Possibility of Pushing Against Graventation Pull?

I have plans to do just that, if you would like them, please send $599.00 to.....

Answer is no, it is not possible. (At least with current technology)

I do agree with you. I think if it is/was possible S. Hawkins would have done it earlier.

Magnetism and gravity are not the force.

Gravity attracts everything, magnetism only attracts certain materials, mostly metals, but not all metals, just the magnettable ones.

I do not agree, yet.

From what I have learned all materials are either diamagnetic or paramagnetic.

All things are either attrached or repulsed by a magnetic field, its just the ammount is so small it is generally ignored.

Gravity is only a pull? So they coin the term "Dark energy" when it seems gravity can also be a push. (I actually believe in light energy but perhaps this is off topic?)

I'm not sure I believe in gravity at all, perhaps its all magnetism?

All atoms are comprised of positive and negative charges. Imagine a bag full of magnets. Shake the bag and you will find despite the magnets having a net charge of zero the magnets begin to align and attract or repel each other. Now take the same bag and set it near an extremely powerful magnet and I bet you would find many if not all the magnets would align to it. Very similar to Iron ferite in lava flows or pottery aligns. All atoms are either charged or have a net charge of zero but are still comprised of little +/-'s. It must be possible these can align if given the right incentive.

I look at the solar system in this same way. If gravity was only a pull the planets would eventually colapse into the sun.

Consider the planets have north and south poles, they are huge magnets.

Because the north poles align with other north poles they actually repell each other, same goes for the south poles. This way the planets stay spaced out as they are, all the while also being attrached to the sun and repelled by "Light energy".

So the issue becomes moving around within a magnetic field(Us on Earth) as apposed to being moved by a magnetic field(The planets in the solar system).

Experiments which can achieve precise movement within a magnetic field should be able to be reproduced to travel within the Earths magnetic field. Now we could be talking about natutrally occuring monopole magnets, or perhaps we could create electro-monopole magnets to the same effect?

As we see in the North, charged particles from the sun can travel along the skin of the magetic field, The depictions of the magetic field make it appear as layers. I feel if we could define a layer closer to the Earths surface we should also be able to send charged particles along it. This would lead the way for charged vehicles which would behave the same way.

Even the way Ionic lifters operate, the theory is ionic wind creates thrust, but perhaps its is the effect of counter acting the force commonly referred to as gravity?

I am very interested in this topic, and if I am way off base please lets discuss it further. I have been thinking about this for years and it would be nice to debunk something as common place as gravity. No gravity, no dark energy, just magets and the momentum of particles ruling the universe. Maybe this is why Einstien could not unify the forces?

Cheers all!

Based on the responses of the OP, I'll refrain from further discussion on this topic.

I wonder, too if the OP is any closer to understanding the fundamentals of gravity and magnetism after all these words have been digested. Especially those of our newest member.

Dear Lyn,

My thoughts exactly.

Like trying to take a sip from a broken hydrant

I'd consult George Jetson on that one

that groaning sound you just heard was Einstein rolling over in his grave

When considering speeds far below the speed of light in a vacuum and masses up to the order of small planets, Einstein would have sanctioned approximations using Newtonian Gravity.

Any difference would be miniscule.

Moreover, the statements noted are problematic whether you are viewing from a relativistic or Newtonian vantage.

Yes, and he was groaning "Nein! Nein! Nein! Gravity ist keine Kraft überhaupt, Nitwits Sie! Es ist die Krümmung der Raumzeit. Es scheint nur wie eine Kraft, wenn etwas stoppt Ihre Bewegung entlang Ihrer geodätischen. Versuchen Sie die Messung der Schwerkraft, wenn Sie im freien Fall sind. Kraft? Ha!"

All models are wrong. Some are useful.

(Even some occasionally employed by Nitwits. I do find it difficult to believe Einstein would fall victim to a logical fallacy so base as an ad hominem attack.)

"I do find it difficult to believe Einstein would fall victim to a logical fallacy so base as an ad hominem attack."

Well, he is dead, after all.

well,, for now...

there is a lot to do before the release of

FrankEinstein !!!!

.

mhuuhahahah mmuuhhhahahah!

I'm sorry I offended you. I am just an average Texas hillbilly, a redneck, an I'm sure, other things you might consider me. I have always had an idea that there is a way to reduce the amount of fuel needed to lift an object in or out of the earths atmosphere by light or anti-magnetic means. Appartantly I am smarter than some who answered my question. With my backwoods education I am the one who rated the above answers. Yours seems to have the most logitc so far, however I will not rate it.

You haven't offended me.

.

Continue to rate as you see fit.

.

I also don't consider intelligence to be well correlated with things like growing up in the city vs in a rural area. I also don't find intelligence particularly well correlated with the amount of traditional education a person has.

.

So, self deprecating comments to the effect of being a redneck with a backwoods education really are misplaced, as I don't see those descriptions as deprecating.

.

On the other hand, where ever you and your educations came about, claims need to be supported.

Additionally if you are interested in a subject, there is no excuse with today's access to information that you should not teach yourself the fundamentals. It will allow you not only to better understand the possibilities and limitations, but it will allow you to efficiently think about such systems and communicate your thoughts to others.

OK,

1. iT WAS JUST A THOUGHT. Is it possible to travel in or out of the atmosphere with the use of high intensive light?

2. I appolize for the use of unreated descriptions. What is "deprecatiing?"

3. What is taught in books apparantly will not work, or this type of travel would already in in use. We need to think outside the box. What about EMP? Everything I have read lately on WND and Power for Patriots, are prodicting the possibilty of and attact on our electrical grid using a low altude nuke lar expolseion. Why couldn't a controled EMP be used as lifting up and forward an reverse motion?

1. 'Use of propulsion to reach LEO'? Not currently, but research on this type of tech in ongoing.

2. 'Self-deprecation' is the act of belittling oneself. It most often is used to describe a type of humor where a person makes fun of their self. Some people resort to self-deprecation in socially stressful situation, probably to insure they are not seen as a threat and possibly as an attempt to garner sympathy.

3. Contrary to popular myth, successful 'outside the box' innovation does not fly in the face of conventional understanding. There are of course new discoveries and modifications of understanding. Even in those cases, you need to know what the current thinking is in order to establish some portion of it as flawed. Willfully ignoring developments and understanding attained thus far is not a path to innovation.

Answers to your questions about EMPs won't be useful/comprehensible until you understand enough about the subject...at which time you could answer the question yourself.

I do tend to agree with him on the one point that if it was in a book it would be in use already.

I dont think you can find innovation in a book. What I do know is science likes to guess, they like to come up with stuff no one can prove so no one can disprove it. Like string theory or what-not.

I know that science because of their preconcieved notions likes to get too complicated with common forces, like when gravity also acts as a push they call it "Dark..." this is because they are so convinced that Gravity is a pull that there must be no way it can be a push, must be something else no one can ever prove right?

Einstein described the push of gravity as the "Cosmological constant". Basically saying that gravity does indeed have at least two components, one a push, one a pull. Seem fairly familiar to me, when have we seen this before??? Oh yeah on my refridgerator.

Could it be, is it possible that one of the things holding us back is something we think we know but is not correct? Or if science is always right, is the Earth still flat?

My point being it may require another grade one drop out to make the next big leap. Someone not constrained by the "laws of physics" or "Scientific law" which are really just things which have not been disproven yet.

Anything you can make sound good and can not disprove becomes scientific law, until someones does disprove it that is.

Or is light still a particle? Perhaps its a wave and a particle? Perhaps it was never a particle, it was always a wave, but that old way of thinking has not yet been abandoned. When we see something we think particle, when we see the effect of something we think wave. Gravity is in this stage IMO, the graviton? Perhaps some ever lasting wave of force which always goes one direction and requires the opposite effect be abandoned to the realm of the unknown and "Dark"? Why cant it be much simpler? Why can it not be something we see everyday on a much larger scale and so appears to be something different?

Just like Quantum mechanics seems like a whole new set of rules when really we had the rules wrong for the larger scale.

Think of non-newtonian fluids. Corn Starch and water for example. Are they non-newtonian? Or is it a case of mistaken identity? To see the chains interact directly we would say that is the expected result, but on the scale we interpret we see a liquid that behaves oddly. We see liquid and think round little particles rolling past each other, this is wrong. It is simply the scale of our reality which makes things appear to behave oddly when really if we could see the true scale it would be just what we expected.

Cheers.

I have thought about magnetism for many years. All energy seems to be a push and not a pull. the only exceptions seems to be the attraction of magnets and gravitation.

Why are they the exception?

Maybe they are not?

Consider centripetal force compared to centrifugal force.

I like to think all forces have both components. If this were not the case a propulsion system could be created using the same principle as gravity where you just go forward but nothing exits out behind you to create that force. This destroys some very basic laws of physics which I am all for, but where does it leave us if nothing we currently believe is true? Lets just debunk gravity first then move on to the others ok? LOL.

If we think we see something moving one direction, there is probably something moving in the other direction we do not notice.

Equal and opposite and all that right.

So you notice the heavies being propelled from the center of rotation and I see the lights being propelled toward this same rotational center.

Science sees an apple fall from a tree and say Gravity is a pull, but I see the oxygen rushing up past the apple and say a pull can also push.

Maybe if we look more closely at magnets it will become obvious. The lines of flux may very well be electrons locked into a local cycle, the losses are so low the magnetic circuit stays perpetual for thousands of years, science sees this and says well they must not be electrons, they must be some other stationary particles that somehow create force. To me this does not wash.

Now with this understanding of this theoretical circuit we could easily see how while these electrons are moving around the orbit of the magnet the force applied to other objects is a result of interaction with these moving particle/waves.

Depending on many factors such as angle and charge of the unknown object we could come up with many explanations of why these movements occur.

Even light could be explained more easily if considered to be an electron at a different energy level. This would make a lot of sense to explain the photoelectric effect.

If we can bust everything down to being an electron it just leaves one or two questions......... What is an electron? What is charge?

Science does not guess. Science is much more brutal than pure guess work. You obviously do not understand the over simplified scientific method taught to children.

Not really.

It seems more like come up with an explanation and see if anyone can disprove it.

What proof of Dark this or that do we have? What experiments prove these unknown things to be real?

Could it not be true that they are something else, but the explanation will do for now?

What is an electron? What is light? What is charge? What is magnetic flux?

I am one who believes what I see and consider the rest possible, not proven.

Experiments can be set up to prove what the experimenter was hoping to prove. But other explanations will be found later that actually prove, not simply loom in the "Dark" Funny aint it?

Re-read what you have written.

.

Did you notice that you are attempting to use your understanding of historical explanations of physical phenomena....as support for your argument that established scientific law has no value beyond being something that hasn't yet been disproved?

.

General relativity and the behavior of non-Newtonian fluids are things you have been told about....you probably have some hands on experience with non-Newtonian fluids, but if you refuse to invest the work needed to becoming proficient accessing and making use of the vast established knowledge base, you have about as much chance of making the next paradigm changing breakthrough, as Koko the gorilla.

.

Einstein, Tesla, Newton, Franklin, Turing, the Bernoulli bros..... or pretty much any other incredibly influential thinker you may have been taught about, did not achieve their creativity by shielding themselves from the existing knowledge base or the established doctrine.

.

You need to put in the hours required to learn what has been established, before you can set about breaking the rules...You can't break the rules if you don't really know what the rules say.

.

Take Einstein's 'cosmological constant': Your understanding of this comes from someone's interpretation of this, correct? And their interpretation might not even be correct, but if you are unfamiliar with things like partial differential equations, tensors, and non-euclidean geometry....you don't have much choice except to find some other interpretation to put faith in.

This might be a more practical example that you first suspect. Even before becoming proficient in higher math, you can learn that Einstein considered his 'cosmological constant' to be the biggest blunder of his life. It is not an established principle, but instead a historical reminder, that even the most brilliant among us are occasionally completely wrong.

dark matter exists...of course it's open to further explanation but you can't deny the gravitational evidence of it's presence which has been proven repeatedly by telescopic observations of it's influence on nearby bodies...but believe what makes you comfortable

Dark matter obviously exist. You and I do not glow. (I've been know to glow a little with some good bourbon but that's different.) We're a very very tiny part of the dark matter needed to agree with astronomic observations.

Fredski,

My response was to Philliblunz, not to your comment.

.

I also made no statements calling into question dark matter.....

.

...but I do think you are overstating its certainty.

Dark matter is proposed solution to a problem.

We do not have any of it.

We have no direct evidence of it.

We haven't even ever encountered the type of subatomic particle of which it is most commonly thought to be comprised.

.

So while technically you are correct, that Dark Matter does exist, (since it is at least an idea we are discussing), inferring certainty for the physical existence of Dark Matter is disingenuous.

.

.

What I am saying is that I am taking your advice, and refusing to assume certainty for the existence of dark matter: because you told me to believe what makes me comfortable, and I am uncomfortable with inconsistency and support by way of hand-waving

Dark matter clearly does exist. We have directly detected a very small percentage that probably exists. In the MACHO realm a small number of wandering black holes have been found from gravitational lensing. In the WIMP category there are the enormous volumes of neutrinos we can barely detect coming from our Sun, let alone the neutrinos from all the much more extreme other nuclear reactions happening in our universe. There is no uncertainty that dark matter exists. The uncertainty is the type and quantity of dark matter that exists.

Semantics.

When most people read (an otherwise unqualified) 'dark matter', it is understood to mean the hypothetical mass necessary to bridge the gap between what has been observed and what is predicted to exist by the current standard model.

.

Some of what you have brought into the discussion does qualify technically as dark matter, if we were using a definition of dark matter that was unrelated to attempts to explain the disparity between observations and predictions, but instead merely meant particles with mass that are weakly interacting.

.

Some of the other things you mention don't fit that definition and are better described as (insufficient) attempts to explain the phenomena that necessitates dark matter.

Most people are not going to accept this definition to include some unaccounted for mass on the back side of the moon, even though it hasn't been observed.

In the same way, solitary planets, brown dwarfs and black holes don't qualify as 'dark matter' in my book. Nothing on the roadside at night is transformed into dark matter, even on a really dark night, merely because my headlights are no longer shining that way.

.

So while neutrinos are a possible candidate for dark matter, and could be misconstrued as technically being 'dark matter' (as could my preference for a particular piece of fried chicken), neutrinos are not known with a certainty to be the stuff of which dark matter is comprised. And that was my point. You were stating as a certainty something that has not been accepted as conclusively demonstrated.

Another thing that neutrinos are not: WIMPs.

This is my point right here, thanks for making it while trying to dispute it.

Science see's an effect, like an apple falling so they do an experiment and say

"What would happen if an apple disconnected from a tree?"

The theory would be, "If gravity exists the apple will fall"

They do an experiment and sure enough the apple falls, so does this mean gravity exists?

It is inferential at best. I could say I think it will fall due to spaghetti monsters, and when it falls this must confirm the spaghetti monsters right?

We see planets accelerating away from each other and say this force must be dark energy. When in reality it could be anything else.

I do not deny some science is actually proven, tested, confirmed as being nothing else. This is not how much of currently known science is done though.

The back and forth between some other members here also state my point while trying to defeat it.

I have heard by the people who worked on the theory that string theory is the perfect theory because no one will ever be able to prove it wrong. This is becoming a much too familiar trend.

Someone told you dark energy must be and you believe it blindly, I offer an alternative which fits just as well or better as it is commonly known.

Have you seen stars forming? See how they all push on each other? You say solar wind and it has a finite reach, I say perhaps not. Perhaps the force that starts them moving is more pronounced but over a billion or several billion years the force of the collision of photons would likely be more then enough to keep the systems accerating away from each other. This is what I think of as light energy and it could cause the same effects as the supposed dark energy.

If not tell me why.

Einstein figured a photon could smash into an electron and knock it off the atom.

This seems like a physical interaction to me. Why could the force required to dislocate an electron not over enough time and surface area move an entire solar system? A galaxy? Maybe the boundaries of the universe?

This explains expansion, eternal inflation, etc.

Einstein thought he was wrong about the cosmological constant(A gravitational force), in recent years they think he is right and is describing dark energy(Some magic mystery force). I suggest it could be something else more familiar maybe light energy? maybe magnetism, maybe it is the spaghetti monster. I'm open till we have a real answer.

This just goes to show even the greatest minds can think they are wrong when they are right and vice versa.

So I also respect your right to believe what anyone tells you, accept it as truth and be happy.

Just know when we see an effect there is always more then one explanation which fits the case. Thats all I wanted to say, and I did not mean to offend anyone who chooses to defend what they have been told or read.

Your ignorance is only matched by your ability to generate gibberish.

I have to agree with you on that point.

Have you not heard of dark energy?

Thats ok, I take your insult as a compliment.

Its always a sure sign who lost an argument as they resort to name calling and spammy trolling comments.

You can not dispute my comments and so resort to childish taunts, thank you.

Truth has made my point several times arguing with you hear, but perhaps it is terminology that is hanging us up?

Lets go back to the cosmological constant. It was added to a theory in an attempt to make sense of an effect which was observed.

Then when someone else came up with a new explanation, it was no longer needed and so Einstein considered it a blunder. Many years later it is now being considered one of his greatest insights.

This is one of the examples of what I am trying to say.

Rather then proof, it is more important in science to be able to explain something somehow, even if you have to make up something brand new to explain it.

They feel the need to make up something brand new because they cant see, or dont want to admit it could be something more common because this could lead to the idea that something they have accepted as truth for so long could be less then 100% accurate.

Can you say for certain beyond a shadow of any doubt that dark energy is pushing solar systems and galaxies apart? There is no possible way this observation could be from anything else? Even though we do not know what dark energy is?

I dont like to deal in absolutes, I look at things as logically as I can.

I dont say "This is a fact and it ensures this next fact"

I say "If this is a fact, then this could be the next fact"

We must use the discoveries of the past to move forward of course, but never accept what you are told before considering logic. Consider the discoveries of the past like raw materials for your own work, not finished products.

What will you ever achieve if you believe everything we think we know today is true?

Its obvious you dont care to continue this conversation like an adult so I say good day to you.

I am a little dissapointed in this forum. I would expect attacks and name calling in a gaming forum but I expected more from supposed engineers. You need to know its ok to say "I dont know" It is a wise man who realises how little he knows, but you guys got it all figured out right? What does that make you?

Cheers to the rest of you, and I will happily continue this conversation if you have a general interest and can control yourselves, LOL.

Truth I look at your comments and see exactly what I am trying to say, but using different words. You seem to understand my point exactly but jump on the attack wagon too? That sucks cause I think you agree with me, and I with you, but perhaps my poor wording makes it seem like I am saying something different. You seem open minded and your post about observed effects vs proven science mirrors exactly what I hope to get across in my posts.

If you could point out one statement you absolutely disagree with and why I will attempt to expand my thoughts/point of view on the issue.

It would probably have been more polite if I hadn't so eagerly posted my agreement with RedFred's post #69. What is true is that I find (as it seems a few others do as well) your comments to be frustrating in large part because it is apparent you feel very strongly about what you are saying, but don't have a good understanding of the subjects about which you are commenting.

.

.

You might agree with some of the things I have written, but what I have written is very different from the claims you have made. Words are important.

.

You requested I point out some specific points of disagreement. Here are a few of your statements with which I disagree and an explanation as to why:

.

.

-What I do know is science likes to guess, they like to come up with stuff no one can prove so no one can disprove it. Like string theory or what-not.

.

The problem here is that one necessities of a useful scientific hypothesis is that is must be 'falsifiable'. That is to say, one of the first things considered when proposing a hypothesis, designing an experiment to test said hypothesis, or reviewing research...is whether or not the theory can be tested in a way that could disprove it.

.

.

I know that science because of their preconcieved notions likes to get too complicated with common forces, like when gravity also acts as a push they call it "Dark..."

.

This also is something I disagree with. You are suggesting that dark matter is proposed as something that has a repelling force. In fact dark matter is proposed as something that has mass that has the same gravitational properties as other matter, yet doesn't interact the same with other fundamental forces. Dark energy is proposed to have a repelling force...but saying when something 'acts as a push they call it ''Dark''' betrays a fundamental misunderstanding.

.

.

Einstein described the push of gravity as the "Cosmological constant". Basically saying that gravity does indeed have at least two components, one a push, one a pull.

.

I disagree with your assessment of the Cosmological Constant. Einstein introduced the cosmological constant in order to bring his equations into agreement with what he believed to be the true: that the universe was stationary, neither expanding nor contracting. Moreover, the constant does not relate to a 'push component of gravity' but instead an inherent energy in the vacuum.

.

.

My point being it may require another grade one drop out to make the next big leap. Someone not constrained by the "laws of physics" or "Scientific law" which are really just things which have not been disproven yet.

.

You seem to be implying that Einstein was a 'grade one drop out'. He as not. He also did not fail 8th grade math, as the popular myth suggests.

.

Anything you can make sound good and can not disprove becomes scientific law, until someones does disprove it that is.

.

I disagree with this. Far more is required to establish something as a scientific law.

.

.

I hope that satiates you desire for me to provide specific examples... I basically just copy/pasted a section from one of your comments, and then just removed the parts that would have taken too long to explain the ways in which I disagree, and provided answers for the rest.....

...it wasn't a very long section of your comments, but look at all the disagreement.

.

.

Please take a moment to notice the difference in my previous comments and yours. I am criticizing the certainty with which a member here (who has a history of making excellent comments) proclaimed the reality of dark matter. You impugn all scientific endeavor. Can you understand how those are very different things?

I'll reply from the bottom up.

I dont mean to state that all science is a sham. I do not "impugn all scientific endeavor". Just some of it, imagine the old world, remember the flat one? That turned out to not be true, yet the minds of that time confirmed with what-ever methods they had it was flat. There methods were wrong.

Some current methods may also be wrong. This is possible. Like you I "Criticize the certainty" of many things. Like dark energy, gravity, the resting mass of a photon, the existence of mass/matter, the effect of two photons or electrons smashing into one another, or the effect on the photon emitter from emitting photons. Like a lazer propulsion system, it would take a long time to get up to speed but would continue to accerate forever and never actually reach the speed of light. This is my proposed solution to the need for "Dark energy" to exist. If light energy exists why do we need dark energy?

Perhaps "scientific law" was too strong a statement, how about popular scientific belief? Notice I have been using that since I first posted the "Law" bit as some of you are actually reading this now so I am trying to be more careful with my words.

I didnt say Einstein was a grade one drop out, My point was it is easier to fill a cup with oil, if it is not already filled with water. It will take a visionary, not constrained with the belief that his/her work must fit in the mold believed to be true by someone else. As I believe you never truely know something unless you experience it yourself. Even then you can be wrong, as experiences are subject to interpretation. But time limits us to what we can experience in this life, as such previous works should be seen as the raw materials for your own endeavours, some may suit, some may not. The truths of today are not guaranteed truths of tomorrow.

I dont know much about the cosmological constant past the fact that it was created simply to balance a theorical scale. When the theoretical scale changed it was deemed "A blunder" Over the years the theoretical scale has once again changed and this constant is now considered dark energy. Even the greatest minds force things into being to suit their explanations. (This is related to my statement about science liking to guess, if it was proven or disproven we would not be talking about it today) I question (different from refusing) the need for these terms at all. If simple emissions/collisions of photons or magnetic forces can move entire galaxies/solar systems/etc.

Lets not get carried away here, I'm not saying anything which pushes is "dark". I state that when gravity seems to also push, science must defeat this as a characteristic of gravity. They force a new concept into being because they dont want to admit they may be mistaken about gravity. What happened to equal and opposite forces? Why cant gravity push and pull like magnetism? The term "dark" in science means "I dont know". Unknown force = dark force, unknown matter = dark matter. This seems to be a cop out response based on preconceived notions. I will hold this opinion until it becomes impossible.

You dont think science likes to guess and make stuff up to explain what they believe they observe? Dark anything is a guess. The effects may be real, but what causes these effects is most definitely a guess. I am saying much of it can never be proven, at least it does not seem like it could be proven. So if it is not proven and can not be explained or tested but is commonly considered to be true, what is that if not a guess?

I do not think I have made any comments about dark matter, I refer to the effect of galaxies seeming to be accelerating away from each other as apposed to be slowed by the force of gravity. This effect is believed to have been observed and flew in the face of what popular science believed at that time. So they simply said "It must be dark energy" (Sounds like a guess to me, but please tell me your interpretation of this).

If that is not a guess then what is? The effect may be real, but having to create something new to explain it seems like kind of a cop out to me. How is it not?

What experiments could they do on such energy to prove it is not the push of gravity as apposed to the familiar pull of gravity? How can they say for sure it is not a magnetic repulsion from the center of each galaxy? Perhaps black holes create strong fields the effects of which extend to the boundaries of the universe? Perhaps creating these boundaries?

Perhaps the universe is surrounded by something less dense then empty space. Perhaps the effect of inflation is really just displacement? This would imply that in the center of the universe space itself is more dense and becomes less dense the further from center you go? Then everywhere but towards center is "Up" and all things are simply being sorted out by density? I dont like that explanation though.

I had a thought previously that possibly all of the fabric of space itself it actually spinning. This creates momentum for movement and an apearance of accelleration as you move away from the center of rotation. All things seem to spin from planets/solar systems/galaxies/photons/electrons/etc. As I stated before this may lead to a way of thinking of all things as a physical interaction(As we currently understand things to be physical)

I'm sorry for the walls of text, I realise I make people frustrated, but I think it is because I challenge what people hold to be true, and its hard to defend truths which no one can prove. I had hoped rising the issue with the minds here that "there may be something out there we do not understand" would be welcomed as an exercise of the mind. Real theories and those who create them welcome the challenge of being proven wrong. It is only when you try and fail it can be considered more likely to be true.

Anyway if you are done with this topic let me know, if you want to continue I think that is great. I want to know more then I do, if you can prove me wrong on some points I can focus more precisely. Process of elimination and all. I have tons of ideas and no way to get this out in my real life, if this is not the forum for creating and destroying ideas I will look elsewhere.

Cheers!!

Your ignorance seems to include the meaning of gibberish.

gib·ber·ish

/ˈdʒɪbərɪʃ, ˈgɪb-/ Show Spelled [jib-er-ish, gib-] Show IPA

noun 1. meaningless or unintelligible talk or writing. 2. talk or writing containing many obscure, pretentious, or technical words.

I think both definitions apply here.

Against my better judgement I offer you a challenge to see if you can grasp the real meanings of some your terms.

Dark energy is a concept created in cosmology to explain an unexpected astronomical observation. What was this observation?

If you have not read my responses I will not play your game.

I have posted this already, and gave several alternate explanations.

Anyone can use google and I refuse to entertain your attacks any further.

I say again good day.

Should have stuck with your better judgement and continued name calling and posting personal attacks, your good at that.

Poster has not even read my posts (evident by him asking a question i have answered many times in this very thread) yet he continues to make personal attacks against me.

This long time poster may need to be reminded of how to behave, I am simply a new member and thought this forum was for adults wanting to expamd their own knowlage. Seems some members are too full of knowlage to accept anymore.

I was very shocked by the (Now continued)personal attacks.

Thank you.

You are absolutely correct that I did not read all of your post before my last post. The unfocused rambling gets very tiring. I made a mistake challenging you to state something you already stated.

Adults will admit mistakes. In contrast you repeatedly request to be corrected and have yet to acknowledge any correction. You came close to acknowledging a correction by admitting to not understanding the meaning of the cosmological constant. You then continued to discuss something you do not understand. That is speaking from ignorance.

You've worn out my last bit of patience here.

<un-subscribe>

As far as the cosmological constant is concerned what did I speak about that is not correct?

I posted what I believe to be true about this theory, and nothing else.

I was hoping someone would say "I have spent years working on this theory and I believe you are forgetting............."

I do ramble and I'm sorry, but I post something and can imagine what the responses will be so I keep wrtiing trying to account for the most likely responses so I can make fewer posts, but it back fires when I type so much my posts are being ignored again making create repeat posts anyways. Its a problem I have had for a long time.

I also like analogies and they can make me branch off quite a bit.

If anyone can point out my mistakes i will readily admit them, as i have with the term "Scientific law" At best it is a term open to interpretation as are all things.

Any point against my thoughts I have tried to defend as best I can. When its evident I am worng you can bet i will admit it.

The problem is this field is full of things which are extremely hard, if not impossible to prove, and equally hard to disprove. Seems in this world almost any opinion can be right, like it or not.

scientific theory stands up on mathematical models - if there is set of variables that excist in theory and by it's general descriptor resemble to dark(non-radiating) and matter(is capable of physical interaction) - then there is reason to belive such sh¡t exists - when there is no obsrvation we donno WTF is it in practice . . . when i was returning to Earth as a spirit there was like ??? rectangular thin seets of "tired old spirits" ??? who complained the stuff being to messed up here for 'em to participate (they were quite hopless) - i'm not shure if i can estimate the distance or if it's something present in our time ... let's try - i must combine databases ... near the N3 to this time-zone likey 6D edges (chk chk) primary casuality barier 5/6D ... passing another line ►65 X 2¹X2⁰ X 34 where 2¹ is our I/O swapped spirit world X between is kinda wormhole and 2⁰ is HERE 34 is round routing from old spirit plan so it's not in ?? physical non-physical mey be inside matter - so it might be here inside - there inside - here there outside - there here outside - simple as that

what this gibberish is about is that there might be something like thin clouds over (beyound) all radiating matter in UV i saw from (being a spirit in a space of) here inside of it /!\ now if the stars are HiTech copies of some sample star the matter may relie as thin sheets in between stars or galaxies (/!\ there is such possibility - having multiple copy(read similar) (different)time(evt set)-(same)clusters(multiple self-"worlds") - when they likely never come to interaction(distance))

I like this response more than the previous few. Your seem to be genuinely interested in understanding at least where exactly out thinking diverges.

None the less, you have again introduced new contentious statements.

Okay, on at a time:

.

'...Just some of it, imagine the old world, remember the flat one? That turned out to not be true, yet the minds of that time confirmed with what-ever methods they had it was flat. There methods were wrong.....'

.

'..Remember the flat one...' actually, no, I don't.

Speaking on things that turned out to not be true...how about the myth that any well known practitioner of the scientific method proclaimed the earth was flat?

When exactly do you think it was that the idea came about that the earth was not flat?

What time are you speaking about before which it has not occurred to the best minds, that the earth was not flat?

If the era of Columbus comes to mind, time to do a little research. You need to look more than a thousand years before the time of Columbus.

.

At any rate, it is silly to blame science for things that do not qualify as such.

.

Another point is that the scientific method is fault tolerant because it encourages continual correction and improvement. In the end, all models have flaws, and none are likely to completely explains how and why something occurs down to the finest level. The best models allow for predictions (with foreknowledge of what type of accuracy can be expected )of final conditions, based on initial conditions that fall within a well defined range.

.

'....Perhaps "scientific law" was too strong a statement, how about popular scientific belief? Notice I have been using that since I first posted the "Law" bit as some of you are actually reading this now so I am trying to be more careful with my words....'

.

I certainly share your disenchantment with 'popular scientific belief'. Chem-trails, Homeopathy, Popular 'understanding' of the risks posed by different types of radioactive material, Free-Energy, Oragone, and Scalar Wave therapy are a few that come to mind.

It isn't fair to blame Science for popular scientific belief or for pseudo science, any more than it would be fair to blame democracy for the conditions in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Just because science is in the name, doesn't make it fair game. I think you are headed in the right direction by being mindful and purposeful in your word use.

.

'....I didnt say Einstein was a grade one drop out, My point was it is easier to fill a cup with oil, if it is not already filled with water. It will take a visionary, not constrained with the belief that his/her work must fit in the mold believed to be true by someone else. As I believe you never truely know something unless you experience it yourself....'

.

Be careful of metaphors. Metaphors are powerful, and can be dangerous (as all truly powerful things can be). Your 'filling the cup' metaphor is a good example. When you wrote it, it felt good, as if you were writing something that was undoubtedly true, which it more or less is. And that is the dangerous part. Confusing the truth of the example has no bearing whether the comparison is valid or meaningful.

.

If you step back, you can probably come to the realization that a glass of water is not a good metaphor for a brain. In fact it is, much easier to fill a brain that has already been filled with a lot of information with additional information than it is to fill a brain that hasn't had much put in it at all. Brains get better at accepting information as they have more languages and broader vocabularies in those languages.

.

Pope John Paul didn't become fluent in 7+ languages because he was as smart as he was....he became as smart as he was because he learned 7 languages to a point of fluency.

.

An example closer to this discussion: Einstein was by no means sheltered from the standard thinking of the day. He worked in a patent office. He was immersed in the standard thinking of the day. His later theories were not stand alone pieces of work, but instead relied heavily on the ideas of many who came before.

.

.

As for the cosmological constant. Einstein simply hadn't guessed that the universe was expanding, so he made the necessary shift to allow his equations to align with what he thought was the current state.

..

Hey listen I have some other things I need to do right now, I'll probably come back to this later...

"Anything you can make sound good and can not disprove becomes scientific law, until someones does disprove it that is.

.

I disagree with this. Far more is required to establish something as a scientific law."

______________________________________________

What exactly is "scientific law" and who enforces it?

Please let me put forth a challenge to what is currently considered "scientific fact" about magnetism, and I'll show y'all just how much we don't "actually know", in spite of what we may think we know:

I submit that there is NO SUCH THING as magnetic "Lines of Flux", (or "Lines of Force"). You might protest that "Lines of Flux" can be demonstrated by pouring iron filings on a piece of paper laid over a magnet. (Or, so it appears.)

Firstly, in defense of this statement let me say that just the word 'flux' implies movement of some sort, so that word needs to be seriously reconsidered in this context, as there is no energy flow within a static magnetic field. If there were we could tap into that energy flow without moving the magnet.

Secondly, when you perform that little iron filling experiment, which we all probably did in 2nd grade, we are actually observing the individual iron fillings being infused with the magnetic field of the magnet causing them to become a magnet in their own right, and as such have their own 'North' and 'South' poles. What then happens is that lines of fillings form with each successive little 'filling magnet' aligning with alternating 'N' to 'S' poles. And, we observe these individual lines repelling the line next to it, in relation to its position within the inducing magnetic field, and its relative autonomous strength in relation to its neighbor. What we are actually observing is NOT as simple as describing the visible results. You have to know what is actually causing what you observe.

So, what we are left with is nothing more than another 'as yet' undefined field of some kind of 'force' with identifiable poles, which obeys the inverse square law, and is capable of inducing electron flow in certain materials when moved though its field.

In an earlier post there was a very interesting video, which demonstrated quantum locking of a superconductor, which stays in whatever position it is placed, before being pushed to circle around the magnetic track. They explain this phenomenon with a little graphic of the superconductor being frozen in position by the "Lines of Flux" passing through it being distorted.

Now! Even if I believed in "Lines of Flux", then that graphic might mean something to me, until they pushed the disk, and it flew off still in the tilted position. My question now is: Why is the disk able to fly off at all, if it is LOCKED into position by the vertical STATIC "Lines of Flux", which belong to the magnetic field of the magnet directly below it? So! How can the "Lines of Flux" lock it into position in two axes, and NOT the third?

Since, I don't personally believe in "Lines of Flux", then there has to be some other explanation to all this, which makes it all the more awesomely mysterious to me! I believe that we may some day actually be able to discern what is taking place here, but NOT until we get past the the FACTS/SCIENTIFIC LAWS, that we think we know, and admit that we have defined some very fundamental things quite erroneously!

I too have questioned the observed effects of a magnet.

But we can tap into the magnets power without moving it.

If another magnet is within a close enough proximity when we let it go, the two magnets will move towards each other(Or the small one moves towards the big one)

Why do they move? If the force is stationary, and the magnets are stationary, where is the force to create movement? It seems to tie into the whole theory of electrons orbiting an atom.

It seems to me if one side of a magnet causes a push, and the other a pull (Relative to something else) that perhaps a circuit is working here. If an atom is a small magnet and has a rotating electron orbiting around it, it could be when two atoms get near each other the poles align and the electrons path has been increased to the common orbit of two seperate atoms. Say we take a million such atoms all aligned we would get a common electron orbit that is large enough to manipulate iron filings.

This is how i began thinking about gravity vs magnetism. If all atoms are magnets, and all you need to do is squish them together to make super huge magnets, then this would help explain magnetic poles of planets(Which can be strengthened or weakened by other forces). It explains why planets dont all smash together due to the force of gravity. It helps to explain why galaxies seem to be accelerating away from each other.

Now this would seem to imply you could hook a wire between these poles and get current, but these are free electrons not yet effected by an external force capable of making them break their orbits beyond simply being routed through some more ideal material.

If I am partially correct this could mean that magnets probably make decent conductors. I dont know if they all do though. What happens to the magnetic field when you pass a current through a magnet? Anyone know? I might have to resort to google here to get some ideas rolling.

Anyone know if ceramic magnets are good conductors?

"But we can tap into the magnets power without moving it.

If another magnet is within a close enough proximity when we let it go, the two magnets will move towards each other(Or the small one moves towards the big one)"

________________________________________

Well, from a practical stand point, my intended point was that a workable energy producing device could be powered from a stationary magnet - IF a magnetic field contained some sort of energy flow, which could be tapped. Technically, yes two magnets, or one magnet and a ferris object will move toward one another IF one or the other is placed close enough for the strength of the magnetic field to overcome friction, and gravity. BUT, any useful work is halted at contact.

My general overall intended point (if not stated outright), was that as far as can be logically deduced a magnetic field has no delineated specific lines containing a specific amount of 'force'. The 'attraction' or 'repelling' of a magnetic field has been observed to be the result of the aggregated alignment of the individual atomic polarities. So, the interaction of these 'force fields', and whatever those fields may consist of, is the mystery which must be decoded inorder to understand even the basics here.

You are questioning what a scientific law is, but you seem very convinced (I'd say erroneously) that the existence of 'magnetic flux' is such a law.

What is a scientific law and who enforces it?

My definition, were I playing balderdash would be something along the lines of:

A scientific law is a thoroughly tested falsifiable statement that serves to describe a relationship between natural forces of substances or arrangements thereor, in such a way as to make possible predictions of calculable accuracy to foretell a final set of conditions given some initial set of conditions.

Who enforces it?

Well if you mean the natural relation, the nature, or buttgnomes, or Yahweh, or whoever fantasy regime you prefer..

If you mean the statement, then it is kept calibrated and in use by its utility. If it isn't useful then it isn't kept in the forefront of the collective conscience and is likely to eventually lose connection to the present.

.

.... kind of an odd question really. Perhaps now that I've answered that you might reciprocate by telling me:

What exactly is "common sense" and who enforces its commonality?

or

What exactly is the cost of 'paying attention' and who enforces the toll?

.

I don't know who has granted status as 'scientific law' or 'scientific fact' the idea you mention about magnetic flux. In fact, I don't know exactly what this fact or law supposedly states.

For clarification, would you mind specifying the 'fact' or 'law' that is giving you such problems?

"What is a scientific law and who enforces it?"

Actually, besides just trying to be a little facetious, I was just using that little throw away statement as contrast to my point that even the things that we ourselves accept as "scientific law" and enforce in our own minds should be subject to more scrutiny than just accepting what we see/observe as constituting that law in total; and, that delving just a little deeper shows that what we observe (at least in this case) has a cause which requires its own explanation.
For clarification, would you mind specifying the 'fact' or 'law' that is giving you such problems?
Quite frankly, I thought I had done a pretty admiral job of explaining exactly that throughout my posts. Perhaps it would be easier if you reread them, and you tell me exactly what parts you didn't understand. But in deference, I will restate one of the main questions that I used to sum up my difficulties "My question now is: Why is the disk able to fly off at all, if it is LOCKED into position by the vertical STATIC "Lines of Flux", which belong to the magnetic field of the magnet directly below it? So! How can the "Lines of Flux" lock it into position in two axes, and NOT the third?"
Also, to further make my point and answer your question, by drawing the conclusion that I have about "Lines of Flux" (and, IF my assertions are correct, then at least for me) it calls into question the bottom line veracity of all conventional discussions, which speak of cutting those "Lines of Flux" as being what causes electrical flow, or locking those "Lines of Flux" as being what locks the superconductor in place. For me, complete understanding of these phenomenon won't come until someone does indeed conclusively define what a magnetic field consists of (and, a gravity field too for that matter), and exactly how it does, what it does, when it does it.
Don't know what else to say at this point.

Please state the 'law of flux lines' you make reference to.

I believe you will find that you aren't talking about a scientific law, but a method of conceptualization.

Ah Ha! Unless you are just putting me on, your requests illustrates one of the lesser points floating in the background of this thread.

No, I have never picked up a textbook, which outlines or defines "Lines of Flux" in a table of physical laws. Have you? Yet this concept has been drilled into most of us who have ever dealt with these principals, to the extent that we seldom even question them as being anything but "a law". As, is readily evident just within this thread, and the links supplied by others, when just talking about a magnet seldom is this phrase NOT used in a conversational manner, that the speaker just assumes we understand and are in complete understanding and agreement with. It just so happens that I am not in understanding and agreement, because of what I have so laboriously tried to outline here.

So, are you just putting me on, or has this not been your experience as well?

I don't think that is a flaw with science or the scientific method. It is a flaw with the way things are taught. Metaphors are powerful teaching tools, but the limitations of such need to be taught as well.

I have definitely shared the experience of, a person's ability to recite a common metaphor, being generally (erroneously) accepted as indicating an understanding of a subject.

.

People's heads are filled with these metaphors many of which are not helpful.

.

'No to snowflakes are alike' ....well actually, no. Some snowflakes are alike. What is the point here?

.

'Your eyes receive an image and then turn it right side up for the back of your brain to view' This is so silly, as if some little homunculus were sitting in the back of your head viewing a silver screen. Absurd.

.

'There are more people alive than have ever died' Another complete fallacy.

.

'Chocolate is highly toxic to dogs'... um nope.

.

'You can't have your cake and eat it too'

.

'Opposites attract' .

J IGB

I was taught that even in math that everything was a theorem, it met the facts as we could see them used and observed, however there might be an exception that would show that something we had proved beyond a drought just might have an exception! And so was false. I

Math is full of exceptions. Like the Pythagorean Theorem...the proof of a scientific proof is in the lack of evidence to the contrary but there are always conditions.

In a right angle triangle with the two sides opposite the hypotenuse being each a length of 1 we get:

The square root of 1² + 1² = the square root of 2

But 2 is a prime number and has a square root with an infinite number of decimal points so what do we question here?

Whether there is no connection at the corners of the triangle?

Is there really a square root of a prime number?

Are prime numbers only a by-product of an imperfect mathematical system which tries to insert divisions into a completely fluid system of relativity?

Are we all just guessing at everything as close as we can figure it?

Where do all the 'free' electrons come from as electricity flows through a wire and where do the ones that were traveling down the wire go when the switch is turned off?

p.s. Electrons do not flow through wires in my opinion.

Where do all the 'free' electrons come from as electricity flows through a wire and where do the ones that were traveling down the wire go when the switch is turned off?

May be a bit OT, but that depends if it's AC or DC.

The analogy I like to use is to compare it to a compressed air or hydraulic hose operating in a closed loop system, with the terms being reversed. An "open" is the same as closing a valve. So your conductor in all these situations is already full of electrons , air or fluid- by applying pressure (voltage) to a conductor you create potential. When you open the valve (close the circuit) you begin to force the "fluid" through the conductor, replacing the flow with an equivalent amount of "fluid" (current). This is DC- the "fluid" runs through the load, into a drain and back to the source to replace the "fluid" that is being pumped in.

With AC, it's easier to think of the load as having 2 pressure lines running to it instead of a drain. The generation system runs alternating pressure cycles to each line (so an AC motor is really a wave motion device!!), so the "fluid" transmits pressure back and forth in the line instead of having to continuously travel through it. This is your sine wave- like watching a seagull ride up and down on a wave without moving much in any horizontal direction.. It also helps explain why AC is a much better choice for long distance power transmission than DC, as there is much less line loss than the comparative effort of cramming all that "fluid" through the conductor.

So when you close the valve (or open the circuit) in any of these the conductor is always still full of "fluid" and the "pressure" is still there, waiting to be relieved by someone stopping the "pressure" or opening the valve (including a short circuit.....).

That's a very good analogy for the flow of electrical energy through a conductor but it doesn't address electrons at all.

If electrons actually jump from molecule of copper, iron, aluminum, gold, silver or other conductors, why is there on degradation over time to the conductor after many trillions of electrons have jumped from one molecule to another?

Certainly there would be 'misses', lost electrons, degradation around impurities in the conductor, etc.

I believe the electrons in the conductor molecules only are excited to an outer orbit when the magnetic field in the generator or alternator is moved relative to the coils.

Electrons have mass and movement of this tiny mass when multiplied by trillions of electrons moving would have momentum.

If you look at the number of electrons in the outer rings of different electrical conductors you will see that the better, more efficient conductors like gold have more room in their outer electron orbits for more electrons from the inner orbits to move when excited to the outer orbits, passing the induced energy from the generating source on to the next molecule.

Now you could argue that the space in the outer electron orbits gives 'flowing' electrons a place to alight as they travel through a conductor but when you shut off the generating source would not these electrons be trapped in the outer orbits thus creating an ionic state which would create a lot of static electricity in the conductor when the circuit is broken.

The necessary movement of free electrons through the neutral or ground portion of the conductor after the circuit is broken would wreck havoc in electronic equipment so which is it?

Do a multitude of free electrons travel through a conductor or do the existing electrons in the conductive molecules simply move to fill the outer orbit of the conductive molecules?

Well, in actual fact - depending the materials used, and the amount of current being passed there is indeed degredation of the conductors. That is why X-Ray tube cathodes must be replaced every so often, because they just erode away. I am certain this happens in circuits with less current flow too, just to a lesser extent.

there is sort of engines like the Smart1 has but a way more efficient - the type of shuttle is like the ones taking off at SW2 at the ending scenes of the "The attack of the clones" only the size is smaller 5m wide - can't estimate the length (where this information is from is the future planning spirits layer - as infact most you do and invent here is more or less preset by this "Time Designers Team" -- different spirits from different realities combine and synthesise the knowledge to your future - it is possible in 5D to run patches of reality - whicth there looks like looking and flying in to a "crystal ball" a bubble of insulated lowwer D time - it's quite likely the consept of "CB" - is someones spirit memory imported to lowwer realities -- so it might be i was a there in a "Tech. world consept planning group" -- and we tested such sh¡t -- our stuff likely would've made the Earth a stone Desert like mars -- 's why we doing something different @ this point of time (at this reality release))

anyway the technologies are possible -- the question is how much industry -- they need to be enabled e.c.

"1. iT WAS JUST A THOUGHT. Is it possible to travel in or out of the atmosphere with the use of high intensive light?"

First and foremost, I appreciate your question. It was interesting. See all the comments generated from a single sentence...

Secondly, realize that the comment about light being as extensive as gravity was only used as an example to support the arguments therein.

Gravity has a gravitational field.

Magnetism has a magnetic field.

Light is not synonymous with magnetism. It is a special type of electro-magnetic wave i.e. Has both Electrical and Magnetic components of the waves out phase by 90^0. Light cannot be objectively used as an example of an ad infinitum 'magnetic field' because it is that and more.

source

I suggest going to the basics as a foundation that will enable you to fully appreciate the possbility/impossibility of your question:

What is Gravity?

What is Magnetism?

(and thanks to our friend) What is light?

'....Light cannot be objectively used as an example of an ad infinitum 'magnetic field' because it is that and more.....'

.

er...what?

.

That statement reads as the equivalent to the following statement:

.

'...X cannot be stated to belong to the set of things Y, because X belongs to the set of Y things and X also belongs the a different set of things Z....'

.

Where I come from, the preceding statement is completely broken.

There is nothing wrong with the idea, itself. Never mind the naysaying naboobs of negativity.

The solution for that is called space elevator. You do not even need any anti this or that to work. You anchor a very strong cable somewhere in tropical land, and put a mighty big weight on it beyond some satellite's orbits. Then you simply crawl up on it with an elevator. Wonderful views all the way up, quiet as a church mouse. No problem. All it takes a real strong cable. And cheap too.

Then there is an even simpler, and shorter version. I admit it is a bit scary for me at least. This one is spinning out there. On occasion, it touches down here, and you latch on to it. Then it moves on, and slings you up into the great beyond.

These are all relatively cheap transportation, once you build them!

what will happen is that everyone presents it's ideas (in a hope that someone will make some sense out of 'em) and forget about this as their daily routine is something different orienting (their attention)

so it's not the points

it's you copy this material - work it through - and find that there's nothing new (consepts) or practically (in short period of time / less man work h-s) usable

if there is you became abit smarter

if you think the world should also know you post a science article in physics magazine (politly reffereint CR forums as 1 of the references)

if anyone ever reads your article (they might rate it as interesting what all our scientist know) the question here is what and when they do with that knowledge

(( thank you pointing out the issue (mu-ha-haa) ))

'...Perhaps you are referring to the Gravitational Parameter;...'

.

No. I am responding to the incredulity apparent in your previous response, wherein you requested a mathematical proof for my statement. I provided the proof and the accompanying formula upon which it is based: Newtons law of gravitation.

.

How can you forget only one comment down your sentiment of the previous comment? You asked for the proof, go read it again.

.

In case you still can't recall, here is what you wrote (it begins with you quoting what I wrote):

"it quickly becomes apparent that for the same total mass, different values of F result."

Ummmm - ahhhh - could you please present us with your mathematical proof please?

or perhaps you meant to state something like "for any given sum mass the gravitational force can only change as an inverse square function of distance."?

or was it just a rude attempt at sly insult? Certainly not, it must have been simple omission.

.

I'd say that is pretty unambiguous. You are stating that what I wrote was in error. You are clearly asking for a mathematical proof because you do not believe one can be provided.

.

But, I provided a solid basis and explanation for my statement. It was clearly not an omission nor written in error, yet you still continue with your line of 'Perhaps you were referring to....'

.

I suspect this is some sort of protective mechanism to shelter you from the prospect that your incredulity was not well founded. The attempt to trivialize the difference between the mass of a system and the product of the masses of a system, seems to support that suspicion. I can't even find your claimed incidence of using the term 'sum' instead of 'product', making it appear very red-herring-esque.

OK; my incredulity was not well founded. Please forgive me.

I think I have a handle on Newtons Law of Gravitation.

Your proof that if the Force varies as the sum of the masses if distance remains constant was pretty clear.

It is also clear that the force remains constant if the product of the two masses remains constant - regardless of their ratio - given constant distance.

Thanks for the clarity.

I mentioned the Gravitational Parameter because it is widely used in the analysis of missile and satellite flight; which would be related to the original topic of using magnetic force to alter specific orbital energy.

I believe the OP's idea has merit; regardless of his level of understanding of the fundamental principles.

Dear Truth;

After rereading your posts; I finally tumbled.

As lousy as crow tastes; I seem to eat more than my fair share.

Certainly there must be some name for your observation - other than just common sense.

Gav

Allowing yourself the room to change your mind is an admirable quality.

.

Also, it wasn't that the points you were raising were incorrect. We just weren't talking about the same thing initially, i.e. I think you didn't initially understand what I was saying. That could certainly have a lot to do with my initial description leaving much to be desired.

.

Anyway, thanks for having a tough skin, and being willing to reconsider.

I will admit some errors.

See post #116.

i've made this test as a photon - is trying to leave the casuality bond - it turns out that the more distance you travel the lesser becomes your (photons) energy - and if you run out of such you simply vanish (disenergize) - there's some subtransportlayer of 3 something 2 strong 1 weak that fall the way back to Big Bango and their pattern is like a lighting bolt ?? the weak 1 might travel stright - and the back-falling NRG mutates during this fall-back - there is likely no "physical particles" present in this event

i might've been something else coz the photons (travel as 1by1 in a lead a pair of A¹,B¹) end up in "angels club many photons as A¹,B¹,A²,B²,A³,B³" they go higger (as seen as photon) and at the end they take sharp J turn up and out of this TIME to "angels club" & there are stuff extra to 'em

i was some sort of wave however (? longer self-life than photon - mabe the longest self-life particle - if you can name such ?)

"Texas Popcorn" gave some new ideas - actually what i did'nt specify ► when photons travel as 2 then in stationary mode they are all separate

i likely was the least gravity affected particle (light bends around the mass - there must be something that doesn't so much - also it was like dropping of the stages behind me = i likely didn't started as that 1 & and i started from a star (there time⁰) ? i guess it wasnot a supernova . . . however as this particle there seemed to be "lighter" at outside bound of the UV)

going up (J-turn) in spirit scape means dropping casuality to lowwer times

lighter in spirit scapes means being closer to some Master Spirit (also above 8D (there time¹ -- memories from different "time points" as a spirit ) eight-dimension 9 is gray mist 10D is yellowish water 11D is white-light 12 the same although when i was descending from 13D (at different "there time²") it was like transparent and öit by a distant yellow light source - lowwer times were darker however)

Magnetic lavitation is possible and your argument is valid.

However, this hardly addresses the question. It is my humble opinion that your approach to this is-it-possible-in-the-real-world question is very scientific/theoretical as opposed to say, practical engineering feasability analysis.

A floating metal disc is at V_d=0 m/s. Escape velocity of mother Earth, V_e=11,300 m/s. You have sufficiently made the case that through superconductivity, magnetism can overcome gravity...good. Now can this be modified to not just levitate but to accellerate to > V_e ? I am aware that MagLev trains are propelled in such a manner but that requires a constant proximity of the magnets and the trains. Unless a track to space is built I see this set-up as a nice proof of concept but not a serious candidate for consideration in magnetic mode of propulsion to overcome gravity.

source

Also, Rail Guns use a series of magnetic fields to guide projectiles through the barrel. Using a cannon to launch stuff to outer space?...hmmm sounds farmiliar. Jules Verne, the father of SciFi (or is it SyFy these days), had the idea of using traditional gun powder cannons to launch probes to outer space in his classic "From Earth To Moon."

It has been established to be impossible so far but there are Verne ethusiasts out there who keep trying!

source

"Magnetic fields only operate in limited distatnces whereas gravity stretches across the solar system."

I now realize this is not correct. But within the paradigm of engineering feasibility, a magnetic propulsion set-up would have to be huge and/or astronomically powerful, not to mention budgetary constraints, to launch anything outta this world. This layered under the assumption that accelaration through the air, not just levitation is even possible. Thus my comparision of gravity being more extensive. Not absolutely, but 'right-headed' as far as this is concerned.

Do you really think that the magnetic field of the below set-up can be compared with the gravitational effects of the Earth at the atmosphere-space boundary? (Which is as far as the mode of propulsion is required to function)

Peharps with some super-precise metrology you can get a reading thereby supporting the fact that they are both ad infitinum, but what about the gigantic difference in scale and thus feasability...

"a magnetic propulsion set-up would have to be huge and/or astronomically powerful, not to mention budgetary constraints, to launch anything outta this world"

- the same could be said for ion propulsion; but as demonstrated in several deep space missions; ion propulsion has proven to be quite efficient.

You do have a point that if something is lacking enough density it will rise by itself.

We would need extremely large vessels made of something lighter then aerogel to carry anything more massive then a feather into orbit or close enough that minimal propulsion would get you all the way into outer space.

Into outer, LOL. Perhaps I should say out of inner space? Combine this with the space elevator and we got a deal.

'....You do have a point that if something is lacking enough density it will rise by itself....'

.

Nope. In order for something to 'rise' in the way you describe, it must have a substance of greater density around it.... It cannot 'rise by itself'. It is merely displaced.

Well rise is a relative term, if surrounded by nothing it is not possible to rise I do not think. (Correct me if I am wrong here) Even if surrounded by a vaccuum once the object becomes less dense then the vaccuum it should still rise in relation to what ever is considered to be below it.

Since all things seem to be made of positive and/or negative charges and all exhibit effects of a force commonly reffered to as gravity, to rise would simply be as you say a displacement from the largest "gravitational" force in the area.

(Unless the top and bottom of the universe/multiverse have been discovered and no one told me? If so I retract my "Rise" statement and defer to your displaced alternate.)

So my statement holds by me saying rise, indicating a surrounding and also by saying lacking enough density, indicating the object must be sufficiently lacking density to rise.

But I dont like to argue over terminology as many fields use terms common to that field which is the same term but different context in some other field.

It would be easier to say, (Well if you grasp my concepts) "I think you meant to say this" Check the original post for an example of a statement made using the wrong terminology, but at the same time many of us here were able to "get" what he was trying to ask.

Lets try again, can anyone dispute any of my statements? If so please do tell and I will try to clarify, of hopefully find something I am considering is provably misguided/incorrect. I do not and have never claimed to have all the answers.....yet.

Cheers. (Also you are right it does not happen "Byitself" This is energy creation and not a very popular concept, my attempt was to imply a system not requiring any external energy input. But I think you already know this and are giving me an english lesson, lol)

'...Even if surrounded by a vaccuum once the object becomes less dense then the vaccuum it should still rise in relation to what ever is considered to be below it....'

.

Less dense than a perfect vacuum? You seem to be proposing a negative mass. Alternately you could be proposing a negative volume....

.

....since you are vehemently opposed to scientists supposedly sitting around conjuring up grand non-dis-provable theories, then you should probably have some decent proof for you negative volume of negative mass substance, right?

.

You aren't just sitting around conjuring stuff that not only can't be disproved, but also makes no practical sense, and is completely unsupported by observation....are you?

Unsupported by observation? Oh you mean like a perfect vaccuum?

I do not present ideal theorectical situations where anything is perfect.

As far as I am concerned it would be virtually impossible to achieve a perfect vaccuum. Where have you observed this?

That said a real life vaccuum is not perfect, it contains "stuff". That stuff has some level of density to it. So lets enter the "perfect world" for a second. If i placed a bubble containing a perfect vaccuum inside a real life vaccuum which would be less dense? Now "If" there was a top and bottom to this situation it would seem the perfect bubble would rise away from what was considered down.

This same principle should apply to a very good vaccuum bubble inside a less very good vaccuum. If a material could be discovered which is slightly less dense then a near perfect vaccuum it also suits the situation when placed within a near perfect vaccuum.

Although a case could be mode for the existance as i stated earlier on of spatial density. But I dont like this idea as it is too far removed from my personal experiences to defend in any way beyond the observed effects of the bodies in the universe.

'....But I dont like this idea as it is too far removed from my personal experiences to defend in any way beyond the observed effects of the bodies in the universe.....'

.

I agree with you here. Specifically, the ability to 'lift' something by this effect can only be effective to the degree that the 'something' is absent.

Nice Graphic; but does it address the question whether magnetic impulse can be used to alter specific orbital energy?

Is the force vector magnitude generated by the interaction between Geo-Field and a Torque Rod aboard a satellite determined not only by the distance and field strengths; but also the relative field angle?

Can we infer that there may only be four possible force vectors generated by the interaction between the Earth and Space Craft Torque Rod? Two possible vectors imparting impulse along the Radius of orbit and possible imparting impulse to the rotational kinetic energy of the satellite body?

What happens when the Space Craft is at a distance from Earth where Sol Field and Earth Field are of equal quantity? How many possible force vectors are there now?

There are two components to orbital energy; is it possible to alter orbital energy without altering the KE component?

In referencing "physical methods" - what "physical method" is at play when a magnetic bearing is used to suspend a mass? What "physical method" is at play when the needle of a compass is accelerated on its rotational axis?

Well yes and no.

Yes, it is very easy to make magnets to repel each other. These magnets can be aligned to repel or push against gravity. Magnets can easily over come their own gravity. Gravity is far weaker than magnetism.

No, magnets cannot be made to exactly repel against gravity regardless of orientation. Magnets can only attract or repel other magnetic materials. Gravity works on anything. At the same time, with a big enough magnet the tiny magnetic property of a frog can be made to defy gravity.

We don't have anything, perhaps you could ask the "Little People" if they have something....A little bit o Irish whiskey has been known to loosen the tongue....

Absolutely!!

You just put one underneath another one with mirrored poles. Hey Presto! the other magnet will start to rise, despite the fact that gravity is still pulling on it!

_{Please read all disclaimers and warranties. Use of this information does not entitle encroachment of any patents. Blah blah blah....}

Disclaimer #1

How many different wrong ways can you spell "gravitational"?

Can anybody play?

We don't currently know what either gravity fields, or magnetic fields consist of, and there is currently no known type of polarity to a gravitational field. Therefore, no known method of 'repelling' against it. Relatively speaking the earth's magnetic field, is not strong enough to repel any significant payload against, UNLESS you could produce, and manipulate an enormous magnetic field, which would overcome the gravitational pull/attraction. (Some people purport that gravity is a 'push', but that is mere speculation on how gravity 'could' work; but, is as yet unproven.) I have no idea how much power would be required to produce that strong of a magnetic field for a given payload; but, I am sure there is someone on this board who could compute that for you. The magnitude would probably be on the order of a small nuclear blast, but that too is just speculation on my part.

But we do think that magnets can create gravity.

I say this because the Earth is a big magnet/dynamo and apparently has gravity.

Coincidence? Maybe.....

The neutral atom has positive and negative sections too, and are apparently effected by gravity. Perhaps they too can create gravity in small amounts?

Do we know of anything which is not made up of positive and/or negative charges and still is provably effected by gravity?

They seem fairly close, gravity and magnetism dont they? Like best friends.

'....Do we know of anything which is not made up of positive and/or negative charges and still is provably effected by gravity?....'

.

The fact that something exhibits a certain property is insufficient to establish that it is 'made up' of the observed property.

.

The answer to your question (at least as I believe it was intended) is 'Yes'. Neutrons are neutral in charge and contribute significantly to the mass of all stable isotopes with the one exception being protium.

So you are saying quarks have no charge?

Popular science would disagree with you here. Is popular science right or are you? I dont know, I'm open to either possibility. You should also be open to this possibility.

The current theory is that Neutrons are made up of fractional charges. It just so happens the net charge = zero.

This does not mean for certain that charge creates gravity, how could we say this if we do not even know what charge is?

This goes back to my question about what is charge? How do the quarks achieve this effect? Does it go smaller still?

String theory vibrations in alternate dimensions creating physical currents which we observe as some mystery, and just called it charge?

Would it not be easier if everything was a physical interaction? Well what we would consider physical anyway.

And I do not claim to know the real truth, I just ask the question of if. I have not said that gravity is for sure just a magnetic interaction, I simply state it could be possible from a logical standpoint, until proven impossible.

To me that is how science should be seen, a world of possibilities where nothing is certain until it is. Like the legal system, consider someone guilty but do not incriminate until proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Is it better to ignore a thousands truths or to believe a single lie?

(Convict a innocent man, or release a thousand guilty men, analogy)

I would rather release the guilty personally, but then be cautious of them.

This is like reading what popular science believes today, but knowing/counting on the idea that much of science fact will be proven incorrect in time.

'...So you are saying quarks have no charge?....'

.

Not exactly, but I am willing to say that single quark does not have a charge, in the sense that no quark has a fundamental unit of charge. I couldn't give a rat's ass what Popular Science disagrees with.

.

Now, I should have provided some grounds sufficient for you to demonstrate I am wrong, correct?

.

What I am interested in seeing is how you plan to do this, given your statements to the effect of 'science just being things that can't be proven wrong' and 'keep an open mind, but don't believe it without logic'...

...given your demonstrated understanding of and statements about science, I am very curious how you will expose my error....you know, without blatant hypocrisy. How will you reveal my mistake without relying on the very thing you were just preaching about being so unreliable?

I believe that a solitary quark is impossible or at least it has never been observed to exist. As the link shows, all quarks have a charge.

If a solitary quark is not possible then it isn't really a fundamental 'building block' is it?

.

So it stands to reason that a neutron which is electrically neutral IS a fundamental building block that IS neutral, since the components of which it is theorized to be comprised cannot possibly by your estimation be in a solitary state.

.

Which was what was being discussed.

.

Yes a thermal solitary neutron will decay into a proton, electron, and antineutrino with about a 15 minute half life, but this is not a one way process, as pretty much the opposite occurs in in isotopes that have too few neutrons in the nucleus.

That, along with the fact that neutrons do not exhibit polarity, makes a strong case that while charge separation may be generated when a neutron decays, it isn't actually made up of separate components that have charge.

.

That is what was being discussed. Would you like to weigh in on the discussion now that you are a little more up to speed?

.

Sorry truth I am not sure what you want from me here.

I will say some scientists believe that quarks have what is considered to be a fractional charge. The whole idea of a fractional charge implies the unit of measure for charge we use could be incorrect.

It makes me think that "If" quarks exist and have ammounts of charge, the base measurement is likely much smaller still. What some consider a charge of +1 could likely be a charge of +10, +100, +1,000,000, etc. I cant be sure.

If you dont care about what the current scientific beliefs are then you tested all this yourself? Or like me you choose to believe some of it and reject the rest?

You can not have to both ways, you must either believe everything science has ever seemed to have "Proven" and oppose my beliefs, or you take what others have discovered with a grain of salt and make your own conclusions and agree with my beliefs. (I suppose a third option is never believe anything from any source other then yourself, but that is highly limiting I would think.)

Am i making it worse? help me help you, stop trying to defeat me and instead try to defeat the ideas I present.

There is enough iron in the human body to make a 2 inch nail. The iron is distributed fairly evenly throughout. How about turning the body into an electromagnet with a large number of wire turns and a few amps of current. Then lay out sheets of iron on the ground and magnetise them. Could you then levitate a human being?