This is the model of gravity that can(I think) support an iron sun.

In this I'm trying to understand what determines the maximum gravity that a body can attain(the force of the massfree wave impulses), and if there there is a shielding or surface effect.

Here is an interesting prediction by the same.
Would net charge mean a completely positively ionized block of steel?

__________________
"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible." - M. C. Escher

"Freedom is popular." -Ron Paul

Net charge just means that there is an excess or deficit of electrons, giving a negative or positive charge to the object. It does not mean that the object has lost all of its electrons.

Fred

__________________
"For shame, gentlemen, pack your evidence a little better against another time."
-- John Dryden, "The Vindication of The Duke of Guise" 1684

Sorry, but this sets off avalanching of phase-induced synaptic firing in the meaningless-technobabble-detectors of the olfactory isostatic neuronic interstitial dendrites in my brain.

And if you can't make sense of that...you got it

__________________
PW -- Plant Whisperer

Right. I think what they are saying is, if there are varying levels of "net charge" then there are varying levels of "antigravity".
Because nothing in a solid form can be 100% positive or negatively ionized.
So it must be more and more difficult to increase the net charge on an object.
If you can increase the charge to certain level then it must be at that point the the objects weight is reduced.

__________________
"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible." - M. C. Escher

"Freedom is popular." -Ron Paul

In their theory, the aether is a fluid wave like lattice. At certain areas of the lattice the are wave superimpositions of massless energy. These superimpositions lead to expressions of particles, gravitons etc...
This lattice has characteristics that flow in waves that express themselves as gravity and kinetic energy imparted to the planets, and the sun.

__________________
"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible." - M. C. Escher

"Freedom is popular." -Ron Paul

that's nice? where's the evidence?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

That would be one of my questions. Another would be exactly how does this new idea expain (with the calculations) first, the advance of Mercury's perihelion, and second, the advance of the binary neutron star's periastron.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

Here is an interesting discovery that may prove the validity of this model of gravity.

http://pesn.com/2007/03/18/9500462_Berrett_pendulums/


"Brian has devised a number of different methods to demonstrate various key aspects of the principle, which Peter Lindemann has said to be perhaps the most monumental scientific breakthrough in gravitational and inertial science since Newton."

__________________
"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible." - M. C. Escher

"Freedom is popular." -Ron Paul

how does a link to some cranky 'over unity' device made from old bicycle wheels and bathroon scales advance your idea? Pushing pendulums and weights on bathroom scales demonstrate what?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

The video that really got me thinking is this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHln0...5Fpendulums%2F

Homepage on PES
http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:...cal_Oscillator


Look at it very carefully. Notice how the force required to push the pendulum on the left is amplified to an amount capable of pushing 10 of the same flashlights on the right.
The stroke correspondence is one to one. The impulse strength is less than one flashlight. The impulse stroke length looks to be about the same as the stroke length at the right side of the lever.
The interesting thing is the movement of the pendulum.


What does that have to do with aetherometric model of gravity that permits an iron sun to exist?
The pendulum on the left is tracing the true shape of a gravitational impulse which is predicted by aetherometry.

"They argue that if a pendulum is released from 90° to the vertical, and the isochronous requirement is still to hold, the pendular swing will have to take the form of a gothic arch." Aetherometry and Gravity: An Introduction
by David Pratt
April 2005
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homep...5/cycloid3.jpg

How do we know this is the true shape of gravitational impulses?

Because more energy is available with this system by allowing the pendulum to trace the true full shape of the gravitational wave impulse than with a lever system that is constrained by having one less degree of freedom.


"4. Cycloids and gravity"
"In the case of gravitational energy, a single energy swing constitutes a full-cycle gravitational wave, and consists of an association of wave motion with the impulse or momentum connected with its forward linear motion. To put it another way, the massfree swing is composed of a particle (the aetherometric graviton) and its associated, extrinsic cycloidal wave."
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homep...hergrav.htm#g4

Since gravity takes the form of circular impulses, it could explain the perihelion advance of Mercury.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homep...5/cycloid2.gif


What does this mean for my iron sun?
That the full force of gravity does not act on objects unless they take the cycloidal path.
Since they are waves there may also be a shielding effect that would make gravity the strongest at the surface of a body.

__________________
"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible." - M. C. Escher

"Freedom is popular." -Ron Paul

sorry, my head hurts!

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

You are totally right here! Put an object isolated on a scale and somehow start "ionizing" it. You will find that its weight will decrease in "quanta" of 9.10938188 × 10^-31 kilograms. But somehow this has nothing to do with anti-eathero-gravity.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

I don't think so. In a solar scenario, you might end up with a positively charged plasma atmosphere however.

1eV is equal to about 11,604 degrees Kelvin or about 11,331C.
1eV is enough to accelerate an electron to a velocity of 419.3828 km/s
Solar wind speed is at a high (800 km/s)

Hydrogen ionization potential is 13.5984 eV

That means 149,490C for Hydrogen.

What am I getting at?

In your thought experiment you are using an oven which is using thermal radiation to heat the H.
This possibility cannot exist.
There is no flame or material that could be used in this experiment.
All plasma above 3000 F is electrically excited.
We dont really know what a 100,000C thermally(chemical flame or mechanical compression) excited plasma looks like.
So the idea of a electrically neutral plasma on the planet earth does not really exist as you have stated it, because they are all driven by a voltage(electricity) of some sort.
As proven by the TOKAMAK experiments, when ever you have a large volume of plasma, it will have a tendency to form filaments(instabilities) that ground out and pinch releasing x-rays, so it is not neutral.

So expand that to the universe.

I always think in terms of Electron Volts instead of temperature when talking about particles and plasma because its a more real measure of plasma(any) activity. eV can be broken down into a real unit of measure. Time and distance(wavelength or energy).

As far as the photosphere goes if you think of it in those terms, the temperature of the photosphere is only .6 eV. Half an electron volt. That would mean the photosphere is very close to the electrode(iron surface) in terms of the overall structure, when you consider the 100eV(million degree) change from the surface to the corona.

When they say million degree gas, thats nothing in terms of electricity.
100eV will make a million degree plasma. A wire carrying 10,000 volts has billion degree electrons(plasma) in it......

There is no thermal source that is heating that plasma out there.
Shockwaves? I'd be curious to see a shockwave produce x-rays on earth.
A nuke produces em x-rays.

And what happens when you turn off the current in a plasma?
It stops glowing.


Reconnection.
As far as reconnection goes, I have weighed in that subject in this post here
Does fusion occur ON the sun?

The jist of the post is that reconnection happens between 2 parallel flux tubes in a Birkeland current.
It really does change magnetic field configuration. But the field lines dont break and reconnect, they follow the plasma(current) density.
Assuming that it is powered by magnetic energy is like saying a car is powered by you pushing on the gas pedal.

Now as far as the hijacking goes, I will tolerate plasma discussion but the idea is to examine this model of gravity. This model of gravity will allow the iron sun to exist. The iron shell is necessary to explain Birkelands modeling of our sun (and observations).

Electricity is the only way to explain everything that happens on the sun. It is also the only power source that would work in an infinite universe, as it could power an iron sun forever. It would also power the continuous nucleosynthesis happening on the solar surface.

I suspect that the solar system was "born" from the Vela pulsar or in that neighborhood and is lit up because of Gould's Belt and its associated filaments.
I talked about that here.
A Brief History of our Solar System
And here I talk about why knowing our local neighborhood is important to providing a complete scenario for the EUE, Eu, Plasma universe set of ideas.
Does fusion occur ON the sun?
Remember, we only have 30 days...

__________________
"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible." - M. C. Escher

"Freedom is popular." -Ron Paul

I haven't read any of this thread except for your two posts on this
page. I'm responding to your comment totally out of context.

I'd say that "looking at the pictures" (or, really, "looking at nature")
is the one most essential part of doing science. Everything else is
optional. If you want to know what energy is, the only way to do
it is to observe what is happening around you. If you want to know
how angular momentum works, then play with a gyroscope or ride a
bike, and observe. If you want to know what the taste "bitter"
means, then you need to put something bitter in your mouth. If you
want to know what a bassoon sounds like, then you need to listen
to a bassoon being played.

Can you re-cast your statement so that I can agree with it?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

__________________
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

"I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

"The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

Thank You, Nereid.

Although the idea of current flow is supporting evidence for an iron surface(thermionic emission), I do not think it directly pertains to the subject of the possibility of the existence of an iron surface because of a different interpretation of gravity until a little later, when the subject of fusion and nucleosynthesis on the iron surface is discussed.

Please split reconnection out to a new thread.

Upriver

__________________
"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible." - M. C. Escher

"Freedom is popular." -Ron Paul

Done.

Note that some of the posts were hard to call - if anyone feels that there are posts that would better here, than in the new thread (or vice versa), please PM me with the relevant info.

Thank you Nereid.

It can't be all you do?

You have to know why the picture appears the way it does. You have to know if it merely seems to show something or does show something. You have to take into consideration your own personal biases. "Look at the picture" isn't enough.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

The issue is image interpretation without understanding the context. It's quite possible to have different intepretations of photographs of everyday events, yet we share general knowledge about the world around us. Court cases can revolve around specialized image interpretation. Astronomical images involve subjects that we do not deal with every day. Scale is often vastly different. Object composition and temperatures are often quite different. The image itself often is not derived from visible light, and often has been heavily processed. Image interpretation based on "common sense" understanding of everyday events is not terribly useful. It requires knowledge of the image context.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Let me have a look at Aetherometry and Gravity: An Introduction (A&G).
Random thoughts follow.



So, the Correas and Pratt cannot grasp the idea that the sum of forces can be zero and that a system (such as a charged electroscope) can be in mechanical equilibrium.
(By the way, that forces add like vectors can be shown experimentally.)

Why should we bother at all with what they have to say?



As the word itself says, kinetic energy is the energy of a body in motion.
When a system is in mechanical equilibrium, its parts are not moving and so there is no kinetic energy that is expended and needs to be replenished.

I am starting to suspect that these people decided to go ATM because they failed Physics 101.



I advise the Correas to try to understand what physicists actually say, instead of relying on strawmen.

The work being done to hold the arm up, goes into the muscles which are not rigid bodies.
Why don't the Correas and Pratt have a look at those four-legged mammals (cows and horses, if I remember correctly) that can sleep while standing?



Of course, having failed Physics 101, there is no hope they could grasp Quantum Mechanics.



Useless word salad.



Useless numerology.



Here is another one who failed Physics 101 (and Calculus 101, as well).

The angular velocity in a pendulum is not constant (the pendulum swings back and forth: at the highest points the speed is zero, at the lowest it is maximum).
Reich is obviously confusing the frequency of the oscillation with the angular velocity of a body in uniform circular motion (which the pendulum is not).
Apparently he did not pay attention in class when it was explained that periodic motions (such as a pendulum) can be described mathematically in terms os sine or cosine functions, which in turn can be described mathematically in terms of a point moving with constant speed on a circle.


Except when the mass oscillating is forced to follow a circular arc.



I understand now: they did not actually get to play when they were kids.
So they never tried to push the swing so fast that it does a full circle, without the chain slackening at 90 degrees.

It is now clear that they are not good experimentalists either.



That's the small angles approximation of the pendulum, which is explained in Physics 101.
Apparently they did not pay attention in class, and so they failed the exam.


I am not even bothering with the rest.
It is obvious that the Correas and their supporters have little grasp of the experiments and theories of classical physics.
The fact that they have to rely on strawmen to argue against the mainstream should be a dead give-away that their work is utterly worthless.

upriver, it would help you much more if you seriously studied Physics (for example, going to a university library or following university lectures), instead of relying on press releases and websites.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

I've suspected that for years . . . .

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Yes, I agree that the sum of the vectors add up to zero. That can be shown to be mathematically correct.

But thats like building a model of an atom out of alphabet blocks and saying this is an accurate representation of an atom.

If 2 forces are opposing they are expending energy on a microscopic level.
The processes involved in generating that force are not static.

Also gravity is not static. It is a process just as everything else is.
Processes require energy.

To think that the Correa's have overlooked that basic concept, is a gross overstatement of your perceived abilities.
They have investigated that more deeply than anyone else, thats why it seems foreign to you.


Aetherometric Equations and Constants.
http://www.encyclopedianomadica.org/..._Equations.pdf

__________________
"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible." - M. C. Escher

"Freedom is popular." -Ron Paul

And since the arguments of the Correas start from this fundamental error, everything that follows is basically wrong.


I recently was at a talk about statistical mechanics, where it was pointed out that the single most important result of modern physics is that we can separate the behavior at different length-, time- and energy-scales of a system.

It does not matter whether the microscopic mechanisms responsible for a macroscopic force are not static; what matters is that the macroscopic force is static.

You can have the electrons flying around in the gold leaf at speeds of thousands of kilometers per second, and yet have a static charge density at the surface.



This is just world salad.

If an object is not moving, the force is not doing work (see Physics 101). If a system is not changing between states of different energy, there is no work being done.


The supreme arrogance of ATM proponents: "I don't understand how this works, therefore it is impossible/wrong/nonsense!".

They have overlooked that basic concept: you are grossly overestimating the Correas' abilities.


If they investigate "that" more deeply than anyone else, why are they recsorting to strawmen about the mainstream?
If they are right, why are they misrepresenting what the mainstream says?

Look at this:
They cannot even get the phenomenology of a park swing right.
Every single kid has tried at least once to get the park swing to do a full circle, and yet these people say that the chain would slacken (of course it would: if the speed is low enough, at those angles the weight of the chain is not negligible).

They have not investigated deeply anything.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Your confusing math with reality.

Yes, statistically speaking, because you are averaging the fluctuations out. And that really has alot to do with your measuring device.
If we had an instrument sensitive enough, it probably would show your static charge density to have variations consistent with electrons flying around.

If you where to take gravity away from the charged leafs you would expect the leaves to spring upward a little. That means that the forces associated with the electrostatic charges are dynamically generated. That requires energy input.
So with gravity in the picture the forces are actively resisting gravity which requires energy. That energy must come from somewhere.
The idea here is that the energy comes from the aether since we both agree that perpetual motion machines don't exist.

Yes, the force is not doing work as it is mathematically defined.
But there is energy being expended to maintain that force.

So your saying that the slack is dependent on the material used for the swing ropes.
In my personal experience you actually separate from the seat.

"They argue that if a pendulum is released from 90° to the vertical, and the isochronous requirement is still to hold, the pendular swing will have to take the form of a gothic arch."
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homep...5/cycloid3.jpg

I will go to the park and try it again tomorrow.

Key word was approaches 90^o meaning that was the point of zero acceleration.

__________________
"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible." - M. C. Escher

"Freedom is popular." -Ron Paul

As I already said, that forces add like vectors can be shown experimentally.
The fact that the Correas ignore such a basic fact and give precedence to their misconception over reality.


No, it has to do with how physical systems behave.
Without this separation of different scales, classical mechanics would not work at macroscopic scales.

Following your reasoning, we should observe deviations in the Moon's orbit due to the thermal vibrations of its atoms.


We already have instruments sensitive enough (e.g., Scanning Tunnelling Microscope), and what they show is that the electron density is distributed according to the QM wavefunctions.

But you keep ignoring the fact that over lengthscales comparable to the size of the gold leaf of the electroscope, the fluctuations are to small to have an effect.


No. Taking away gravity, changes the problem.
We are talking about the mechanical equilibrium where the electrostatic repulsion between leaf and stem is partly balanced by the weight of the leaf.

The fact that if you took away gravity the leaf would reach another position of minimum energy, has nothing to do with "dynamically generated" forces (whatever you mean with this), but with the properties of the electrostatic (let me emphasize STATIC) forces.


Wrong.
Show me the work done by cows and horse that sleep standing.
Show me the work done by a magnet hanging at a fridgedoor.

As I said before, if the (macroscopic) force is not moving the (macroscopic) object, the (macroscopic) force is not doing work.

If the charged electroscope was not in a gravity field, it would still discharge, because the charge simply leaks out of the system.

Why don't you setup an experiment with an electroscope where the equilibrium does not depend on gravity? So you could test whether the Corrreas' ideas are valid.



Except that mechanical equilibrium has nothing to do with "perpetual motion", since nothing is actually moving.
Why do you rely on Correas' strawmen?
Why don't you go to a library and study classical physics on your own, instead of relying on the Correas to tell you what the mainstream says?



No. That's the basic misconception you share with the Correas and other ATM proponents.
Where is the energy expended by cows and horses that sleep standing?
Where is the energy expended by the chair to hold my bottom?
Where is the energy expended by the table that holds your computer?

Why don't you realize that the state of (stable) mechanical equilibrium corresponds to a minimum of energy?


Look up "catenary".



And that would be easy to test, wouldn't it?
But why would the isochronous requirement hold, since the pendulum would be far from the small-angle approximation?



A park swing is more complicated than a simple pendulum, just because the chain or rope has its own weight and is not rigid.


Irrelevant.
Do the Correas expect that in such a situation the harmonic approximation still holds?

Go to a library and look into a couple of books about Calculus and differential equations.
See the difference between small-angle oscillations of a pendulum and the general situation. Read carefully the conditions for those equations to hold, and compare them to the situation the Correas refer to.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

From wikipedia.

"Energy, in physics, is defined as the amount of work a physical system can do on another.[3]"

"In physics, mechanical work is the amount of energy transferred by a force."

"usually calculated energy is named after work of certain force"


If there were no such thing as weight then you would be right.

But I maintain that gravity is transferring energy to the cow and magnet which is expressed as weight.
If you maintain a geometric model of gravity then this is hard to see.

Also that definition of energy differs from the one that I think is preferable.
That being energy is defined as the most basic substance of the universe, as opposed to a quantity of some units of gravity or electricity, etc..

__________________
"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible." - M. C. Escher

"Freedom is popular." -Ron Paul

"harmonic approximation"

If there is not a continuous solution, then something is lacking in theory.

__________________
"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible." - M. C. Escher

"Freedom is popular." -Ron Paul

upriver, does the fact that you are ignoring most of my points mean that you are not prepared to defend the assertions of the webpage you referred to in the OP?
If so, what is the point of this thread?


Anyway...

Are you allergic to books?


When you are transferring energy to a macroscopic body, the energy goes either in kinetic energy energy, potential energy or temperature.
The magnet and the cows are not moving, so there is no increase of kinetic energy and no increase of potential energy (because they are not changing position).
So, what's left is heat.

Do you find you magnets routinely molten, or do the cows transform overnight in well-done steaks? Nope!

Therefore, no increase in energy.

Unless, of course, you can provide actual evidence instead of word salad.


Are we back to the caloric?

The Universe does not give a dingo's kidney of what you think is preferable. And It's quite happy with mechanical equilibrium as it is.


I have no idea what you mean.

The Correas complain that the simple formula for the ideal pendulum does not work for their non-ideal pendulum in a situation where the simple formula is not applicable. There is no hint of deep investigation on their part.

Now, are you going to address my points or not?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)