On 07/26/2010 08:13 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > If gravity is not more than a conventional form of electromagnetism, why > no simple gravity shielding is possible? > > It is not. Gravity and electromagnetism are different force fields.
Could be, but when discussing it, let's assume that the hypothesis in the presentation could be true, and then let's try to falsify it with counter examples and/or expected effects that are not produced, instead of assuming from the beginning that the hypothesis is false. > > - Gravity is the result of the interation of Earth's magnetic and electric > fields. The net force we call gravity is no more than one of the > consequences of the interaction of these fields. Other of the consequences > is Earth's rotation. > > > I far is I know gravity is produced by mass (per Newton). A step > more will show that the force that confines energy in matter > generates the gravitaitonal field (per Einstein's general theory of > relativity). "Mass" is an abstract concept, a placeholder. Mass is affected by gravity. And gravity is, in turn, produced by mass(matter). That does not take us very far. It is like saying that the sky is blue because blue is the color of the sky. GR predicts the behaviour of what we call gravity, but says almost nothing about the nature of gravity. It models geometrically something that is not known, and associates it with "matter" or "mass". It says that these effects propagate at the velocity of light, and that they can be thought of as geometrical distortions of something it calls "spacetime", that is, that they affect not only matter but also light. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mauro Lacy <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Mon, Jul 26, 2010 1:27 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Latest Gravity Research with AlienScientist > > Hi Frank, > Although this is different from your work, I think it is interesting in > itself, and I thank you for posting it. > > Indeed, if you vortexians want we can even discuss it. > The main points of the presentation(which has a strictly engineering > approach), is: > - Gravity is the result of the interation of Earth's magnetic and electric > fields. The net force we call gravity is no more than one of the > consequences of the interaction of these fields. Other of the consequences > is Earth's rotation. > - As the approach is a scrictly an engineering one, no mention is made on > the causes of these fields, and the form of the fields themselves is > derived to comply with the observed form of the Van Allen belts, the > magnetoshpere, and the acceleration of gravity on Earth's surface, among > other conditions. > > Some questions I would like to ask the author are: > - If gravity is not more than a conventional form of electromagnetism, why > no simple gravity shielding is possible? > - We know the form of Earth's magnetic field, (and this is considered in > the second part). A corresponding electric field is derived to comply with > the observed form of Van Allen belts, etc. caused by the interaction with > the magnetic field. The question is: can't this oscillating electric field > actually be observed/measured? maybe in Earth's upper ionosphere? > > Regarding the "loose end", which is the constant of proportionality > between the force and the acceleration, which is in Kg/m^2, that is a unit > of pressure, not density. Then, it can be related to the radiation > pressure per unit area, which can be a consequence of the Earth's > environment (i.e. solar radiation, mostly) per Earth's "effective area", > which can in turn be a measure of a number of factors like Earth's size, > form, and composition. > > If this is the case, gravity must change accordingly to changes in solar > radiation. As seems to be the case with eclipses (i.e. so called gravity > shielding.) > > Mauro > > > > > > I don't know what this is either. I say something different. You will > > find my story > > The Duality of Matter and Waves in the up and comming addition of Infinte > > Energy. > > > > Frank Znidarsic > > > > > > Thanks, interesting. > > > > > > I started reading and I wonder what > > > > EM accelerating force (gravity) > > > > frequencies of 7.07Hz, 14.14Hz, 21.21Hz and 28.28Hz > > > > means in document GravityPrst22.ppt page 16 > > > > > > I don't think I will read more before I have the answer to this question. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mauro Lacy <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Sat, Jul 24, 2010 3:50 pm > > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Latest Gravity Research with AlienScientist > > > > > > On 07/24/2010 01:39 PM, David Jonsson wrote: > > Thanks, interesting. > > > > > > I started reading and I wonder what > > > > EM accelerating force (gravity) > > > > frequencies of 7.07Hz, 14.14Hz, 21.21Hz and 28.28Hz > > > > means in document GravityPrst22.ppt page 16 > > > > > > I don't think I will read more before I have the answer to this question. > > > > > > I think you should read the other pdf (part one) first. They are listed in > > inverse order. > > All this is very interesting, and coincide with my intuitions regarding > > these issues. > > > > Probably the values of these frequencies (or of its associated longitudes > > ) can be deducted in turn from the geometry of the solar system. That is, > > Earth's geometry is not the cause of these frequencies, but conversely, > > these frequencies are the cause of the Earth's geometry, to a certain > > extent. The other extent being dictated by opportunity, and of course, > > evolution. > > > > Best regards, > > Mauro > > > > > > >
