61

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Is time relative?

« on: October 19, 2008, 04:41:36 AM »

One can stop time (relative to oneself of course) by traveling at the speed of light.

How is that possible? Relative to myself time is always moving at the same speed. Time is a constant relative to myself not the speed of light as the speed of light originates at another source.

Time to travel (speed of light) is relative to where I am in relation to the source..

If not... can somebody provide the experiment which proves otherwise.

62

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity is a "fictitious force" ... so The Earth is flat.

« on: October 19, 2008, 04:29:36 AM »

Personally... I don't trust anything that anybody says Einstein "said".

Especially regarding Relativity.

Gravity acting on two masses in freefall makes the reference frame static and hence fictitious?

What happens if I am measuring the speed of a photon in relation to the speed of another photon? Does that make electromagnetic force fictitious?

Just my two cents.

63

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Gravity Source

« on: October 18, 2008, 09:31:20 AM »

See here.  This may be what you mean by spin "causing" gravity.

It might be... Honestly I am not entirely sure... I am just learning all the different theories regarding gravity. I take it that this is what could account for the spiral pattern of galaxies if black holes are indeed at the center of each one.

The frame being dragged would essentially be displaced in geometric space in a circular vector style motion when point a is measured against point b ( the dragged frame in relation to the massive body ).

What I am really trying to understand is how all the gravitational anomalies of the pioneer effect, the topographical gravity maps of the earth, moon and mars, and the Foucault pendulum effect during a solar eclipse are all connected, or if they are even connected at all.

Unfortunately I can "see" the connection and if I don't figure out the answer it will drive me nuts... I know it...

They are all obviously interrelated. It's glaringly obvious. If anyone knows why it's isn't and has the proof to put me out of my misery... please do...

64

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Gravity Source

« on: October 17, 2008, 05:56:14 PM »

What madness possessed you to throw away the mountainous evidence and elegent theories of mainstream physics and believe your own half-baked idea for which there is no proof?

Explain how the curvature in space time produces these gravity anomalies. ( JPL is partially down... it's only in the archives. )

http://web.archive.org/web/20040416032941/http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2003/103.cfm

Please drop the pompous attitude. I do not ignore evidence.

You seem to have a habit of plucking your ideas from thin air.

Far from it. And why shouldn't I?

Why not just check wikipedia so you don't have to suspect?

I like to grab my information from a wide range of sources. What's a wiki?

65

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Controlled Magnetic Harmonic Resonance

« on: October 17, 2008, 12:47:39 PM »

But I don't think Tesla was ever practical was he?

...

Correction... I don't think he was very grounded... He was a brilliant visionary but he was trumped by business people with entrepreneurial hunger...

Not practical in a capitalist environment. It's just an assumption... I would rather be a Tesla than an Edison.

Visionaries inspire people. Hungry entrepreneurs are "see through".

66

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Controlled Magnetic Harmonic Resonance

« on: October 17, 2008, 12:33:02 PM »

I went looking for this. The closest terminology I found was rapid-phase-transition.

I don't think anyone is even trying to do this. I am almost certain that some industrial processes use sonics to cure materials and strengthen them. I am also aware of Newtonian fluids which will solidify with sound vibrations.

Are Bose-Einstein condensates a candidate for this sort of thing? I realize they require sub-zero temperatures so for practcal purposes it doesn't match Tesla's ideas. But I don't think Tesla was ever practical was he?

67

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Gravity Source

« on: October 17, 2008, 10:58:08 AM »

By the 1960s, theorists had showed that if an object emits gravitational waves, its mass should decrease.

That is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you.

You wouldn't happen to know if there is technically a difference between Gravity waves and the curvature of space time.

I currently suspect the curvature of space time is a Special Relativity theory while General Relativity is focused on Waves and perhaps an aether.

68

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Gravity Source

« on: October 17, 2008, 10:39:29 AM »

No, the gravity we experience of Earth is a result of the Earth spinning at an extremely high speed.

Don't be like this guy.

That's what I'm currently trying to understand. Why is "that guy" wrong?

What proves it otherwise? Personally... I am inclined to think that gravitation is caused by the movement of mass. Not the mass itself.

If I am above ground I weigh more. If I am below ground I weigh less. Altitude is a determining factor. If I position myself on the Earth at the Equator I weigh more than if I position myself at the north or south pole.

My location in relation to the "spin" effects my gravitation. And it effects the pioneer anomaly. Visually the curvature of space time seems more like a magnetic field rather than a "curvature in space". If I were standing at the north pole of a magnet the magnetic force would be greater. This appears to be the reverse effect when gravity is concerned. Gravitational poles are could be generated at the equator. Repulsion is what could be separating the moon from the earth. Why not?

Why do planetary rings form along the equator of a planet. Perpendicular to the axis of rotation? And why are they flat?

IN other words. How does the curvature of space time create these effects mentioned?

69

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Gravity Source

« on: October 17, 2008, 03:27:10 AM »

Yes.

Okay... fair enough. I am just using the gravity weather forecasts and such to provide a reason why I am thinking that gravity is produced by spin rather than a massive body itself.

It just upsets me that stuff like this could be easily solved by doing a Cavendish experiment in space.


This article says that it would be unmeasurable. Why?

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-401/ch6.htm

"Since the huge space station had to maneuver slightly in order to remain in a stable position in orbit, forces would have been created that were greater than those that could have been [81] measured. Thus, Healy's experiment could not be implemented for Skylab."

When you say that GR predicted this perturbation are you referring to the effect being geometrically related to the axis of spin?

Yes.

What is the effect called?

70

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Gravity Source

« on: October 17, 2008, 03:11:59 AM »

Well, it is already known and predicted by General Relativity that the rotation of a massive body will perturb its gravitational field.  The problem is that these perturbations measured by the probes you mentioned are larger than expected, according to GR.

People are beginning to make connections between weather patterns and the speed of the Earths rotation. IN fact... weather forecasts are staring to be called. Gravity weather forecasts.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050225_wobbly_planet.html

The gravity waves emitted from the earth seem to be related to the speed at which the earth spins. The center of spin being the source of the wave rather than being distributed evenly across the mass itself. Even Newton's laws force you to find the center of the object. The force of gravity comes from the center of the object to my knowledge (where it's spinning on it's axis). Not the entire mass as a whole.




When you say that GR predicted this perturbation are you referring to the effect being geometrically related to the axis of spin?

71

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Gravity Source

« on: October 17, 2008, 02:46:09 AM »

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99x82.htm

I have read it already... They go out of their way to defy logic and they provide nothing as a reasonable substitute.

Notice how they fumble with the answer for what appears to be one of the longest explanations on the web.

Why is gravity and spin not immediately associated with one another. Even 4 year old kids make the immediate connection.

72

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Gravity Source

« on: October 17, 2008, 02:38:20 AM »

Do you mean spin like merry-go-round spin?

I mean the gravitational force of an object is influenced differently in direct relation to the geometry of spin itself. Not the mass.

If the mass of the object is what is responsible for the gravitational force then no anomalies should be present at all but they are.

"In the one probe the researchers did not confirm a noticeable anomaly with, MESSENGER, the spacecraft approached the Earth at about latitude 31 degrees north and receded from the Earth at about latitude 32 degrees south. "This near-perfect symmetry about the equator seemed to result in a very small velocity change, in contrast to the five other flybys," Anderson explained — so small no anomaly could be confirmed."

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080229-spacecraft-anomaly.html

This implies that the force of gravity is directly effected in relation to the axis of spin rather that the massive body itself.

Everything about gravity is intuitively connected with spin... Black holes suspected as being at the center of every galaxy should be the immediate tip off.

73

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Gravity Source

« on: October 17, 2008, 02:26:01 AM »

Since no one knows, yes, magic.

It obvious that spin and gravity are directly related.

The field of gravitational influence is directly related to the geometry of spin. Spin is actually a motion which produces a "force" which is immediately translatable to "energy".

Electron Spin produces Electro-Magnetic force.

Why can't spin be what produces gravitational force? What is the reason?

And why hasn't anybody performed a Cavendish experiment in space. How hard would it be?

74

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Gravity Source

« on: October 17, 2008, 02:22:19 AM »

Your retarted.

Okay smart ass...

What causes gravity? Magic?

75

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Gravity Source

« on: October 17, 2008, 02:05:51 AM »

It's the spin of matter which produces a gravity field correct?

 

Well... I'm not surprised that this is something you would be keen to. Are you suggesting it is the spin of matter which produces a gravitational effect?

I'm one step away from drawing the conclusion that the act of spinning itself is what produces gravity and that matter is simply attracted by the spin "force".

Matter on it's own will not produce any gravitational force at all. Perhaps the Cavendish effect is a by-product of being inside the gravitational spin force of the earth. All matter producing an attraction of sorts while it is in the influence of the field.

Is this what standard theory is or does it basically go against it?

76

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Gravity Source

« on: October 16, 2008, 11:10:39 PM »

The Sun does not lose mass in generating an electromagnetic force.

Well it sort of does.

When you type a key on your keyboard a letter pops up on the screen. I do not need to describe all the in-betweens involving the keyboard springs, the circuits, the software, the monitor, ect. The "cause" is the action of you typing the key on the keyboard and the effect is the letter popping up on the screen.

The electro-magnetic force produced from the sun results in the sun losing mass. Without losing mass there is no possibility of it generating the electro-magnetic field to my knowledge.

What is generating the force of gravity? I am simply asking for the plain English definition to the cause of gravity in both the round earth and flat earth models. The cause to the effect.

If the force has no "source" which can be depleted and it is perpetual then what other forces are in perpetual motion?

To answer your initial question, yes, that pizza pocket does have a gravitational attraction to the astronaut, but it also has a gravitational attraction to everything else in the room, and so does the astronaut.

Yes... But has it been tested and proven or it is entirely assumed? The observation being an assumption.

77

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Gravity Source

« on: October 16, 2008, 10:33:18 PM »

Are you for real?

Yes... I have listened through lectures regarding gravity and heard all about the ficticous nature of the forces surrounding it and I am still without a satisfactory logical explanation.

Has anybody even physically tested the theory regarding matter attracting each other?

For example... Will this astronauts pizza pocket eventually gravitate towards him?



I understand that the Cavendish experiment proves a force attraction between matter within the gravitational field of earth. But has it been tested in space?


IN other words... Where is the mass lost when generating a gravitational force? The laws of conservation demand this do they not? The sun loses mass to generate electro-magnetic force.

Why is gravity the exception? What is the source of Gravity?

78

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Gravity Source

« on: October 16, 2008, 09:18:24 PM »

Where is does gravity originate? On both a flat earth model and a round earth model.


It's the spin of matter which produces a gravity field correct?

79

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Think he would still pay?

« on: October 16, 2008, 12:56:27 AM »

He probably evaded taxes to make sure he had enough money to pay up just in case 

Doubt it... I very rarely give in to the conspiracy theory... BUT... my guess is that when somebody makes enough noise they throw them in jail.

Rocking the boat has it's price in america.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Capone

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidi_Fleiss

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche

80

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Darwin Theory of Evolution Fact or Theory

« on: October 15, 2008, 05:00:43 AM »

I would rather have my mind open to a theory than have it ruled by a dogma.

81

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: WTF is a soul?

« on: October 15, 2008, 12:19:04 AM »

I would say we know just about as much as we did when Phrenology was all the rage...



Looks to me to be practically the exact same mapping principles in use.

82

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Mars science laboratory (REers only, unless you want to critizize)

« on: October 14, 2008, 07:30:15 PM »

I don't think that The MSL will happen quite so soon but it would be pretty freakin cool.Did you know that it would actually be possible to make mars have air and a breathable atmosphere. they would do it by introducing plants and many types of gases into its atmosphere in order to replicate our own.

They have a serious lack of atmosphere to work with. The actual pressure on mars is not very great and there is little to no magneto-sphere. Without a magnetic shield the planet cannot contain an atmosphere. Everything ends up "blowing away". Or so they say. There are currently "pockets" of "atmosphere" in the southern hemisphere to my knowledge.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast31jan_1.htm

83

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: ???

« on: October 14, 2008, 07:16:58 PM »

I saw a youtube video made by creationists who said flat earth theory was invented to make the Catholic church in the days of Christopher Columbus look like idiots.

Had to see what the fuss was about.

84

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Mars science laboratory (REers only, unless you want to critizize)

« on: October 14, 2008, 03:18:43 PM »

Who here can't wait for the MSL? (Mars science laboratory) I hear that they really don't have enough money to do it, but there going to anyways. It is supposed to launch September 2009, and land some time in 2010.

Sounds very interesting... Some people think there might be a race to the Moon right now to mine the Helium-3.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/07/is-helium-3-exp.html

85

Flat Earth Debate / Re: evidence against pictures and videos

« on: October 13, 2008, 01:27:12 PM »

The eyes. in a real skull eye sockets don't look like the actual eyes...oh wait, i'm a REer....well can you prove that the picture is false?

I cannot prove that the image is true.

86

Flat Earth Debate / Re: green flash

« on: October 13, 2008, 01:43:21 AM »

Photoshop?

no,, ive seen it my self

Maybe the curvature of the sun as been mistaken for the curvature of the Earth?

87

Flat Earth Debate / Re: evidence against pictures and videos

« on: October 13, 2008, 12:02:45 AM »

anyone up for it?

Sure... Lets start with this picture. Why is it fake?



We can set the ground rules with a non-round-earth picture and move forward from there.

88

Flat Earth Debate / Re: corlis effect and Foucault pendulum.

« on: October 12, 2008, 08:57:20 PM »

I don't think it's correct to say that the Earth undergoes proper acceleration caused by its mass. The acceleration is the result of a force, which is in fact created by electrostatic repulsion.

Does this electrostatic repulsion effect all types of matter?

Or is it bound by negative and positive charges?

What exactly is it?

89

The Lounge / Re: Post your ACTUAL Desktop 1

« on: October 12, 2008, 08:36:14 PM »

Interesting...


You work out of home due to the fax machine in the corner.

You either have a dog or you are a goth. ( my guess is both )

You couldn't be arsed to get a desk and opted for using the sofa as your chair.

You prefer to spray things with Lysol rather than clean anything.

90

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Evidence of a supernatural being

« on: October 12, 2008, 04:07:38 PM »

This is referring to?

I am referring to the particle/wave nature of a photon which I am still trying to figure out.

(sometimes I project my current thoughts into a answer wrongly.)

If the cat can exist in an infinite amount of "realities" simultaneously it does not mean that it does. If this were the case when we opened the box the cat would appear in one of those alternate realities. We are stuck along one time line.

I can imagine a dead cat in a box but the reality of the dead cat exists within the bounds of my mind and not within the bounds of the box.

ADDITION:

I feel bad for saying this isn't possible. I can't prove it isn't so... perhaps it is possible.