A chamber built in the center of the earth would be as close as we could come, you would still feel the weak field of the moon and sun however.
You would likely also die...
How Gravity Works
- Thread starter darkbeaver
- Start date
A chamber built in the center of the earth would be as close as we could come, you would still feel the weak field of the moon and sun however.
You would likely also die...
Excerpts From The Electric Universe
Part 2
Plasma Discharge Model
Page 93: Part 2
Plasma Discharge Model
- The plasma discharge model of comets is inseparable from the electric Sun model. This model envisions the Sun forming in a galactic electromagnetic 'Z-pinch' at some unknown time in the past. A Zpinch is the most effective long-range scavenger of interstellar dust to form stars. Laboratory experiments show that a number of 'stars' are formed simultaneously along the axis of a Z-pinch. Once the 'pinch' subsides the stars 'scatter like buckshot.'
- Planets are formed in several separate episodes of 'electrical parturition' of stars and gas giants. Stellar ‘accretion disks’ and planetary rings are in fact 'expulsion disks.' This model accounts for 'hot Jupiters' found closely orbiting their parent star. Stellar ejection of 'blobs' of matter is observed in deep space. The rings of our gas giants are evidence of past electrical expulsions.
- Subsequent electromagnetic capture and circularization of planetary orbits is accompanied by interplanetary plasma arcing.
- Moons, comets, asteroids, meteorites and planetary rings are debris that has been electrically expelled or torn from a planetary body. Their composition will vary depending on the parent body.
- Comets were electrically 'machined' in their natal event. Blackened and pitted comet surfaces reflect their origin in an intense plasma discharge. Comets can be considered 'asteroids on eccentric orbits.'
- Comets follow elongated paths within a weak radial electric field centered on the Sun. All solar system bodies, including comets, are negatively charged with respect to the Sun. Comets spend most of their time remote from the Sun, and while there, they adopt a voltage in keeping with that environment.
- As a comet accelerates toward the Sun, it encounters a steadily rising plasma density and voltage. The strength of the electric field within the comet’s plasma sheath thus steadily increases until the plasma discharge suddenly switches from dark mode to glow mode (see information panel p. 96).
- A glow discharge produces the visible coma around the nucleus.
- Eventually, increasing electrical stress on the nucleus causes the discharge to switch suddenly to 'arc' mode. Cathode arcs begin to dance over the comet nucleus, giving it a star-like appearance through a telescope.
- Rock is electrically 'sputtered,' particle by particle, from the surface and accelerated vertically into space in the form of wellcollimated jets, following the natural curved trajectories of particles from a 'plasma gun.'
- The ejected ionized material is guided electromagnetically into a coherent comet tail. The ion tails of comets reveal well-defined Birkeland current filaments extending up to tens of millions of km without dissipating in the vacuum of space—a 'violation' of gas behavior in a vacuum. (Heated gas in a vacuum will normally disperse explosively.)
Comet West in its most dramatic display in March, 1976. The colossal size of cometary displays cannot be explained by the passage of a tiny body through an extremely tenuous solar 'wind' and relying on solar heating alone to remove material from the nucleus.
Credit: Observatoire de Haute, Provence, France
[Click to enlarge]
Yes, but the simplest quantitative prediction of this model is that the force of gravity is proportional to 1/r^3, which is demonstrably false: the comets wouldn't follow closed orbits and their perihelions would precess at an alarming rate.
Gravity isn't a constant. That's the best I can do right now the dinner bell has just chimed and I'm not dressed yet.
Newton’s Electric Clockwork Solar System
We conceal our ignorance of any underlying physical mechanism by tolerating dimensional constants. If mass is an electrical variable, G cannot be constant. Assuming G to be universal as well gives rise to calculated masses and densities of celestial bodies that lead to further conjectures cantilevered upon the already dubious assumptions. Stellar and planetary structure and composition are based upon this erroneous conviction. For example, by using G, measured on Earth, the planet Saturn appears to have a lower density than water!
Strong circumstantial evidence for a different gravitational ‘constant’ for each body at different times comes from the difficulty of establishing its value on Earth. ‘G’ is the most inconstant of physical constants. [3] The small variations in measurements in modern times are dwarfed by evidence from prehistory. Early dinosaur discoveries forced scientists to conclude that the gigantic animals must have been waders to offset their crushing weight with the buoyancy of water. However, fossil footprints show them as fleet-footed land animals — an impossibility in Earth’s present gravity. “The force of gravity at the surface of the earth must have been very much lower than it is today.” [4] Whatever happened to the dinosaurs was far more dramatic than climate change from a puny asteroid impact.
We conceal our ignorance of any underlying physical mechanism by tolerating dimensional constants. If mass is an electrical variable, G cannot be constant. Assuming G to be universal as well gives rise to calculated masses and densities of celestial bodies that lead to further conjectures cantilevered upon the already dubious assumptions. Stellar and planetary structure and composition are based upon this erroneous conviction. For example, by using G, measured on Earth, the planet Saturn appears to have a lower density than water!
Strong circumstantial evidence for a different gravitational ‘constant’ for each body at different times comes from the difficulty of establishing its value on Earth. ‘G’ is the most inconstant of physical constants. [3] The small variations in measurements in modern times are dwarfed by evidence from prehistory. Early dinosaur discoveries forced scientists to conclude that the gigantic animals must have been waders to offset their crushing weight with the buoyancy of water. However, fossil footprints show them as fleet-footed land animals — an impossibility in Earth’s present gravity. “The force of gravity at the surface of the earth must have been very much lower than it is today.” [4] Whatever happened to the dinosaurs was far more dramatic than climate change from a puny asteroid impact.
You can take number 12 off the list now LOL:
YouTube - Gravity Wave
Why are you calling them physical phenomena when they have not been physically observed.. :lol:
If I knew, I'd be smart... which I am not. So I don't know.... I can only guess. My guess is, to observe gravity, one must be in the absence of it's influence. And we are not there yet.
Another thought that comes to mind is, if we could create a 10 foot wide tube that goes from the surface of the Earth, through the center and out the other side... then what would happen if we jumped in (assuming we don't die)... we would surely fall but will we come out the other side? No, because a person jumping from the other side would fall in towards the center of the Earth too. So where would both jumpers stop? The center of the Earth? Would we slow down along the way? Would it be like a pendulum effect where the jumper would go past center, slow down, and go back the other way and vice versa until speed = 0? If so, would we feel gravity there?
They have been observed, as long ago as 1974.
But as I said, they are basically a direct consequence of causality and Maxwell's equations: if information has a finite speed of propagation (there is no action at a distance) then gravity must be described via a set of hyperbolic equations.
Not really. We are always surrounded by electromagnetic radiation, but we have no trouble understanding electrodynamics. Gravity is no different, we were well aware there was something wrong with Newtonian gravity as far back as 1859, but we were completely surrounded by gravity all along.
In principle gravity can only be observed through tidal phenomenon: by comparing the trajectories of two nearby particles, for instance, yourself and the surface of the earth. Even at the center of the earth, where you would feel no acceleration, you could detect the gravity by the relative time dilation of your clock in comparison to somebody's clock on the surface of the earth.
The objective examination of gravity would best be conducted from outside of this universe then I suppose, maybe if we got there we would have lost interest in gravity. In my mind there isn't any state of zero gravity because it travels in one direction only, outward they say, I think the middle would always be 1. The shape of gravity is spherical, there is no fixed center in any variable field in a variable field and it is always positive. Even death can't get us to 0G, even our dust wouldn't get to 0. that's what I think today:canada:
Sorry about my tardyness. I have been guilty of it since grade one.
QUESTION: How sensitive a scale would you need to verify your change in weight as you moved down a deep mine shaft?
ANSWER: It is about 3,950 miles straight down to the center of the Earth. At the surface, let's say you weigh 170 lbs. At the center, you would weigh 0 lbs. In the simplest ( but wrong ) model you might expect to weight 1/3950th of your current weight 1 mile down. 1/3950th of 170 lbs. is 0.043 lbs, so you would weigh 169.957 lbs. A scientific scale that measured with an accuracy of .001 would do it! I called Arlyn scales (800) 645-4301 to ask if they have a scale that would run on batteries and weigh up to 200 lbs at an accuracy of 1000th of a lb. No, but they do have a 10 lb scale you could use if you modify the experiment slightly and weigh a small weight instead of yourself. Model d620x is $699.00 + battery pack $100 + $23.00 shipping. The scale has no moving parts, comes calibrated, and you should have it calibrated about once a year. It runs for 20 hours on a charge.
Xenophilia - Hollow Earth
I read a while ago that the Russians were at ten kilometers or so in a drill hole, not the Russians but the bit, and they found no deviation in gravity. I don't know what they used.
I can't post links because I lost them all, but after doing some research on Gravity it seems like there are lots of theories out there.
Here are a couple of interesting tidbits that I remembered.
1. Gravity is an extremely weak force (if you can imagine it as a force. Some people say gravity is not a force). It is this weakness that causes a lot of confusion and problems.
2. One theory is that all objects exhibit a tendency to attract each other. In other words, all objects have gravity. But because gravity is so weak, we are unable to measure it's effects using small objects.
3. Newtons law of gravity cannot explain the peculiar orbit of Mercury around the sun. Einsteins theory can, but NASA still uses Newtons equations because they are much simpler (not sure if this is still true since we have computers now).
So by darkbeavers previous comment regarding the ten kilometers drill depth to measure gravity, they found no deviation probably because:
a. the equipment used to measure gravity was not accurate enough or did not have enough precision to measure any difference.
b. Gravity, being a weak force, requires distances of a larger scale than what was tried. (ie. 10 kms vs. the distance from the earth to the moon. 10km would be considered miniscule).
My guess is that if we used a small scale distance like 10km, we would need a very precise machine to measure any difference in gravity.
Here are a couple of interesting tidbits that I remembered.
1. Gravity is an extremely weak force (if you can imagine it as a force. Some people say gravity is not a force). It is this weakness that causes a lot of confusion and problems.
2. One theory is that all objects exhibit a tendency to attract each other. In other words, all objects have gravity. But because gravity is so weak, we are unable to measure it's effects using small objects.
3. Newtons law of gravity cannot explain the peculiar orbit of Mercury around the sun. Einsteins theory can, but NASA still uses Newtons equations because they are much simpler (not sure if this is still true since we have computers now).
So by darkbeavers previous comment regarding the ten kilometers drill depth to measure gravity, they found no deviation probably because:
a. the equipment used to measure gravity was not accurate enough or did not have enough precision to measure any difference.
b. Gravity, being a weak force, requires distances of a larger scale than what was tried. (ie. 10 kms vs. the distance from the earth to the moon. 10km would be considered miniscule).
My guess is that if we used a small scale distance like 10km, we would need a very precise machine to measure any difference in gravity.
Yes, because it seems so powerful, as anyone who's ever fallen down a flight of stairs can attest, and it's the only one of nature's forces (it's convenient to conceptualize it as such) we have much direct experience with. But consider that you can pick up a steel needle with a small magnet. The entire mass of the earth does not generate enough gravitational force to hold it down against a relatively tiny magnet attracting it. Electromagnetic forces are about 36 orders of magnitude (that's a 1 followed by 36 zeros) stronger than gravity. The nuclear weak force is 33 orders of magnitude and the nuclear strong force 38 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. Those are all the forces we know about.
Actually it's fairly straightforward, most 2nd year physics majors do it in the lab, or did in my day. I've done it myself, more years ago than I care to remember. Cavendish experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Newton's laws explain everything about Mercury's orbit but its precession (that is, the orbit's an ellipse that also rotates, like all planetary orbits, and that's why astrology is BS, but that's another subject). They're off a bit on that one, on the order of a few seconds of arc per century, and Einstein's equations get it right. Newton's equations are indeed still in common use though, they're good enough for most purposes and Einstein's equations are very much more complex. Computers could certainly do it, but it's a case of diminishing returns in most circumstances: great increase in complexity with negligible improvement in accuracy. We do, however, have to make relativistic corrections to GPS signals.
If the earth were a uniform sphere, you'd lose about 0.3% of your weight by descending 10 km (unless I've slipped a decimal point somewhere), around 100 to 200 grams or roughly 4 to 8 ounces for most of us, so a scale accurate to one part in a thousand would certainly be adequate. But it's not uniform, the crust is far less dense than the mantle and core, so you'd actually be gaining a little weight down to a certain depth. I don't know what it is offhand, and it's a tedious calculation requiring a lot of data about how density increases with depth. Maybe some stormy Sunday afternoon when I'm feeling ambitious I'll set up a spreadsheet to do it.
Last edited: