge of the moon? It is attracted by earth and sun!

I think you get the idea,.

I don't think gravity is simply charge but an effect related to charge. The idea is no more broken than saying light is not an electromagnetic wave because I can't light a room with an electromagnet. Look at this experiment in ZERO-G.
There are no forces present to cause this behavior other than electrostatic. Fill me in, I'm just looking for the truth.

reply to post by cplouffe

That is not that way I understand the Electric model to work. At least what I have been studying. Maybe we can start by not looking at them as monopoles and let's say that everything has dual charge. Depending where you are in the wave field. (talking out loud)

Care to explain how it works? Just curious. I don't see how it could, but never cared to look into.

The pole concept usually used in magnetism not for charges, although you could call the electron a negative pole, proton positive.

If you have two charges you will get attraction and repulsion. See my example above. Gravity is strictly attractive.

What wave field?

reply to post by DenyObfuscation

I don't think gravity is simply charge but an effect related to charge. The idea is no more broken than saying light is not an electromagnetic wave because I can't light a room with an electromagnet. Look at this experiment in ZERO-G.
There are no forces present to cause this behavior other than electrostatic. Fill me in, I'm just looking for the truth.

But what effect? Why is having gravity(mass) next to electric charges bad?

Listen to the comments. The effect seen here is due to a charge difference(electrostatic). Btw the single drops will repulse each other while being attracted by the needle.

You can light a room with an electromagnet, just get the frequency into visible range. I don't see how this is related to my example.

reply to post by moebius


I have to run but will come back to add more. Gravity has different attributes and is more of a pushing force. Inward reaction. Positive aspect of the centripital vortices.

reply to post by moebius

Why is having gravity(mass) next to electric charges bad?

Who said it's "bad", and who said it's "next to"? It wasn't me.

The effect seen here is due to a charge difference(electrostatic).

Agreed, never said otherwise.

You can light a room with an electromagnet, just get the frequency into visible range. I don't see how this is related to my example.

Simple analogy. If you didn't know about frequency one could simply turn on an EM and say see that proves it. Similarly, with all that we don't know, can't dismiss the electric connection to gravity. That is demonstrated clearly in the vid. In Zero-G the charge potential difference causes gravitational behavior. Is there another cause that i'm missing? My point is simply that the truth is in THAT direction.

Originally posted by SoulVisions

Originally posted by Aim64C
I would expect electromagnetism to be a more powerful macroscopic influence on diffuse material (nebulae, gas, and dust clouds) than solid bodies (planetoids).

totally. But when you work up to movin' round the "big boy" stuff in the universe, like the planets you mention, elec-mag. is suddenly a weaker force than gravity! go figure. like a turtle taking slow, but deliberate steps, and carries the weight on his shell. Other forces of attraction could be said then act like a little mouse trying to pull that same weight around. Oh, his legs will be goin' a lot faster alright, but the speed of progress of the load (same as what turtle is carrying) is slower. less progress towards the goal line even with the the "more effective/faster" force.

Almost like each level in the hierarchy of matter has it's own set of rules. Even einstein realized what happens here later on.. although he didn't want t comment on it. Made a couple tiny things he said seem to not apply.

Maybe our planets and stars, and black holes are just like nuetrons, protons, and electrons and all that mish-mash of thing involved with that theory...

anyways.. man, i am so tired. my brain is not too quick right now. need to spend some time with my buddy, mr. sandman...

Goodnight, everyone~

edit on 7-2-2012 by SoulVisions because: (no reason given)

Right, I can blow up a balloon, rub it on my head, and it will stick to the ceiling, or wall, or my face or hand even with a bit of shaking motion, but that doesn't work if it is a water balloon.

Originally posted by Aliensun
Can this be a supporting argument for the theory of "The Electric Universe?" that we have been hearing about for the last few years.

Supercharged celestial objects that CAN carry in their energy fields other celestial objects. (friction from the paper or friction from the celestials traveling thru deep space comming incontact with cosmic charged particals from within deep space)

Originally posted by XPLodER

this is a very simple way of explainig how asteroids can have satalites,

Nice presentation OP

Thanks

Is it relevant to speculate or argue whether gravity is a "force" or what the underlying "force" here is?
Does it really matter?

If it only matters what force is ACTING on the mass (droplet), regardless whether caused by gravity or charge difference - isn't the final result the same?

Or asked differently, let's assume the droplet is a planet and the needle would have a gravity "force"/effect/field....would the droplet move IN THE SAME away as it does here?

reply to post by DenyObfuscation

Simple analogy. If you didn't know about frequency one could simply turn on an EM and say see that proves it. Similarly, with all that we don't know, can't dismiss the electric connection to gravity. That is demonstrated clearly in the vid. In Zero-G the charge potential difference causes gravitational behavior. Is there another cause that i'm missing? My point is simply that the truth is in THAT direction.

But this video is in no way demonstrating that gravity is connected to electricity. They follow the same force distance law. But this law can be derived given a point source and a three dimensional space(is not special to electricity/gravity).

reply to post by flexy123

Or asked differently, let's assume the droplet is a planet and the needle would have a gravity "force"/effect/field....would the droplet move IN THE SAME away as it does here?

Only if you look at a single droplet. With gravity droplets would attract each other, with electricity they repel.

Originally posted by moebius
reply to post by DenyObfuscation

 

But this video is in no way demonstrating that gravity is connected to electricity. They follow the same force distance law. But this law can be derived given a point source and a three dimensional space(is not special to electricity/gravity).

Originally posted by moebius
reply to post by DenyObfuscation

 

Simple analogy. If you didn't know about frequency one could simply turn on an EM and say see that proves it. Similarly, with all that we don't know, can't dismiss the electric connection to gravity. That is demonstrated clearly in the vid. In Zero-G the charge potential difference causes gravitational behavior. Is there another cause that i'm missing? My point is simply that the truth is in THAT direction.

But this video is in no way demonstrating that gravity is connected to electricity. They follow the same force distance law. But this law can be derived given a point source and a three dimensional space(is not special to electricity/gravity).

moebius,

E=MC2

just saying...

(Energy == Mass == Gravity...)

No one really understands gravity, as is evidenced by the scientific inability to explain why a magnet will stick to a freezer instead of obeying the seemingly inexorably pull of Earth's gravitational field without obvious propulsion.

But this implies that perhaps magnetics is an influential factor in gravitational influence...which is interesting, considering it's the magnets on the fridge that keep throwing us off.

Excellent find.

It isn't zero-G, it's free fall. And that points out a major difference between electrostatic forces and gravity. No matter where you go you cannot escape the force of gravity. You can fight it or go with it.

The behavior of the water droplets is actually quite different from what would be displayed in a gravitational field. You would not see the longitudinal spiral effect. That is a result of the water droplets following sprialling field lines. There is no such effect with gravitation.

Originally posted by Phage
It isn't zero-G, it's free fall. And that points out a major difference between electrostatic forces and gravity. No matter where you go you cannot escape the force of gravity. You can fight it or go with it.

The behavior of the water droplets is actually quite different from what would be displayed in a gravitational field. You would not see the longitudinal spiral effect. That is a result of the water droplets following sprialling field lines. There is no such effect with gravitation.

edit on 2/7/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

So what's the relation between the evident gravitational field and the magnet preparation?

They made a point of manipulating the polarization, which means it was as important point in the experiment/demonstration.

reply to post by Starchild23

What magnet? Did I miss something?

This is cool. I am no scientist - by any means - but it seems to me that all objects have a natural attractiveness to other objects... kind of like they were all part of the same thing at one point and are instinctively trying to be pieced back together again. I also think the force that causes this is not something we can understand until we can open understanding into other dimensions and thought/frequency/unity parameters.

OK....Enough of that. What I want to know is how did this person create a non-gravity experiment? Was it done in space?

I wonder what kind of engine could be made of this experiment!

reply to post by Phage


Did you not see him polarize it with paper?

Listen closely to the video. The magnets were just my example of how magnetics could be a factor in gravity. See, if magnetics were not important in the video, he would not have rubbed the needle with paper...which is a common way to build up minimal charge.

reply to post by XPLodER


Thanks for posting this thread, this further proves how myself and others have been saying for years that our spinning around the stars is due to magnetism and not the so called non-existent gravity. It's real simple electrons flow to protons....nothing more, nothing less.

Originally posted by TWISTEDWORDS
reply to post by XPLodER

 

Thanks for posting this thread, this further proves how myself and others have been saying for years that our spinning around the stars is due to magnetism and not the so called non-existent gravity. It's real simple electrons flow to protons....nothing more, nothing less.

So it's a simple matter of polarity?