Distances in the universe

In fact, Nipher's experiment doesn't work if Cavendish's experiment doesn't show gravitational attraction.

Read my previous message again carefully: Cavendish shows no gravitational attraction at all.

Now, you have become an expert on the Nipher experiments.

He applied high voltage to lead balls, lead spheres and hollow metal boxes and compared the repulsive effect induced in small test spheres hung vertically near them, similar to the original Cavendish experiments but with high voltage. Dr. Nipher went to great lengths to insert protective, grounded screens of glass between the solid lead spheres and the suspended balls to rule out electrostatic effects.

Before connecting any form of electric current to the modified Cavendish apparatus, Prof.  Nipher took special precaution to carefully screen the moving element from any electrostatic or electromagnetic effects. His apparatus briefly consists of two large lead spheres ten inches in diameter, resting upon heavy sheets of hard rubber. Two small lead balls, each one inch in diameter, were now suspended from two silk threads, stationed at the sides of the two large lead spheres, from which they were separated by a little distance. Moreover, the suspended balls were insulated elaborately from the large spheres by enclosing them first airtight in a long wooden box, which was also covered with tinned iron sheets as well as cardboard sheets. There was, furthermore, a metal shield between the box and the large metal spheres. The large metal lead spheres now exerted a certain gravitational force upon the suspended small lead balls … and the small lead balls were slightly moved over towards the large spheres.

In further experiments Prof.  Nipher decided to check his results. To do this he replaced the large solid lead spheres with two metal boxes, each filled with loose cotton batting. These hollow boxes (having practically no mass) rested upon insulators. They were separated from the protective screen by sheets of glass and were grounded to it by heavy copper wires. The metal boxes were then charged in every way that the solid lead spheres had been, but not the slightest change in the position of the lead balls could be detected. This would seem to prove conclusively that the "repulsion" and "gravitational nullification" effects that he had produced when the solid balls were electrically charged were genuine and based undoubtedly on a true inter-atomic electrical reaction, and not upon any form of electrostatic or electromagnetic effects between the large and small masses. If they had been, the metal boxes, with no mass, would have served as well as the solid balls.


The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.

http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm

New Evidence of a Relation Between Gravitation & Electrical Action (1920)
Gravitational Repulsion (1916)
Gravitation & Electrical Action (1916)
Can Electricity Reverse the Effect of Gravity? (1918)

The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Dr. Francis Nipher conducted extensive experiments during 1918, on a modified Cavendish experiment. He reproduced the classical arrangements for the experiment, where gravitational attraction could be measured between free-swinging masses, and a large fixed central mass. Dr. Nipher modified the Cavendish experiment by applying a large electrical field to the large central mass, which was sheilded inside a Faraday cage. When electrostatic charge was applied to the large fixed mass, the free-swinging masses exhibited a reduced attraction to the central mass, when the central mass was only slightly charged. As the electric field strength was increased, there arose a voltage threshold which resulted in no attraction at all between the fixed mass and the free-swinging masses. Increasing the potential applied to the central mass beyond that threshold, resulted in the free-swinging masses being repelled (!) from the fixed central mass. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.


"These results seem to indicate clearly that gravitational attraction between masses of matter depends upon electrical potential due to electrical charges upon them."

Every working day of the following college year has been devoted to testing the validity of the above statement. No results in conflict with it have been obtained. Not only has gravitational attraction been diminished by electrification of the attracting bodies when direct electrical action has been wholly cut off by a metal shield, but it has been made negative. It has been converted into a repulsion. This result has been obtained many times throughout the year. On one occasion during the latter part of the year, this repulsion was made somewhat more than twice as great as normal attraction."

Increasing the potential applied to the central mass beyond that threshold, resulted in the free-swinging masses being repelled (!) from the fixed central mass. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.

A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS: GRAVITATION AND ELECTRICITY ARE ABSOLUTELY LINKED.


rabinoz, do your homework before posting nonsense.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/jan/30/magnetic-monopoles-seen-in-the-lab

 The approach of David Hall and colleagues at Amherst College in Massachusetts and collaborators at Aalto University in Finland is to produce an analogue of what is known as a "Dirac monopole", the generalized quantum-mechanical form of a magnetic monopole put forward by Dirac. Prior to 1931, nobody had been able to combine classical electromagnetism and quantum mechanics to allow the existence of magnetic monopoles, but Dirac was able to do this by considering what happens when a monopole interacts with an electron. He found that when a monopole passes through an electron cloud – the distribution in space of a single electron as described by quantum mechanics – it leaves a vortex in its wake. This is a line of zero electron density around which the density spirals: "Like water swirling as it goes down the drain," says Hall.

Hall's group has reproduced that vortex in a Bose–Einstein condensate of ultracold rubidium atoms. The condensate is a single matter wave and stands in for the electron cloud in Dirac's formulation. To reproduce the monopole, the researchers applied a real, external magnetic field to the condensate to orient the constituent atoms in such a way that they create a "synthetic" magnetic field inside the condensate. There is a "one-to-one correspondence" between that synthetic field and the field that would be produced by a magnetic monopole, Hall explains. "You could draw exactly the same field lines in the synthetic field and the locus of the monopole is where those field lines spring from," he says.
Polar vortex

To show that they really had produced a Dirac monopole, the researchers shone a laser beam through the condensate. The beam created a "shadowgraph", in which the shadow cast by the atoms in the sample was pierced by a narrow strip of light. That strip, they concluded, was the vortex created by an isolated north pole (it being north rather than south simply for technical reasons). "What we see is remarkable," says Hall, "because normally a vortex created inside a Bose–Einstein condensate goes from one side of the condensate to another. But here it ends in the bulk. That is the hallmark of the monopole."


You wanna play games with me?

Achievements of the Occult Chemistry treatise (subquark ether quantum physics):

Baryons, mesons, quarks and /subquarks/preons were described over 50 years before conventional science.

It stated that matter is composed of strings 80 years before string theory.

It described the existence of positrons 30 years before they were detailed.

It reported the Higgs field over 50 years before Peter Higgs.

It presented the existence of isotopes 5 years before their discovery.

Besant & Leadbeater published their discovery of the neon-22 isotope about five years before the physicist J.J. Thomson separated neon into two fractions and 12 years before his assistant Francis Aston separated and measured the masses of the neon-20 and neon-22 isotopes.

Given that the gaps in the periodic table represented by these anticipated un-
stable elements were known to Besant & Leadbeater, how can we be sure that
their descriptions were based upon real objects and were not fabricated ac-
cording to their expectations? Knowing which groups of the periodic table
these undiscovered elements belong to could have enabled them to deduce
what shape their atoms ought to have, having decided upon a rule to link atom-
ic shapes to groups. But the values of the atomic weights of these elements
were unknown to science at the time when Besant and Leadbeater published
observations of them and yet the "number weights" (defined shortly) that they
calculated for these elements agree with their chemical atomic weights to
within one unit. It is highly implausible that this measure of agreement could
have come about by chance in every case. Furthermore, analysis (Phillips,
1994) of the particles reported to have been observed in the supposed atoms of
these elements undiscovered by science at the time reveals such a high degree
of agreement with the theory presented in this paper to explain micro-psi ob-
servations of atoms that neither deliberate fabrication nor hallucinations influ-
enced by knowledge of the gaps in the periodic table are realistic explanations
of these elements being examined before their scientific discovery. These two
considerations strongly suggest that the descriptions by Besant and Leadbeat-
er of the supposed atoms of these elements must have been based upon physi-
cal objects, for there is simply no more plausible alternative that can explain
such a measure of agreement.


The fact that elements in the same subgroup of a group of the periodic table do not always
occur in the same subgroup of the micro-psi version of this table is inconsis-
tent with what one would expect if Besant and Leadbeater had been merely
guided by their knowledge of chemistry to fabricate the correlation. Secondly,
how could hallucinations, whose cause was located entirely inside their brains
and not outside amongst the trillions of atoms in all the chemicals they exam-
ined, generate UPA populations in MPAs that always turned out to be about 18
times the correct atomic weights of their elements? This is true, remarkable,
even for elements like francium and astatine, whose atomic weights must have
been unknown to Besant and Leadbeater because science discovered them in,
respectively, 1939 and 1940, about seven years after the deaths of the two
Theosophists. How, if MPAs are not atoms, could they have anticipated in
1908 - five years before scientists suspected the existence of isotopes - the
fact that an element such as neon could have more than one type of atom, an
MPA, moreover, whose calculated number weight of 22.33 is consistent with
their having detected with micro-psi the neon-22 nuclide before the physicist
J. J. Thomson discovered it in 1913? One must turn to particle physics for an-
swers.


This paper has presented evidence (summarized in Table 3) of how facts of
nuclear and particle physics are consistent with purported psychic descriptions
of subatomic particles. It is because Besant and Leadbeater finished their ob-
servations many years before pertinent scientific knowledge became available
that their work cannot be rejected as fraudulent once this consistency is ac-
cepted. Nor can critics plausible interpret their observations as precognitive
visions of future ideas and discoveries of physics. If this had been the case, Besant and Leadbeater might reasonably have been expected to describe atoms
according to the Rutherford-Bohr model.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120128042636/http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf

Chadwick (neutron), Pauli (neutrino), Gell-Mann (quarks), Higgs (boson), ALL of these physicists COPIED their "discoveries" from a single source.

In fact, Gell-Mann did not even bother to modify the information on the quarks contained in that treatise.

The entire theory of strings was copied from the pages of this work.

Each and every element and isotope correctly described (in 1908) DECADES before they were even discovered: promethium (1945), astatine (1940), francium (1939), protactinium (1921), technetium (1937), deuterium, neon-22 nuclide (1913).

A clear description of strings, bosons, quarks, subquarks, positrons, DECADES before these concepts even came into existence.

OCCULT CHEMISTRY (1908) TABLE OF CONTENTS:

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/ocindex.htm

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/chaptr01.htm

SUBQUARKS/MAGNETIC MONOPOLES CLEARLY SEEN OUTSIDE OF THE SPIN ICE ENVIRONMENT.


Subquarks = magnetic monopoles


https://web.archive.org/web/20120303052100/http://smphillips.8m.com/pdfs/ESP_of_Quarks.pdf (pg 66-73)

A rigorous and extraordinary demonstration that subquarks = magnetic monopoles.

You were invited to read a very important paper on the Cavendish experiment, requiring of you at least a few days of serious stuying.

Yet, here you are 15 minutes later claiming that it is no problem at all for you.

So, I have to do your homework for you.

I spent days reading it. I told you; I read Mile's paper before embarking on my experiment. Your statement is insulting and baseless. This is a discussion of science, not hurling of insults.

You show flaws in Cavendish's and Walkers design. I accept these. As I said, I designed my experiment to combat them, specifically because of Mile's paper.

If my experiment is wrong, show how specifically my experiment is flawed.

Now, you have become an expert on the Nipher experiments.

No, I never said that. In fact, I've barely looked into them. Because Nipher's experiments worked on the basis that Cavendish's experiments are valid. It says this multiple times in the article, including sections you yourself quoted.

He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.

He concluded gravitation existed, using Cavendish's experiment. This means that if Cavendish was flawed, then so was Nipher.

Look! You even quote a line in Nipher's experiment which shows "qualitative evidence for gravitational attraction"!

The large metal lead spheres now exerted a certain gravitational force upon the suspended small lead balls … and the small lead balls were slightly moved over towards the large spheres.

Furthermore, Coulomb's Law (developed sometime after 1784, when the experiment was done), shows that an electrically charged object (like lead balls charged with high voltage, like in Nipher's experiments) will apply a force to electrostatic objects (like lead balls not charged with high voltage, like in Nipher's experiments).

So, in conclusion: No, nothing to do with Nipher's experiments disproves gravitational attraction in any way.

To recap:

 - If you have a grievance with my experiment, raise it against my experiment, like I asked in my OP.
 - Nipher has nothing relevant to do with this discussion, since his experiment relies on Cavendish's being correct, and also describes a completely unrelated scientific principle.

I'd also like to respectfully ask, curious individual to curious individual, don't insult me.

You did not read M. Miles' paper.

Walker is in his basement, surrounded by tons of earth. And yet he completely ignores this. He thinks that because he has gone to the center of his room, he has exhausted the boundaries of rigor. Other experiments are done in massive modern buildings that weigh thousands of tons, and that may have any number of different E/M fields, some created by the earth, some created by the iron beams in the buildings, some created by electrical networks in the building. None of this is considered. It is claimed that these considerations are probably negligible, since the forces would be so small. But if we are using one of these tiny modern machines, our forces are already so small they are barely able to override residual air resistance (if in fact they can). We shouldn’t just assume that these things are or are not happening, we should have to prove it.

But I have just claimed that the E/M field is the dominant field by far at this level of size and that this field is always repulsive. How do I explain this contradiction? The explanation is that we are not seeing or measuring a force between the balls, as has always been assumed. We are not measuring or seeing gravity, in the main. The larger ball or object is mainly a blocker. It is a masking agent. We are not seeing an attraction; we are seeing the blocking of a repulsion.


Our large ball simply gets in the way of photons being emitted by the walls. Since the smaller ball is no longer being repulsed from that direction, it moves it that direction, appearing to be attracted by the larger ball. It is that simple.


This means that Cavendish succeeded by a compensation of errors. The big ball is blocking almost exactly the amount that is missing from the equations, due to the loss of its own gravitational acceleration. Any Cavendish-like machine with large balls that are fixed would be expected to have the same compensation of errors.


This probably explains the variation in all contemporary measurements of gravity, too, including the most recent. Because the researchers are ignorant of the fields present, and the actual actions of their machines, all of their conclusions are skewed.


I had to do your homework for you.


If my experiment is wrong, show how specifically my experiment is flawed.

If you want anyone to understand anything about your experiment, then you are going to have to offer many more details as to how you performed it. Go ahead and include these details at the other thread.


Because Nipher's experiments worked on the basis that Cavendish's experiments are valid.

Nipher discovered AN ANTIGRAVITATIONAL EFFECT, in addition to the effect OF TERRESTRIAL GRAVITY WHICH IS NOT A FORCE OF ATTRACTION, BUT OF PRESSURE.

Professor Nipher showed that TERRESTRIAL GRAVITATION (PRESSURE) AND ELECTRICITY (ANTI GRAVITATIONAL FORCE) ARE ABSOLUTELY RELATED.

No, nothing to do with Nipher's experiments disproves gravitational attraction in any way.

Did you use the same superficiality in examining a scientific paper in performing your own experiment?

The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.

http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm

New Evidence of a Relation Between Gravitation & Electrical Action (1920)
Gravitational Repulsion (1916)
Gravitation & Electrical Action (1916)
Can Electricity Reverse the Effect of Gravity? (1918)

The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Dr. Francis Nipher conducted extensive experiments during 1918, on a modified Cavendish experiment. He reproduced the classical arrangements for the experiment, where gravitational attraction could be measured between free-swinging masses, and a large fixed central mass. Dr. Nipher modified the Cavendish experiment by applying a large electrical field to the large central mass, which was sheilded inside a Faraday cage. When electrostatic charge was applied to the large fixed mass, the free-swinging masses exhibited a reduced attraction to the central mass, when the central mass was only slightly charged. As the electric field strength was increased, there arose a voltage threshold which resulted in no attraction at all between the fixed mass and the free-swinging masses. Increasing the potential applied to the central mass beyond that threshold, resulted in the free-swinging masses being repelled (!) from the fixed central mass. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.

Your conclusions could not be more wrong: how then is anyone here going to trust your OWN experiment, your take on it?

In fact, Nipher's experiment doesn't work if Cavendish's experiment doesn't show gravitational attraction.
Read my previous message again carefully: Cavendish shows no gravitational attraction at all.
Now, you have become an expert on the Nipher experiments.

Nobody places much credence on experiments performed only once by one person.

That is one reason why "Cavendish type" experiments have been performed so many times.
Note that I said "Cavendish type" experiments not simply "Cavendish" experiments.

When all of your one off experiments have been verified adequately,  come back are talk again.

But what I find so significant is that we have four self-professed very intelligent people, yourself, JRoweSkeptic, sceptimatic and of course İntikam.
And I honestly believe that all four are very intelligent, but
all of you have your own quite incompatible models and theories, yet each of you asserts quite aggressively that you are correct.
But only one, at the most, of you can be possibly correct!

My bet is that none of you are correct,

Nobody places much credence on experiments performed only once by one person.

BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT: FULL DETAILS

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1852363#msg1852363


But what I find so significant is that we have three self-professed very intelligent people, JRoweSkeptic, sceptimatic and of course İntikam.

Many people can claim whatever they want.

However, these debates constitute the ULTIMATE TEST as to the truth of those FE models.

In less than five minutes, any other FE model can be debunked: very rapidly.

In this thread, sandokhan shows that he is not capable of holding a reasonable debate and is also not open to anything that does not fit his current views.

     I understand the issue, really. It's hard to believe--in a universe so big--that we can find the distances and motions of most nearby objects in the universe. But, the basic idea--as I understand it--is that mass attracts other mass, with the strength of the attraction being dependent on both the amount of mass attracting and the distance it's attracting from. That's it. This attraction never 'meters out', per se, it just gets really weak. This means that every single object with mass in the universe is technically affecting every other object, all at different strengths that also constantly change to due the expansion of space. ...Well damn, that;s a lot of variable to try and work out. Luckily, we don't need to know the exact location and course, just an estimate.

This made me think of another key point, the issue with scaling:

Lets say you have 2 objects, with size r1 and r2, and density p1 and p2, separated by some distance d.

The volume of each will be (4/3)*pi*r^3, and thus the mass will be p*(4/3)*pi*r^3.
So the force of gravity between them will be:
G*p1*(4/3)*pi*r1^3*p2*(4/3)*pi*r2^3/d^2.
This can simplify quite a bit, but basically to make it simplify as much as possible, i will just put k as the all the constants combined (e.g. G, pi, numbers, etc, and the densities).
This gives:
F=k*r1^3*r2^3/d^2
Which we will call F0.

Now lets scale this by a factor of s, as done in the OP, and find the force then (Fs)
The scale will scale down r and d, but lets keep p constant.
This means:
Fs=k*(r1*s)^3*(r2*s)^3/(d*s)^2=k*r1^3*s^3*r2^3*s^3/(d^2*s^2)
=(k*r1^3*r2^3/d^2)*s^3*s^3/s^2
=F0*s^4.

You can also remove one of the masses and to determine the acceleration, where using similar math, you get:
as=a0*s.

This is a big problem with trying to scale systems like this. It doesn't always scale nicely.

If you shrink the system to 1 millionth of the size, so the distance between the sun and Earth is 150 km, so s=0.000001, you will scale the gravitational attraction between them by a factor of 0.000000000000000000000001 (I think that is the right number of zeros). That means the force will be 1 septillionth of that in the real system.

(Sorry, btw, Jack. I feel I may have echoed you on some points here, but I really just had to say something... for me more than anyone else.)

I don't mind. More people saying it might have it sink in.

Instead, both objects are drawn towards one another.

You are only describing HALF OF THE FORCES INVOLVED HERE.

I see you chose your double ignorance of gravity "paradox".

So lets stick to that until we have that settled.

Let me remind you of the undeniable facts.

I don't need reminding. I understand it quite well.

Yes, just like you expect, you get the gravitational force that provides the centripetal force.

This involves FOUR FORCES.

Nope.

Let there be two rafts ( x and y )  freely floating on a clear calm lake with a rope between them.
Both rafts are still and are a rope length apart. 
The man on (raft x) pulls on the rope which is attached to raft y.
Raft x will move toward raft y,… and raft y will move toward raft x.
Both rafts will receive equal and opposite force and motion. 
It is not possible for (raft x) to remain still and be the source of the force.

And that is just like how the moon and Earth attract one another.

Here is how modern science describes the EARTH-MOON SYSTEM:

How about you skip the condescending bullshit and get to the point?

Then, EXACTLY as in the case of the string connecting the boats, BOTH THE EARTH AND THE MOON WILL BE SUBJECTED TO FOUR FORCES AS FOLLOWS:

Earth attracts the Moon, BUT ALSO an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.

The Moon attract the Earth, BUT ALSO this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
 
There are FOUR FORCES INVOLVED HERE.

No. They wont.
Gravity is acting as the string. The tension in the string is pulling the 2 objects towards each other.
You have a boat 1 "anchored" force pulling boat 2 towards it.
At the same time, you have a boat 2 "anchored" force pulling boat 1 towards it.
There is no force "anchored" in boat 1 that is pulling boat 1 to boat 2.

The same applies to gravity.
There is the Earth "anchored" force, pulling the moon towards it.
There is the moon "anchored" force, pulling Earth towards it.
There is not an Earth "anchored" force pulling Earth towards the moon.
All Earth "anchored" forces will pull objects towards Earth.

So no, there is no doubling of the forces.

You repeating the same refuted bullshit again and again and again and again wont magically make it true.

You need to explain these baseless claims of yours.
You need to explain why there should be an Earth "anchored" force which both pulls the moon towards it, and pulls itself towards the moon.
You then need to do the equivalent for the moon.

You are yet to do that. Instead all you can do is repeatedly assert that it is the case.

"All attraction models" produce twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit!

No. Only your ignorant misrepresentations of them.

On the lake, BOTH BOATS CONNECTED BY THE STRING WILL BE SUBJECTED TO FOUR FORCES, THAT IS WHY THEY WILL START MOVING TOWARDS EACH OTHER.

No, they wont.
Each boat will be subjected to a single force.
That force is what results in the motion of the boat.
The same applies to the Earth-moon system.
Each one is subject to a single force, which causes it's acceleration.

Now stop repeating the same bullshit and actually justify your claims.

And now that you have chosen this, I will not let it die on this thread until you either admit you were wrong, or run away with your tail between your legs, or you somehow manage to do the impossible and justify your claims.

You are ignoring my simple question: All of your sources accept spherical Earth, Moon, Sun, planets, etc all in a galaxy of sun-like stars...all held together by something other than gravity. FINE!! I DON'T CARE AT THIS POINT!!

Please stop quoting the same nonsense again and again and again AND AGAIN.

NONE OF US CARE!!

All that shows (if accepted) is that FE is wrong. You want us to accept a spherical Earth and Moon orbiting a distant Sun all held together by something other than gravity? Will that make you happy? This is a forum for the SHAPE OF THE EARTH!

Which is easily shown to be a sphere. All other questions are irrelevant to this forum. I will not read any more of your comments about anything other than the shape of the Earth. Nor will I wade through a 1,000 word copy and paste of a bunch of disproven "gravity is magnets" crap to find your one comment on the shape of the Earth. Stick to the topic or get out.

You did not read M. Miles' paper.

I did though.

But I have just claimed that the E/M field is the dominant field by far at this level of size and that this field is always repulsive. How do I explain this contradiction? The explanation is that we are not seeing or measuring a force between the balls, as has always been assumed. We are not measuring or seeing gravity, in the main. The larger ball or object is mainly a blocker. It is a masking agent. We are not seeing an attraction; we are seeing the blocking of a repulsion.


Our large ball simply gets in the way of photons being emitted by the walls. Since the smaller ball is no longer being repulsed from that direction, it moves it that direction, appearing to be attracted by the larger ball. It is that simple.

This has nothing to do with my experiment; I controlled for this. If you look in my OP, that detail has been there since the beginning.

If my experiment is wrong, show how specifically my experiment is flawed.

If you want anyone to understand anything about your experiment, then you are going to have to offer many more details as to how you performed it. Go ahead and include these details at the other thread.

Sure thing! What details do you want me to add?

Because Nipher's experiments worked on the basis that Cavendish's experiments are valid.

Nipher discovered AN ANTIGRAVITATIONAL EFFECT, in addition to the effect OF TERRESTRIAL GRAVITY WHICH IS NOT A FORCE OF ATTRACTION, BUT OF PRESSURE.

Professor Nipher showed that TERRESTRIAL GRAVITATION (PRESSURE) AND ELECTRICITY (ANTI GRAVITATIONAL FORCE) ARE ABSOLUTELY RELATED.

I refer you to your own prior comment:

The large metal lead spheres now exerted a certain gravitational force upon the suspended small lead balls … and the small lead balls were slightly moved over towards the large spheres.

This is repeated throughout the documents you have provided. This is Nipher explicitly saying that gravitational attraction exists, and that it is not caused by pressure. Do you really want to disagree with Nipher? I mean, dude was a smart dude.

The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.

Nope, you can't have a gravitational 'field' if it's caused by pressure. Only if it's caused by gravitational attraction. So, is Nipher right, or are you?

Also, please explain to me what Nipher's experiment showed that cannot be explained using Coulomb's Law.

Your conclusions could not be more wrong: how then is anyone here going to trust your OWN experiment, your take on it?

I asked nicely to keep insults out of this. Please, don't discredit your ideas.

To recap:

 - If you would like me to add detail to my OP, then please explain what you would like and I shall add it if it is within my ability. If it isn't, I will explain why in a rational and hopefully satisfactory manner.

 - Nipher relies on gravitational attraction. You claim gravitational attraction doesn't exist. You can't both be right. So either Nipher goes, or you do.

 - If you have issue against my experiment, raise it against my experiment, not against me. That's just common courtesy.

I would like to point out (for the third time so far): I believe that the Earth is flat.
I have no dispute with you there. I do have dispute with the arguments you are using to conclude gravitational attraction doesn't exist.

I do agree with Jonny B Smart here though. If you want to continue this debate, let's move it over to the relevant thread.

Nobody places much credence on experiments performed only once by one person.

BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT: FULL DETAILS

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1852363#msg1852363

But what I find so significant is that we have three self-professed very intelligent people, JRoweSkeptic, sceptimatic and of course İntikam.

Many people can claim whatever they want.

I see that you left youself off the list of "very intelligent people". I guess that's something!

But all four of you insist that you each have the only true model of the flat earth. Why should anyone accept yours over the others?
Are you that much smarter than they? I doubt that they'd agree!

However, these debates constitute the ULTIMATE TEST as to the truth of those FE models.

In less than five minutes, any other FE model can be debunked: very rapidly.

Rubbish!  These debates mean nothing in the real world!
So what if you can brow-beat a few into swallowing your garbage! That changes nothing.

The only way for you to change anything is to get your theories accepted in the wider community, and skulking here won't do that. .

This little backwater has no influence! Still, go your merry way. I don't care one way or the other.

PS I'm still waiting for information on your supplying these magnetic monopoles, a free energy machine and also
      the height of the sun, moon, planets and stars above the earth!
      If you have no idea, just admit it.

How about you skip the condescending bullshit and get to the point?

These are the views expressed by modern science as to how attractive gravity works.

Is this what you call "condescending bullshit"?

When science teachers are asked how does gravity work, they answer in this manner:

Gravity is a force.

Gravity is directed towards the center of the orbit i.e. the sun.

That makes gravity the centripetal force.

Imagine a ball attached to a string and you are holding the other end of the string and moving your hand in such a way that the ball is in circular motion. Then tension in the string is centripetal force.

Now, ball = earth

you = sun

tension in the string = gravity


Gravity is the reason one object orbits another. An analogy is swinging a ball on a string over your head. The string is like gravity, and it keeps the ball in orbit. If you let go of the string, the ball flies away from you. (Dr. Eric Christian, April 2011)


http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=4569 (UCSB Science Line)

Centrifugal force acts on a rotating object in a direction opposite the axis of rotation. Imagine that you have a tennis ball tied to a string. If you swing the tennis ball on the string around in a circle, you would feel the ball tugging on the string. That is the centrifugal force on the ball. It is counteracted by tension in the string that you are holding. In this example, the tension force in the string is like the gravitational force between the earth and the sun. The ball doesn't get closer or farther from your hand. If you suddenly cut the string, the ball would go flying away, but that wont happen to the earth because of the sun's gravity.

http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=4583

Forces can make something move or stop something from moving. For a planet in orbit around the sun, the string is invisible. That invisible string is the gravitational force between the Earth and the sun.


FIRST EXAMPLE

TWO BOATS LINKED BY A ROPE

SECOND EXAMPLE

TWO RAFTS LINKED BY A ROPE


IN BOTH CASES, the boats will move towards each other.

Four forces at work.

The first boat will attract the second boat, BUT ALSO AN EQUAL FIRST BOAT ANCHORED  ATTRACTION FORCE IS PULLING THE FIRST BOAT TOWARDS THE SECOND BOAT.


PLEASE NOTE THAT BOTH BOATS/RAFTS WILL MOVE TOWARDS EACH OTHER.


THEN, THE SAME THING MUST HAPPEN IN THE EARTH-MOON SYSTEM.


Remember this?

As we have seen, modern science describes the Earth-Moon as follows:

Now, ball = Moon

you = Earth

tension in the string = gravity


THE SAME FOUR FORCES WILL BE AT WORK.


Earth attracts the Moon, BUT ALSO an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.

The Moon attract the Earth, BUT ALSO this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
 
There are FOUR FORCES INVOLVED HERE.

"All attraction models" produce twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit!


Just like in the case with the two boats/rafts, both planets will BE PULLED TOWARDS EACH OTHER.


You need to explain why there should be an Earth "anchored" force which both pulls the moon towards it, and pulls itself towards the moon.
You then need to do the equivalent for the moon.

Sure.

Very simple.

Let there be two rafts ( x and y )  freely floating on a clear calm lake with a rope between them.
Both rafts are still and are a rope length apart. 
The man on (raft x) pulls on the rope which is attached to raft y.
Raft x will move toward raft y,… and raft y will move toward raft x.
Both rafts will receive equal and opposite force and motion. 
It is not possible for (raft x) to remain still and be the source of the force.


A direct consequence of the third law attributed to Newton: TO EVERY ACTION THERE'S ALWAYS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION.

Raft x is pulling raft y, and at the same time is moving toward raft y.

EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION FORCES.

FORCE 1: raft x is pulling raft y

FORCE 2: the raft x anchored force will cause raft x to be moving itself toward raft y

Same forces apply to raft y.


It is not possible for (raft x) to remain still and be the source of the force.

Then, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE MOON TO REMAIN STILL AND BE THE SOURCE OF THE FORCE (Earth-Moon attractive gravitational model).


EQUAL AND OPPOSITE FORCES.

TWO OF THEM WORK ON RAFT X, TWO OF THEM WORK ON RAFT Y, causing both to move towards each other.




This is Nipher explicitly saying that gravitational attraction exists

Terrestrial gravitation can be caused, on a flat earth, by far different forces other than "attraction".

Nope, you can't have a gravitational 'field' if it's caused by pressure. Only if it's caused by gravitational attraction.

You better do your homework on the Allais effect: an antigravitational effect caused by pressure.

This is Nipher explicitly saying that gravitational attraction exists

Terrestrial gravitation can be caused, on a flat earth, by far different forces other than "attraction".

That's besides the point, because Nipher, the man you cite, says it's caused by attraction, and his experiment works based on this principle. So you can't use him as evidence against attraction.

Nope, you can't have a gravitational 'field' if it's caused by pressure. Only if it's caused by gravitational attraction.

You better do your homework on the Allais effect: an antigravitational effect caused by pressure.

Cool, I just did. It's been alleged, and experiments have been done which both support and do not support it. Also, that doesn't describe a 'field' of force as I clearly state. So, I stand by my statement.

To recap:

 - You still have not even remotely addressed my main points.

If you want to address them, please do so in the thread suggested and provided, because I sense dark eyes frowning upon me for further derailing this thread.

<< another copy of the same old wall-paper >>

If you can't work where you are wrong with your trivial raft problem there in no chance that you'll understand anything advanced.

Go learn knitting, it might be right up your alley!

Let's see what Professor Nipher has to say on the subject of his experiments.

http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm

New York Times (19 September 1917)

"Professor Tells of Electrical Tests Turning Attraction Into Repulsion."

A new theory as to gravitation will be announced soon before the St. Louis Academy of Sciences by Professor Francis E. Nipper, retired head of the Department of Physics of Washington University.

"It will be shown that gravitational attraction between masses of matter not only has been diminished into zero, but has been converted into repulsion which is more than twice as great as normal attraction."

New Gravitation Theory ~

Professor Nipper made his experiments with bodies suspended horizontally toward each other. By introducing electricity into the atmosphere he converted normal attraction into repulsion.



Here, Professor Nipher adheres to the commonly accepted "hypothesis" that terrestrial gravitation is attractive, even though there are no experiments to confirm this.

However, his ingenious experiments CREATED IN ANTIGRAVITATIONAL FORCE, thus linking terrestrial gravitation (pressure) to antigravity.



Before connecting any form of electric current to the modified Cavendish apparatus, Prof. Nipher took special precaution to carefully screen the moving element from any electrostatic or electromagnetic effects. His apparatus briefly consists of two large lead spheres ten inches in diameter, resting upon heavy sheets of hard rubber. Two small lead balls, each one inch in diameter, were now suspended from two silk threads, stationed at the sides of the two large lead spheres, from which they were separated by a little distance. Moreover, the suspended balls were insulated elaborately from the large spheres by enclosing them first airtight in a long wooden box, which was also covered with tinned iron sheets as well as cardboard sheets. There was, furthermore, a metal shield between the box and the large metal spheres.


In further experiments Prof. Nipher decided to check his results. To do this he replaced the large solid lead spheres with two metal boxes, each filled with loose cotton batting. These hollow boxes (having practically no mass) rested upon insulators. They were separated from the protective screen by sheets of glass and were grounded to it by heavy copper wires. The metal boxes were then charged in every way that the solid lead spheres had been, but not the slightest change in the position of the lead balls could be detected. This would seem to prove conclusively that the "repulsion" and "gravitational nullification" effects that he had produced when the solid balls were electrically charged were genuine and based undoubtedly on a true inter-atomic electrical reaction, and not upon any form of electrostatic or electromagnetic effects between the large and small masses. If they had been, the metal boxes, with no mass, would have served as well as the solid balls.


Another interesting experiment was conducted with low frequency alternating current applied to the large lead spheres. Spring contact brushes were fastened to the wooden blocks supporting the large spheres, one brush on either side of the ball. This permitted sending current through the ball from one side to the other. First, a direct current of 20 amperes as sent through the two large masses, but no effect on the suspended masses could be detected. Next, an alternating current of 20 amperes was sent through the two masses, with the result that the gravitational attraction was quickly reduced to zero, and not only that but in 15 to 20 minutes the small lead spheres had moved over one-half as much to the opposite direction as the distance they had been attracted originally towards the large masses. Thus gravitation had not only been completely nullified, but it was actually reversed.


A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.


"These results seem to indicate clearly that gravitational attraction between masses of matter depends upon electrical potential due to electrical charges upon them."

Every working day of the following college year has been devoted to testing the validity of the above statement. No results in conflict with it have been obtained. Not only has gravitational attraction been diminished by electrification of the attracting bodies when direct electrical action has been wholly cut off by a metal shield, but it has been made negative. It has been converted into a repulsion. This result has been obtained many times throughout the year. On one occasion during the latter part of the year, this repulsion was made somewhat more than twice as great as normal attraction.


A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.



rabinoz... leave classical mechanics to those who do know something about it.

FROM A CLASSIC TEXT ON MECHANICS:



It is easy to conceive, that if a man in one boat pulls at a rope attached to another boat, the two boats, if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate; but if the one be large and the other small, the rapidity with which each moves will be in proportion to its size, the large one moving with as much less velocity as its size is greater.

A man in a boat pulling a rope attached to a ship, seems only to move the boat, but that he really moves the ship will be obvious when it is considered, that a thousand boats pulling in the same manner would make the ship meet them halfway.


"If the seat, source and cause of the "apparent" attraction forces are "internal" to each of the bodies...the attraction concept produces twice the force that is necessary to balance the centrifugal orbital forces of a planet moon system.

The concept of "attraction" between bodies requires that the force “from” each separate body acts on the remote body,-- and equally on the originating body."

Exactly as in the above example, using two boats, or a boat and a ship.

FORCE #1: boat x is pulling on boat y

FORCE #2: the boat x anchored force WILL MOVE BOAT X TOWARDS BOAT Y (OR THE SHIP) (will cause boat x to be moving itself towards boat y)

"To every action there is always an opposed  equal reaction".

FORCE #3: boat y is pulling on boat x

FORCE #4: the boat y anchored force will MOVE BOAT Y TOWARDS BOAT X



THE SAME THING WILL HAPPEN IN THE EARTH-MOON RE SYSTEM: BOTH PLANETS WILL START MOVING TOWARDS EACH OTHER.


From Earth, the concept requires that Earth's gravity is attracting the Moon; and an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.

From the Moon, the Moon's gravity is attracting the Earth; and this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.

As simple as this.

Let's see what Professor Nipher has to say on the subject of his experiments.

http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm

New York Times (19 September 1917)

"Professor Tells of Electrical Tests Turning Attraction Into Repulsion."

A new theory as to gravitation will be announced soon before the St. Louis Academy of Sciences by Professor Francis E. Nipper, retired head of the Department of Physics of Washington University.

"It will be shown that gravitational attraction between masses of matter not only has been diminished into zero, but has been converted into repulsion which is more than twice as great as normal attraction."

New Gravitation Theory ~

Professor Nipper made his experiments with bodies suspended horizontally toward each other. By introducing electricity into the atmosphere he converted normal attraction into repulsion.



Here, Professor Nipher adheres to the commonly accepted "hypothesis" that terrestrial gravitation is attractive, even though there are no experiments to confirm this.

However, his ingenious experiments CREATED IN ANTIGRAVITATIONAL FORCE, thus linking terrestrial gravitation (pressure) to antigravity.



Before connecting any form of electric current to the modified Cavendish apparatus, Prof. Nipher took special precaution to carefully screen the moving element from any electrostatic or electromagnetic effects. His apparatus briefly consists of two large lead spheres ten inches in diameter, resting upon heavy sheets of hard rubber. Two small lead balls, each one inch in diameter, were now suspended from two silk threads, stationed at the sides of the two large lead spheres, from which they were separated by a little distance. Moreover, the suspended balls were insulated elaborately from the large spheres by enclosing them first airtight in a long wooden box, which was also covered with tinned iron sheets as well as cardboard sheets. There was, furthermore, a metal shield between the box and the large metal spheres. The large metal lead spheres now exerted a certain gravitational pull upon the suspended small lead balls and the small lead balls were slightly pulled over towards the large spheres.


In further experiments Prof. Nipher decided to check his results. To do this he replaced the large solid lead spheres with two metal boxes, each filled with loose cotton batting. These hollow boxes (having practically no mass) rested upon insulators. They were separated from the protective screen by sheets of glass and were grounded to it by heavy copper wires. The metal boxes were then charged in every way that the solid lead spheres had been, but not the slightest change in the position of the lead balls could be detected. This would seem to prove conclusively that the "repulsion" and "gravitational nullification" effects that he had produced when the solid balls were electrically charged were genuine and based undoubtedly on a true inter-atomic electrical reaction, and not upon any form of electrostatic or electromagnetic effects between the large and small masses. If they had been, the metal boxes, with no mass, would have served as well as the solid balls.


Another interesting experiment was conducted with low frequency alternating current applied to the large lead spheres. Spring contact brushes were fastened to the wooden blocks supporting the large spheres, one brush on either side of the ball. This permitted sending current through the ball from one side to the other. First, a direct current of 20 amperes as sent through the two large masses, but no effect on the suspended masses could be detected. Next, an alternating current of 20 amperes was sent through the two masses, with the result that the gravitational attraction was quickly reduced to zero, and not only that but in 15 to 20 minutes the small lead spheres had moved over one-half as much to the opposite direction as the distance they had been attracted originally towards the large masses. Thus gravitation had not only been completely nullified, but it was actually reversed.


A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.


"These results seem to indicate clearly that gravitational attraction between masses of matter depends upon electrical potential due to electrical charges upon them."

Every working day of the following college year has been devoted to testing the validity of the above statement. No results in conflict with it have been obtained. Not only has gravitational attraction been diminished by electrification of the attracting bodies when direct electrical action has been wholly cut off by a metal shield, but it has been made negative. It has been converted into a repulsion. This result has been obtained many times throughout the year. On one occasion during the latter part of the year, this repulsion was made somewhat more than twice as great as normal attraction.


A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.



rabinoz... leave classical mechanics to those who do know something about it.

FROM A CLASSIC TEXT ON MECHANICS:



It is easy to conceive, that if a man in one boat pulls at a rope attached to another boat, the two boats, if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate; but if the one be large and the other small, the rapidity with which each moves will be in proportion to its size, the large one moving with as much less velocity as its size is greater.

A man in a boat pulling a rope attached to a ship, seems only to move the boat, but that he really moves the ship will be obvious when it is considered, that a thousand boats pulling in the same manner would make the ship meet them halfway.


"If the seat, source and cause of the "apparent" attraction forces are "internal" to each of the bodies...the attraction concept produces twice the force that is necessary to balance the centrifugal orbital forces of a planet moon system.

The concept of "attraction" between bodies requires that the force “from” each separate body acts on the remote body,-- and equally on the originating body."

Exactly as in the above example, using two boats, or a boat and a ship.

FORCE #1: boat x is pulling on boat y

FORCE #2: the boat x anchored force WILL MOVE BOAT X TOWARDS BOAT Y (OR THE SHIP) (will cause boat x to be moving itself towards boat y)

"To every action there is always an opposed  equal reaction".

FORCE #3: boat y is pulling on boat x

FORCE #4: the boat y anchored force will MOVE BOAT Y TOWARDS BOAT X



THE SAME THING WILL HAPPEN IN THE EARTH-MOON RE SYSTEM: BOTH PLANETS WILL START MOVING TOWARDS EACH OTHER.


From Earth, the concept requires that Earth's gravity is attracting the Moon; and an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.

From the Moon, the Moon's gravity is attracting the Earth; and this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.

As simple as this.

Okay, but irregardless of the repulsion (explained by Coulomb's Law and easily replicated by pulling a fruit loop around a water-filled bowl with a magnet), Nipher used the principles of Gravitational Attraction to conduct his experiment.

So you're simultaneously saying he was both wrong and right. That's a paradox.

Nipher himself, in quotes you have used, acknowledges gravitational attraction. You say he is wrong.

But then his electric repulsion must also be wrong.

How can his experiment be both wrong and right? How can he prove electric fields can override gravitational ones without acknowledging gravitational ones exist.

And yes, he shielded his masses. But to say that electricity is causing the effect, you have to acknowledge, well, that electricity is having an effect. This effect is modelled for by Coulomb's Law.

There is no contradiction between attractive gravity, Coulomb's Law and Nipher's experiment.

To recap:
 - Is Nipher wrong, or is he right? He can't be both.
 - Coulomb's Law.
 - This is the wrong thread.

You seem to be VERY confused.

Coulomb's law describes the force interacting between static electrically charged particles.


Now, pay attention to this:


Before connecting any form of electric current to the modified Cavendish apparatus, Prof. Nipher took special precaution to carefully screen the moving element from any electrostatic or electromagnetic effects.

In further experiments Prof. Nipher decided to check his results. To do this he replaced the large solid lead spheres with two metal boxes, each filled with loose cotton batting. These hollow boxes (having practically no mass) rested upon insulators. They were separated from the protective screen by sheets of glass and were grounded to it by heavy copper wires. The metal boxes were then charged in every way that the solid lead spheres had been, but not the slightest change in the position of the lead balls could be detected. This would seem to prove conclusively that the "repulsion" and "gravitational nullification" effects that he had produced when the solid balls were electrically charged were genuine and based undoubtedly on a true inter-atomic electrical reaction, and not upon any form of electrostatic or electromagnetic effects between the large and small masses. If they had been, the metal boxes, with no mass, would have served as well as the solid balls.


You cannot invoke Coulomb's law.


So you're simultaneously saying he was both wrong and right. That's a paradox.

I am not saying that at all.

Do you understand that there are TWO FORCES AT WORK AT THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH?

One of them is commonly called terrestrial gravitation, and it involves dextrotatory subquarks.

The second force, which can be activated by sound, electrical tension or double torsion (CYMATICS, BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT, DEPALMA OR ALLAIS EXPERIMENTS) is due to the influence of laevorotatory subquarks.

No paradox involved here.

Another interesting experiment was conducted with low frequency alternating current applied to the large lead spheres. Spring contact brushes were fastened to the wooden blocks supporting the large spheres, one brush on either side of the ball. This permitted sending current through the ball from one side to the other. First, a direct current of 20 amperes as sent through the two large masses, but no effect on the suspended masses could be detected. Next, an alternating current of 20 amperes was sent through the two masses, with the result that the gravitational attraction was quickly reduced to zero, and not only that but in 15 to 20 minutes the small lead spheres had moved over one-half as much to the opposite direction as the distance they had been attracted originally towards the large masses. Thus gravitation had not only been completely nullified, but it was actually reversed.


A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.


"These results seem to indicate clearly that gravitational attraction between masses of matter depends upon electrical potential due to electrical charges upon them."

Every working day of the following college year has been devoted to testing the validity of the above statement. No results in conflict with it have been obtained. Not only has gravitational attraction been diminished by electrification of the attracting bodies when direct electrical action has been wholly cut off by a metal shield, but it has been made negative. It has been converted into a repulsion. This result has been obtained many times throughout the year. On one occasion during the latter part of the year, this repulsion was made somewhat more than twice as great as normal attraction.


A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.

Before connecting any form of electric current to the modified Cavendish apparatus, Prof. Nipher took special precaution to carefully screen the moving element from any electrostatic or electromagnetic effects.

This is what the shielding was:

Moreover, the suspended balls were insulated elaborately from the large spheres by enclosing them first airtight in a long wooden box, which was also covered with tinned iron sheets as well as cardboard sheets. There was, furthermore, a metal shield between the box and the large metal spheres.

The problem is that iron conducts electricity, so it would have provided zero protection from electrostatic effects.

Here's a diagram from your source:



This is a nice illustration of how the shield wouldn't have worked at all.

Do you understand that there are TWO FORCES AT WORK AT THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH?

Well, actually there are a few more than two. Also, this again? Please don't insult me, because it doesn't lend credibility to your points or further diminish mine. It's pointless if you want a reasoned discussion.

Here's another image from your source:


It even has gravitational attraction written on it!

Here's another experiment:
1. Go to your source and press ctrl+f
2. Type 'gravitational attraction'

Results of this experiment:
There are 27 instances where the articles reference gravitational attraction.

Ooh, ooh, here's a good one:
What about the fact that the website you pull these sources from is a parody website?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rex_Research

The image (which I took myself), and the website link provided do a good job proving that.

To recap:
 - The experiment did not adequately shield from electric effects.
 - The experiment heavily discusses gravitational attraction.
 - The experiment can only be sourced by a discredited website.
 - The experiment is not relevant.

I say again, if you don't believe my experiment, show that specifically my experiment was flawed. Don't give me other experiments; look at mine in a vacuum.

Professor Nipher's articles were published in a respected journal and peer reviewed.

Moreover, he was one of the top physicists at that time.

Your drivel amounts to nothing at all.


Electrical Experimenter (March 1918)

Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis XXIII (4): 173-176 (July 28,1916)

Trans. Acad. Sci. of St. Louis XXIII (4): 177-193 (July 28, 1916)

Trans. Acad. Sci. of St. Louis XXVII: 383-387 (March 2, 1920)

Read the papers.

Each and every possible disturbance was totally eliminated.

No one would have published his papers had that not been the case.


You wanna play games with me?

The Nipher effect is just a small scale Biefeld-Brown effect.


BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT

In earlier experimentation, Thomas Townsend Brown had made the startling discovery that a Coolidge X-ray tube exhibited thrust when charged to high voltage. It took Brown a while to realize that the motion was not caused by the X rays themselves, but by the electricity coursing through the tube. Brown went on to develop a device he called the "Gravitor," an electrical condenser sealed in a Bakelite case, that would exhibit a one percent weight gain or a one percent weight loss when connected to a 100-kilovolt power supply.

"The Gravitor, in all reality, is a very efficient motor. Unlike other forms of motor, it does not in any way involve the principles of electromagnetism, but instead it utilizes the principles of electro-gravitation.

A simple gravitor has no moving parts, but is apparently capable of moving itself from within itself. It is highly efficient for the reason that it uses no gears, shafts, propellers or wheels in creating its motive power. It has no internal mechanical resistance and no observable rise in temperature. Contrary to the common belief that gravitational motors must necessarily be vertical-acting, the gravitor, it is found, acts equally well in every conceivable direction."

T.T. Brown, 1929


In 1955, he went to work for the French aerospace company SNCASO—Société Nationale de Constructions Aéronautiques du SudOuest. During this one-year research period, he ran his discs in a vacuum. If anything, they worked better in a vacuum.

http://www.rexresearch.com/gravitor/gravitor.htm

Since the time of the first test the apparatus and the methods used have been greatly improved and simplified. Cellular "gravitators" have taken the place of the large balls of lead. Rotating frames supporting two and four gravitators have made possible acceleration measurements. Molecular gravitators made of solid blocks of massive dielectric have given still greater efficiency. Rotors and pendulums operating under oil have eliminated atmospheric considerations as to pressure, temperature and humidity.

The disturbing effects of ionization, electron emission and pure electro-statics have likewise been carefully analyzed and eliminated. Finally after many years of tedious work and with refinement of methods we succeeded in observing the gravitational variations produced by the moon and sun and much smaller variations produced by the different planets.

Let us take, for example, the case of a gravitator totally immersed in oil but suspended so as to act as a pendulum and swing along the line of its elements.



When the direct current with high voltage (75-300 kilovolts) is applied the gravitator swings up the arc until its propulsive force balances the force of the earth's gravity resolved to that point, then it stops, but it does not remain there. The pendulum then gradually returns to the vertical or starting position even while the potential is maintained. The pendulum swings only to one side of the vertical. Less than five seconds is required for the test pendulum to reach the maximum amplitude of the swing but from thirty to eighty seconds are required for it to return to zero.

(T.T. Brown, How I Control Gravitation, 1929)


“Brown’s first experiments consisted of two lead spheres connected by a nonconductive glass rod, like a dumbell. One sphere was charged positive, the other negative, with a total of 120 kilovolts between them. This formed a large electric dipole. When suspended, the system moved toward the positive pole, arcing upwards and staying there against the force of gravity tugging downward. This showed that electric dipoles generate self-acceleration toward the positive pole. This experiment was repeated in oil, in a grounded tank, proving that ion wind was not responsible.

Improved versions of this setup replaced the lead spheres with metal plates, and glass rod with dielectric plates or blocks. This created a high voltage parallel plate capacitor with one or more layers. Brown’s British patent #300,111 – issued in 1927 – described what he termed a “cellular gravitator” consisting of numerous metal plates interleaved with dielectric plates, the entire block wrapped in insulating material and end plates connected to output electrodes and a spark gap to limit the input voltage. This device produced significant acceleration.

Brown’s 1927 patent described a self-contained device that exhibited no ion wind effects and relied solely upon the electrogravitational action arising from the electric dipoles within the gravitator-capacitor.”


“When a high voltage (~30 kV) is applied to a capacitor whose electrodes have different physical dimensions, the capacitor experiences a net force toward the smaller electrode (Biefeld-Brown effect).

The calculations indicate that ionic wind is at least three orders of magnitude too small to explain the magnitude of the observed force on the capacitor (in open air experiments).”
In the Paris test miniature saucer type airfoils were operated in a vaccum exceeding 10-6mm Hg. Bursts of thrust (towards the positive) were observed every time there was a vaccum spark within the large bell jar.

Condensers of various types, air dielectric and barium titanate were assembled on a rotary support to eliminate the electrostatic effect of chamber walls and observations were made of the rate of rotation. Intense acceleration was always observed during the vacuum spark (which, incidentally, illuminated the entire interior of the vacuum chamber). Barium Titanate dielectrique always exceeded air dielectric in total thrust. The results which were most significant from the standpoint of the Biefeld-Brown effect, was that thrust continued, even when there was no vacuum spark, causing the rotor to accelerate in the negative to positive direction to the point where voltage had to be reduced or the experiment discontinued because of the danger that the rotor would fly apart.

In short, it appears there is strong evidence that Biefeld-Brown effect does exist in the negative to positive direction in a vacuum of at least 10-6 Torr. The residual thrust is several orders of magnitude larger than the remaining ambient ionization can account for. Going further in your letter of January 28th, the condenser "Gravitor" as described in my British patent, only showed a loss of weight when vertically oriented so that the negative-to-postive thrust was upward. In other words, the thrust tended to "lift" the gravitor."

T.T. Brown, 1973


“The initial experiments conducted by Townsend Brown, concerning the behavior of a condenser when charged with electricity, had the characteristic of simplicity which has marked most other great scientific advancements.

The first startling revelation was that if placed in free suspension with the poles horizontal, the condenser, when charged, exhibited a forward thrust toward the positive poles. A reversal of polarity caused a reversal of the direction of thrust. The experiment was set up as follows:



The antigravity effect of vertical thrust is demonstrated by balancing a condenser on a beam balance and then charging it. After charging, if the positive pole is pointed upward, the condenser moves up.

If the charge is reversed and the positive pole pointed downward, the condenser thrusts down. The experiment is conducted as follows:"




VACUUM TEST #1

http://lifters.online.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/index.htm (includes all necessary technical information and the video itself)


At the pressure of 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr ( High Vacuum conditions ), the apparatus rotates when the High Voltage is increased from 0 to +45 KV.


VACUUM TEST #2

https://web.archive.org/web/20050216062907/http://www-personal.umich.edu/~reginald/liftvac.html (includes technical information and video)


VACUUM TEST #3

https://web.archive.org/web/20070212193741/http://www.t-spark.de/t-spark/t-sparke/liftere.htm (includes technical information and video)


MULTIPLE TESTS PERFORMED IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT ION WIND COULD NOT HAVE AN INFLUENCE ON THE EXPERIMENTS THEMSELVES:

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lifteriw.htm


VACUUM TEST #4: PROJECT MONTGOLFIER

https://web.archive.org/web/20140110041712/http://projetmontgolfier.info/

https://web.archive.org/web/20131025082102/http://projetmontgolfier.info/TT_Brown_Proposal.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20130522083124/http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_3__Final_Report.pdf

In 1955 and 1956 Townsend Brown made two trips to Paris where he conducted tests of his electrokinetic apparatus and electrogravitic vacuum chamber tests in collaboration with the French aeronautical company Société National de Construction Aeronautiques du Sud Ouest (S.N.C.A.S.O.) .

In addition the Project Montgolfier team constructed a very large vacuum chamber for performing vacuum tests of smaller discs at a pressure of 5 X 10-5 mm Hg:



The report says that under high vacuum conditions the discs always moved in the direction of the positive pole, regardless of the polarity on the outboard wire. 

These vacuum chamber experiments were a decisive milestone in that they demonstrated beyond a doubt that electrogravitic propulsion was a real physical phenomenon. 

PAGE 26 OF THE FINAL REPORT FULLY DESCRIBES THE OBSERVED BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT IN FULL VACUUM CHAMBER

When the DISK SHAPED CAPACITOR WAS USED, the total deviation/movement was A FULL 30 DEGREES (deviation totale du systeme 30 degre).


VIDEO: BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT, balancing a condenser on a beam balance

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/elghatv1.htm (includes three videos of the experiment)

How about you skip the condescending bullshit and get to the point?

These are the views expressed by modern science as to how attractive gravity works.

Is this what you call "condescending bullshit"?

The condescending bullshit is continually repeating this as if everyone else is an ignorant moron that doesn't understand it at all.

None of that is in dispute. The dispute comes from you claiming the force magically doubles, which you have no basis for.

Four forces at work.

NO! THERE ISN'T.
Each object has a single force acting upon it.

The first boat will attract the second boat, BUT ALSO AN EQUAL FIRST BOAT ANCHORED  ATTRACTION FORCE IS PULLING THE FIRST BOAT TOWARDS THE SECOND BOAT.

No, there isn't.
The first boat "anchored" force is just pulling the second boat 2 it.
There is no first boat "anchored" force which is pulling the first post towards the second boat.

This is the part you need to back up, because so far all you have done is repeatedly assert this.

THE SAME FOUR FORCES WILL BE AT WORK.

No. Forces akin/equivalent to the same forces will be at work, but there won't be 4.

Earth attracts the Moon, BUT ALSO an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.

No. There isn't.
The only force pulling Earth towards the moon is a moon "anchored" one.

There are FOUR FORCES INVOLVED HERE.

No, there isn't.
There is the force of gravity acting between the Earth and moon, where the gravity of Earth attracts the moon and the gravity of the moon attracts Earth.
There is no magic doubling of forces like you claim.

"All attraction models" produce twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit!

No they don't, only your ignorant, baseless doubling of forces do.

You need to explain why there should be an Earth "anchored" force which both pulls the moon towards it, and pulls itself towards the moon.
You then need to do the equivalent for the moon.

Sure.
Very simple.
Let there be two rafts ( x and y )  freely floating on a clear calm lake with a rope between them.
Both rafts are still and are a rope length apart. 
The man on (raft x) pulls on the rope which is attached to raft y.
Raft x will move toward raft y,… and raft y will move toward raft x.
Both rafts will receive equal and opposite force and motion. 
It is not possible for (raft x) to remain still and be the source of the force.
A direct consequence of the third law attributed to Newton: TO EVERY ACTION THERE'S ALWAYS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION.

Yes, there is always an equal and opposite reaction. That doesn't mean both actions are "anchored" in the same spot.
The equal and opposite reaction to the force of boat x pulling boat y, is boat y pulling boat x.
The force pulling boat x is anchored at y, the force pulling boat y is anchored at x.

There is the equal and opposite reaction.

That doesn't result in the magic doubling of forces you claim exists.

Raft x is pulling raft y, and at the same time is moving toward raft y.

EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION FORCES.

Yes, because raft y is pulling raft x.

The opposite reaction would only be missing if you had it so raft x was pulling raft y, but raft y wasn't pulling raft x.

There are other ways of saying the same thing, for example:
"If you push an object, it pushes back."
What that means is if you apply a force F to an object, that object will in turn apply a force F back to you.
It doesn't mean that you apply a force F back to yourself.

FORCE 1: raft x is pulling raft y

FORCE 2: the raft x anchored force will cause raft x to be moving itself toward raft y

Same forces apply to raft y.

Nope.
Force 1: raft x pulling raft y.
Force 2: raft y pulling raft x.
There is no magic force "anchored" at raft x that is causing raft x to move towards raft y.

It is not possible for (raft x) to remain still and be the source of the force.
Then, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE MOON TO REMAIN STILL AND BE THE SOURCE OF THE FORCE (Earth-Moon attractive gravitational model).

Again, no one is doubting that.
This is because raft y will be exerting an equal but opposite force on raft x.

EQUAL AND OPPOSITE FORCES.

TWO OF THEM WORK ON RAFT X, TWO OF THEM WORK ON RAFT Y, causing both to move towards each other.

No. One works on raft y, the equal and opposite one works on raft x.
Just like when you push an object, one force is applied to the object you are pushing, the equal but opposite one applies to you.

Forget the raft problem, as it is clearly too complex for you to understand.

Start simpler.
Start with you pushing a block.
See if you can describe the forces there.

Your drivel amounts to nothing at all.

You wanna play games with me?

Really? I have taken the sources you provide, show evidence from those sources that your conclusions aren't supported (notice I didn't say you were wrong), asked you multiple times to not throw insults, and yet the response I get for following etiquette is more insults.

You aren't doing yourself any favours.

Are you saying my experiment is wrong? If so, then provide evidence to back up your claim. By evidence, I'm not talking about copy+pasting sources which agree with you. I could do that all day long. Show me where my experiment is wrong, or conduct your own experiment and open it up to the same scrutiny I have. If you cannot or will not do this, then we have nothing to discuss.

Are you going to reciprocate a willingness to learn? If not, then we're done here.

I'll not be replying to you anymore on this thread; we've derailed it enough.

Want to continue this discussion?

• Raise objections to the way I conducted my experiment.
• Do so in the thread provided for such.
• Demonstrate that you are willing to expand your knowledge, the way I have in my OP.

Take a look at yourself jack.

You have no idea what causes attractive gravity.

Not the faintest idea.

Yet, here you are mighty sure of yourself trying to debate the double forces of attractive gravitation paradox.


Your arguments are a total failure jack.


It is easy to conceive, that if a man in one boat pulls at a rope attached to another boat, the two boats, if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate; but if the one be large and the other small, the rapidity with which each moves will be in proportion to its size, the large one moving with as much less velocity as its size is greater.

A man in a boat pulling a rope attached to a ship, seems only to move the boat, but that he really moves the ship will be obvious when it is considered, that a thousand boats pulling in the same manner would make the ship meet them halfway.


TWO BOATS CONNECTED BY A ROPE/STRING.


Modern science describes the EARTH-MOON in exactly the same way.


Do you understand the law of action-reaction?


Yes, there is always an equal and opposite reaction. That doesn't mean both actions are "anchored" in the same spot.
The equal and opposite reaction to the force of boat x pulling boat y, is boat y pulling boat x.
The force pulling boat x is anchored at y, the force pulling boat y is anchored at x.

There is the equal and opposite reaction.

But it doesn't work like that jack.

You cannot change the "spot" of the application of the force upon each boat, as you will.


"If the seat, source and cause of the "apparent" attraction forces are "internal" to each of the bodies...the attraction concept produces twice the force that is necessary to balance the centrifugal orbital forces of a planet moon system.

The concept of "attraction" between bodies requires that the force “from” each separate body acts on the remote body,-- and equally on the originating body."


There will be two forces acting on boat/raft x.

FORCE 1: raft x is pulling raft y

FORCE 2, the one you are missing out on:  the boat x anchored force WILL MOVE BOAT X TOWARDS BOAT Y (OR THE SHIP) (will cause boat x to be moving itself towards boat y)


Are you telling everybody here that you do not understand this very simple concept jack?

If boat x pulls on the rope, there will be TWO FORCES AT WORK.

Yes, he does pull boat y, but at the same time THIS VERY BOAT X WILL START MOVING TOWARD BOAT Y based on this anchored force at the very boat x.

Law of action/reaction applied to boat x.


If the boat is pulling on a very large ship, this second force IS THE ONE WHICH WILL CAUSE THE MOVEMENT OF BOAT X TOWARD THE SHIP.

The same thing will happen in the EARTH-MOON SYSTEM.

BOTH PLANETS WILL START TO MOVE TOWARD EACH OTHER JUST LIKE THE TWO BOATS.


Remember this?

As we have seen, modern science describes the Earth-Moon as follows:

Now, ball = Moon

you = Earth

tension in the string = gravity


THE SAME FOUR FORCES WILL BE AT WORK.


Earth attracts the Moon, BUT ALSO an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.

The Moon attract the Earth, BUT ALSO this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
 
There are FOUR FORCES INVOLVED HERE.

"All attraction models" produce twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit!


Just like in the case with the two boats/rafts, both planets will BE PULLED TOWARDS EACH OTHER.


YOU ARE TOTALLY FAILING TO REGISTER THE SECOND FORCE ACTING ON BOAT X, WHICH IS MOVING IT TOWARDS BOAT Y (OR THE LARGE SHIP).


You are deviously trying to change THE LOCATION OF THE APPLICATION OF THE LAW OF ACTION/REACTION, and it doesn't work like that.

THE LAW OF ACTION/REACTION APPLIED TO THE VERY POINT OF CONTACT FOR BOTH BOAT X AND BOAT Y.


"If the seat, source and cause of the "apparent" attraction forces are "internal" to each of the bodies...the attraction concept produces twice the force that is necessary to balance the centrifugal orbital forces of a planet moon system.

The concept of "attraction" between bodies requires that the force “from” each separate body acts on the remote body,-- and equally on the originating body."


Your bumbling analysis is catastrophic.

You are missing out on the proper/correct application of the law of action/reaction on both the boat x and the boat y.

The force pulling boat x is anchored at y, the force pulling boat y is anchored at x.

There is the equal and opposite reaction.

Totally wrong.

You have described ONLY HALF OF THE FORCES INVOLVED HERE.


Certainly boat x is pulling boat y, but at the same time boat x will start moving toward boat y based on this opposite force (action/reaction at the very same spot), the anchored force based at boat x.

The same thing happens in the EARTH-MOON SYSTEM.

Take a look at yourself jack.

How about you stop with the petty insults and try to actually defend your baseless claims?

Your arguments are a total failure jack.

Nope. They are pointing out why your arguments are pure garbage, so the total failure here is you.
Do you need to keep accusing others of being total failures to try and reassure yourself that you aren't one?

I'm going to skip the rest of your insults and your condescending BS.

Do you understand the law of action-reaction?

Yes.
Do you?
It states if you push an object, it pushes back, if you pull an object it pulls back.
It doesn't state that if you push an object, as well as it pushing back you will also push back on yourself.

It is quite simple:
A applies a force F to B.
The equal but opposite is B applying a force of -F to A.

It is not A applying a force of -F to itself. The force is equal in magnitude and in the opposite direction, but it doesn't have the relationship between A and B, either the same or opposite.
It is the opposite relationship that is required for the law of action-reaction.

So do you understand the law of action-reaction?

Yes, there is always an equal and opposite reaction. That doesn't mean both actions are "anchored" in the same spot.
The equal and opposite reaction to the force of boat x pulling boat y, is boat y pulling boat x.
The force pulling boat x is anchored at y, the force pulling boat y is anchored at x.

There is the equal and opposite reaction.

But it doesn't work like that jack.

No. It does work like that.
That is how the equal but opposite reaction works.
A applies a force of F to B. B applies a force of -F to A.

You cannot change the "spot" of the application of the force upon each boat, as you will.

I don't.

"If the seat, source and cause of the "apparent" attraction forces are "internal" to each of the bodies...the attraction concept produces twice the force that is necessary to balance the centrifugal orbital forces of a planet moon system.

But they aren't. At least not in the dishonest representation you have.
The seat, source and cause of the "apparent" attraction force of A is external to A and instead internal to B.

The concept of "attraction" between bodies requires that the force “from” each separate body acts on the remote body,-- and equally on the originating body."

No, it doesn't.
It requires that the force from one body acting on the remote body is equal to the force from that remote body acting on the original.
It does not require that that force from one body acts on both the remote body and itself.
That makes no sense at all.

It is entirely attraction.
The force from one body will only cause attraction to itself. It will never cause it to move towards another body. That will only ever be the force from that body which attracting the original to it.

There will be two forces acting on boat/raft x.

FORCE 1: raft x is pulling raft y

FORCE 2, the one you are missing out on:  the boat x anchored force WILL MOVE BOAT X TOWARDS BOAT Y (OR THE SHIP) (will cause boat x to be moving itself towards boat y)

No. There wont be.
There will be a single force (just focusing on these attraction force, ignoring the water and so on).
This 1 force will be the force of raft y pulling raft x.
It is this force which causes raft x to move towards raft y.

I'm not missing any force.
The actual equal but opposite force from raft x pulling raft y towards it is the force from raft y pulling raft x towards it.

Are you telling everybody here that you do not understand this very simple concept jack?

No. I'm showing quite clearly that I understand it quite well and understand your claims about it are pure bullshit.

If boat x pulls on the rope, there will be TWO FORCES AT WORK.

Yes, the force from x pulling y towards it and the equal but opposite force from y pulling x towards y.

Yes, he does pull boat y, but at the same time THIS VERY BOAT X WILL START MOVING TOWARD BOAT Y based on this anchored force at the very boat x.

No. Not based upon the force anchored at x. The force anchored at x is only pulling y towards it.
x will start moving towards y based upon the equal and opposite reaction force, the force anchored at y pulling x towards it.

You are missing out on the proper/correct application of the law of action/reaction on both the boat x and the boat y.

No. I am applying it correctly.
x is pulling on y, so y in turn will be pulling on x.
That means the x anchored force pulling y towards x will result in a reaction force, anchored at y, pulling x towards y.

The force pulling boat x is anchored at y, the force pulling boat y is anchored at x.

There is the equal and opposite reaction.

Totally wrong.

You have described ONLY HALF OF THE FORCES INVOLVED HERE.

No. Totally correct.
I have described all the forces involved.
There is the force from x pulling on the rope causing y to move towards it, and the reaction force which results in x moving towards y.

Certainly boat x is pulling boat y, but at the same time boat x will start moving toward boat y based on this opposite force (action/reaction at the very same spot), the anchored force based at boat x.

No. It will start moving towards boat y based upon the opposite reaction force, "anchored" at boat y which is pulling boat x towards boat y.

Are you sure you don't want to use the analogy of pushing a block? It is a lot simpler. Perhaps you can actually understand that?

You have no idea what causes attractive gravity. Not the faintest idea.

Which is not the slightest evidence that it is not a fact

Yet, here you are mighty sure of yourself trying to debate the double forces of attractive gravitation paradox.

The only "double forces of attractive gravitation paradox" is in your mind and proves once and for all that the great all-knowing Sandohnan has not the slightest understanding of even the basic laws of physics!

Go back to the Physics Classroom - Home, Newton's Laws - Lesson 4 - Newton's Third Law of Motion.
Is that down to your level or should I hunt up a kindergarten one?

Read, learn and inwardly digest:

<< Rubbish we've seen numerous times >>

Please go back to school!

The double forces of attractive gravitation paradox is a total demolition of Newtonian mechanics.

No RE can account for the fact that boat x moves toward boat y due to TWO FORCES AT WORK:

1. WE HAVE AN ACTION/REACTION TYPE OF FORCE: BOAT X PULLS ON BOAT Y AND BOAT Y PULLS ON BOAT X

But this accounts only partially for the movements of the two boats.

2. WE HAVE AN ACTION/REACTION ON THE VERY SPOT, THE LOCATION OF THE TWO BOATS

BOAT X IS PULLING ON BOAT Y AND AT THE SAME TIME THE BOAT X ANCHORED FORCE WILL BE PULLING BOAT X TOWARD BOAT Y


YOU HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR THIS MOVEMENT. WHERE IS THE FORCE COMING FROM?

Exactly.

It is coming from the reaction force (action/reaction pair) on BOAT X.

BOAT X IS PULLING ON BOAT Y.

THE MOVEMENT OF BOAT X TOWARD BOAT Y IS DUE TO TWO FORCES:

BOAT Y IS PULLING ON BOAT X, AND, AT THE SAME TIME,

THE BOAT X ANCHORED FORCE IS MOVING BOAT X TOWARD BOAT Y (will be pulling boat x toward boat y)


You have to account for the two movements, the two forces acting on boat x (and, of course, on boat y) in these two examples:

It is easy to conceive, that if a man in one boat pulls at a rope attached to another boat, the two boats, if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate; but if the one be large and the other small, the rapidity with which each moves will be in proportion to its size, the large one moving with as much less velocity as its size is greater.

A man in a boat pulling a rope attached to a ship, seems only to move the boat, but that he really moves the ship will be obvious when it is considered, that a thousand boats pulling in the same manner would make the ship meet them halfway.



Let there be two rafts ( x and y )  freely floating on a clear calm lake with a rope between them.
Both rafts are still and are a rope length apart. 
The man on (raft x) pulls on the rope which is attached to raft y.
Raft x will move toward raft y,… and raft y will move toward raft x.
Both rafts will receive equal and opposite force and motion. 
It is not possible for (raft x) to remain still and be the source of the force.
A direct consequence of the third law attributed to Newton: TO EVERY ACTION THERE'S ALWAYS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION.


If the boat is pulling on a very large ship, this second force IS THE ONE WHICH WILL CAUSE THE MOVEMENT OF BOAT X TOWARD THE SHIP.

The same thing will happen in the EARTH-MOON SYSTEM.

BOTH PLANETS WILL START TO MOVE TOWARD EACH OTHER JUST LIKE THE TWO BOATS.


Remember this?

As we have seen, modern science describes the Earth-Moon as follows:

Now, ball = Moon

you = Earth

tension in the string = gravity


THE SAME FOUR FORCES WILL BE AT WORK.


Earth attracts the Moon, BUT ALSO an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.

The Moon attract the Earth, BUT ALSO this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
 
There are FOUR FORCES INVOLVED HERE.

"All attraction models" produce twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit!


Just like in the case with the two boats/rafts, both planets will BE PULLED TOWARDS EACH OTHER.



It is quite simple:
A applies a force F to B.
The equal but opposite is B applying a force of -F to A.

It is not A applying a force of -F to itself. The force is equal in magnitude and in the opposite direction, but it doesn't have the relationship between A and B, either the same or opposite.
It is the opposite relationship that is required for the law of action-reaction.

YOU HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR THE FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X, ITS VERY MOVEMENT TOWARD BOAT Y.

TWO FORCES AT WORK.

Boat y is pulling boat x, and at the same time the boat x anchored force will be moving/pulling boat x toward boat y.

THERE ARE TWO FORCES AT WORK, ON EACH BOAT: 2 + 2 = 4.


It requires that the force from one body acting on the remote body is equal to the force from that remote body acting on the original.
It does not require that that force from one body acts on both the remote body and itself.
That makes no sense at all.

YOU HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR THE FORCES ACTING ONLY ON BOAT X.

Yes, you do have an action/reaction pair of forces: boat x is pulling boat y, and boat y is pulling on boat x.


BUT THESE FORCES DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE MOVEMENTS OF THE TWO BOATS TOWARD EACH OTHER.


At the very location of boat x, there will be formed an action/reaction pair of forces, TOTALLY ACCOUNTING FOR THE OBSERVED MOVEMENT OF BOAT X.


THE MOVEMENT OF BOAT X TOWARD BOAT Y IS DUE TO TWO FORCES:

BOAT Y IS PULLING ON BOAT X, AND, AT THE SAME TIME,

THE BOAT X ANCHORED FORCE IS MOVING BOAT X TOWARD BOAT Y (will be pulling boat x toward boat y)



There is the force from x pulling on the rope causing y to move towards it, and the reaction force which results in x moving towards y.

Again, you are describing HALF THE FORCES INVOLVED.

How do you account for the movement of boat x toward boat y?


The man on (raft x) pulls on the rope which is attached to raft y.
Raft x will move toward raft y,… and raft y will move toward raft x.
Both rafts will receive equal and opposite force and motion. 
It is not possible for (raft x) to remain still and be the source of the force.
A direct consequence of the third law attributed to Newton: TO EVERY ACTION THERE'S ALWAYS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION.


It is not possible for (raft x) to remain still and be the source of the force.


It will start moving towards boat y based upon the opposite reaction force, "anchored" at boat y which is pulling boat x towards boat y.

The movement of boat x is due to two obvious forces:

1. WE HAVE AN ACTION/REACTION TYPE OF FORCE: BOAT X PULLS ON BOAT Y AND BOAT Y PULLS ON BOAT X

But this accounts only partially for the movements of the two boats.

2. WE HAVE AN ACTION/REACTION ON THE VERY SPOT, THE LOCATION OF THE TWO BOATS

BOAT X IS PULLING ON BOAT Y AND AT THE SAME TIME THE BOAT X ANCHORED FORCE WILL BE PULLING BOAT X TOWARD BOAT Y


YOU HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR THIS MOVEMENT. WHERE IS THE FORCE COMING FROM?



In exactly the same manner, the EARTH-MOON system will behave similarly.

BOTH PLANETS WILL HAVE TO MOVE TOWARD EACH OTHER, JUST LIKE IN THE CASE EXEMPLIFIED BY THE TWO BOATS/RAFTS.


"If the seat, source and cause of the "apparent" attraction forces are "internal" to each of the bodies...the attraction concept produces twice the force that is necessary to balance the centrifugal orbital forces of a planet moon system.

The concept of "attraction" between bodies requires that the force “from” each separate body acts on the remote body,-- and equally on the originating body."

By properly taking into account the forces ACTING ON THE ORIGINATING BODIES, we can justify the observed movement of boat x toward boat y.

TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X.

This is what will totally account for its movement.

Boat y is pulling on boat x, AND AT THE SAME TIME

The boat x anchored force is moving/pulling boat x toward boat y


This is what can be seen in reality, exactly as exemplified in the quotes provided from the classic texts on mechanics.

The double forces of attractive gravitation paradox is a total demolition of Newtonian mechanics.

Wait, what?

The double forces of attractive gravitation paradox is a total demolition of Newtonian mechanics.
<< deleted pages of useless garbage >>

There is no "double forces of attractive gravitation paradox" except in your deranged mind .
And repeating it does not make it any more true!

....

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”

― Albert Einstein

Quote from: sandokhan on April 28, 2017, 09:12:03 PM

The double forces of attractive gravitation paradox is a total demolition of Newtonian mechanics.
<< deleted pages of useless garbage >>

There is no "double forces of attractive gravitation paradox" except in your deranged mind .
And repeating it does not make it any more true!

....

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”

― Albert Einstein

Oh sorry, but I forgot to repeat my request for the height of the sun,  moon, planets and stars.
And don't forget those free magnetic monopoles and they free energy machine  (in good working  order).
Much obliged!

Do have a nice day!

Okay, so, my understanding of this double-force paradox is this:

Object A exerts an attractive force on Object B. This draws Object B towards Object A. However, Object B is exerting an attractive force on Object A. This draws Object A towards Object B.

sandokhan (which, btw, is a pretty darn good username and a decent pun), is saying that this produces twice the attraction necessary to keep the Earth in orbit.

So the Sun pulls the Earth closer, but the Earth also pulls the sun closer, and since the Sun is 'anchored', this also pulls the Earth closer, at twice the force required. Therefore, attractive gravitation can't exist.

However, what rabinoz is positing is that forces are vectors (and thus have direction), and so the direction for the forces exerted by Objects A and B will have opposite polarity, and they'll cancel out unless one is larger, in which case the remainder is the total attractive force.

So say Object A has a force of 2, and Object B has a force of 1.

 - Sandokhan says the total attractive force towards A is 3, using his rope analogy.

 - rabinoz says the total attractive force towards A is 1, because of vectors.

So who is right?

Well, for sandokhan's theory to work, Object A has to be immovable (or 'anchored'), but rabinoz's theory doesn't require this. Since the Sun isn't immovable, rabinoz's theory is more likely.

www.dailymotion.com/video/x2n9j62

Lol double force paradox. Sorry sandokhan but lol.

Newtons third law, no magic forces for you, or anyone else for that matter.

If you are trying to debunk Newton to fit a hypothesis your first thought should always be that you are most likely incorrect.