Electrodynamic Spin Gravity
- Thread starter Zarkov
- Start date
From your site:
So, the faster a body spins (centripetal force), the stronger the gravitational field? And if a body has no ‘electrodynamic field’ it should not have a gravitational field? Therefore, a massive non-rotating body with no ‘electrodynamic field’ should have no gravity whatsoever?
A centripetal force is a center seeking force accelerating the object towards the center. Are you stating there is a force accelerating away from the center as well? Wouldn’t that produce no net forces whatsoever? In that case, wouldn’t the orbiting bodies simply move off in a straight line?
So, the faster a body spins (centripetal force), the stronger the gravitational field? And if a body has no ‘electrodynamic field’ it should not have a gravitational field? Therefore, a massive non-rotating body with no ‘electrodynamic field’ should have no gravity whatsoever?
A centripetal force is a center seeking force accelerating the object towards the center. Are you stating there is a force accelerating away from the center as well? Wouldn’t that produce no net forces whatsoever? In that case, wouldn’t the orbiting bodies simply move off in a straight line?
bigjnorman
Registered Senior Member
I have not read the entire thing but....
does this theory suggest that gravitational strength is determined by magnetic fields?
does this theory suggest that gravitational strength is determined by magnetic fields?
>>So, the faster a body spins (centripetal force), the stronger the gravitational field?
The rotation period of a body is not causing the force of gravity.
It is the differential spin of the induced field of the planet caused by the primary field, such as that of the Sun, that causes what we call "gravity".
The rotation period of a body is not causing the force of gravity.
It is the differential spin of the induced field of the planet caused by the primary field, such as that of the Sun, that causes what we call "gravity".
I'm VERY interested in your theory, but my computer must be such a piece of crap that I can't seem to open the file from your website. I would be very much oblidged if you could post a brief run-down of it (it need not be brief, come to think of it).
I'm someone who happens to know more about gravity (our current explanation for it, that is) than I do about the electro-magnetic force. If you would consider this while writing your explanation then I will understand it all the more. In the meantime, I can try to brush up on electro-magnetism. I would not ask for this if I wasn't so enthralled by your theory.
I'm someone who happens to know more about gravity (our current explanation for it, that is) than I do about the electro-magnetic force. If you would consider this while writing your explanation then I will understand it all the more. In the meantime, I can try to brush up on electro-magnetism. I would not ask for this if I wasn't so enthralled by your theory.
Zarkov
Have you ever SERIOUSLY looked into crop circles
http://www.bltresearch.com/plantab.html
http://www.bltresearch.com/magnetic.html
The effect on the plants look like they could be caused by a space/time warp due to variations in gravitational force.
CTEBO
You need to get Adobe Acrobat
>>So, the faster a body spins (centripetal force), the stronger the gravitational field?
The faster the field around the planet spins, the greater the inertial reaction causing a non inertial body to move towards the centre of spin.
This field spin, and not rotation of the body.
The faster the field around the planet spins, the greater the inertial reaction causing a non inertial body to move towards the centre of spin.
This field spin, and not rotation of the body.
Hi CTEBO
Ok ESG short answer.
Mass engenders a field, that extends beyond the size of the mass.
Each cosmic body has a field.
Each cosmic body has a charge.
Each moving body is immersed in a moving field, and it is the inertial motion of an orbiting body that defines the inertial field spin. This spin in not analgous to body rotation on it's axis, it is like QM spin.
By differential field rotation, the primary field (Sun, immersion field) spins the secondary field (planet, moon ).
The spin of the field induces an inertial reaction (gravity)on any non inertial motion, and this reaction is confined to that spinning field. Example, the escape velocity is only an escape from the local field spin, and not an escape to infinity.
>>>The Sun centered frame of reference or primary frame can be considered a toroidal frame, while the frame of reference for the satellites of the planets, a secondary frame, can be
considered a poloidal frame. There is a direct relationship between the value of Gcentral spin of an orbiting body and the quantity of geomagnetic mass in the body via the spherical volume of the secondary B-E field that is induced in the primary B-E field.
Ok ESG short answer.
Mass engenders a field, that extends beyond the size of the mass.
Each cosmic body has a field.
Each cosmic body has a charge.
Each moving body is immersed in a moving field, and it is the inertial motion of an orbiting body that defines the inertial field spin. This spin in not analgous to body rotation on it's axis, it is like QM spin.
By differential field rotation, the primary field (Sun, immersion field) spins the secondary field (planet, moon ).
The spin of the field induces an inertial reaction (gravity)on any non inertial motion, and this reaction is confined to that spinning field. Example, the escape velocity is only an escape from the local field spin, and not an escape to infinity.
>>>The Sun centered frame of reference or primary frame can be considered a toroidal frame, while the frame of reference for the satellites of the planets, a secondary frame, can be
considered a poloidal frame. There is a direct relationship between the value of Gcentral spin of an orbiting body and the quantity of geomagnetic mass in the body via the spherical volume of the secondary B-E field that is induced in the primary B-E field.
Summary
When the radius of orbit of a body is equal to the radius of application
v^2 = Gcentral spin / r = Field Potential
v^2 / r = Gcentral spin / r^2 = Gravity
v^2 / r^2 = Gcentral spin / r^3 = Field Density
The spinning inertial secondary B-E field vector induced by the orbit of an inertial geomagnetic mass bathed in a primary B-E field, causes a reactive force towards an inertia state, when a non-inertial acceleration is applied to any mass-charge in that secondary field,
B-E field vector = Magnetic Field Density X Electric Field Potential (57)
= Gcentral spin / r^3 X Gcentral spin / r (58)
= Gcentral spin^2 / r^4 (59)
In accordance with Newton's First Law, the reacting force is equal to the latent energy held in the stiff B-E field vector. It is directed towards the centre of the field according to the right hand rule in electrodynamics.
The centripetal resultant reacting force = ( B-E field vector )^-2 (60)
= ( Gcentral spin^2 / r^4 )^-2 (61)
= Gcentral spin / r^2 (63)
= Gravity
When the radius of orbit of a body is equal to the radius of application
v^2 = Gcentral spin / r = Field Potential
v^2 / r = Gcentral spin / r^2 = Gravity
v^2 / r^2 = Gcentral spin / r^3 = Field Density
The spinning inertial secondary B-E field vector induced by the orbit of an inertial geomagnetic mass bathed in a primary B-E field, causes a reactive force towards an inertia state, when a non-inertial acceleration is applied to any mass-charge in that secondary field,
B-E field vector = Magnetic Field Density X Electric Field Potential (57)
= Gcentral spin / r^3 X Gcentral spin / r (58)
= Gcentral spin^2 / r^4 (59)
In accordance with Newton's First Law, the reacting force is equal to the latent energy held in the stiff B-E field vector. It is directed towards the centre of the field according to the right hand rule in electrodynamics.
The centripetal resultant reacting force = ( B-E field vector )^-2 (60)
= ( Gcentral spin^2 / r^4 )^-2 (61)
= Gcentral spin / r^2 (63)
= Gravity
bigjnorman
Registered Senior Member
does the theory have anything in it about open orbits, wouldn't the the field interactions change with different orbits?
_____________________________
the escape velocity is only an escape from the local field spin, and not an escape to infinity.
_____________________________
Then the question is then how far the field extends away from the mass.
I thought that gravitational fields were inherently different than other fields of force because of the way gravitational fields shape the region that they operate on. unlike magnetic fields
_____________________________
the escape velocity is only an escape from the local field spin, and not an escape to infinity.
_____________________________
Then the question is then how far the field extends away from the mass.
I thought that gravitational fields were inherently different than other fields of force because of the way gravitational fields shape the region that they operate on. unlike magnetic fields
Zarkov
It is the differential spin of the induced field of the planet caused by the primary field, such as that of the Sun, that causes what we call "gravity".
Yes, you said that but did not respond to the begged question – what about objects with NO “electrodynamics fields” - do they have gravity?
And if caused by the Sun, why then do larger planets that are far away from the Sun have stronger gravitational fields then smaller planets closer to the Sun?
The faster the field around the planet spins, the greater the inertial reaction causing a non inertial body to move towards the centre of spin.
This field spin, and not rotation of the body.
But as I stated, not all planets have these fields you speak about, therefore why do they have gravity?
And of course, the HUGE question of the day, “Why do black holes have such strong gravitational fields, yet does not have “electrodynamics fields?”
Each cosmic body has a field.
Each cosmic body has a charge.
A black hole essentially has very little or no charge – ‘no hair’ theorem. Black holes have mass and angular momentum – no fields and no charge.
By differential field rotation, the primary field (Sun, immersion field) spins the secondary field (planet, moon ).
What about ‘rouge’ objects that are nowhere near the Sun or a Star and are free floating in space? Do they have gravity?
Zarkov – your theory appears to have some serious flaws.
It is the differential spin of the induced field of the planet caused by the primary field, such as that of the Sun, that causes what we call "gravity".
Yes, you said that but did not respond to the begged question – what about objects with NO “electrodynamics fields” - do they have gravity?
And if caused by the Sun, why then do larger planets that are far away from the Sun have stronger gravitational fields then smaller planets closer to the Sun?
The faster the field around the planet spins, the greater the inertial reaction causing a non inertial body to move towards the centre of spin.
This field spin, and not rotation of the body.
But as I stated, not all planets have these fields you speak about, therefore why do they have gravity?
And of course, the HUGE question of the day, “Why do black holes have such strong gravitational fields, yet does not have “electrodynamics fields?”
Each cosmic body has a field.
Each cosmic body has a charge.
A black hole essentially has very little or no charge – ‘no hair’ theorem. Black holes have mass and angular momentum – no fields and no charge.
By differential field rotation, the primary field (Sun, immersion field) spins the secondary field (planet, moon ).
What about ‘rouge’ objects that are nowhere near the Sun or a Star and are free floating in space? Do they have gravity?
Zarkov – your theory appears to have some serious flaws.
>>Zarkov – your theory appears to have some serious flaws.
You had best understand what the math implicates first before you try to teach me "attractive gravity" or GR.
All matter is due to charge separation, all matter has a field, and a charge......
therefore all matter can have field spin if some mechanism spins it's field.
Read on McDuff.... the papers that is..
I have deliberately refrained from being controversial, but I expect the aether is mandantory to an understanding.
There are no flaws in the math, the results of the calculations are unbelievably consistent with observed results.
We live in a very precise mechanism, and Newton supplies wonderfully relevant tools to analyse the construct we exist in.
You had best understand what the math implicates first before you try to teach me "attractive gravity" or GR.
All matter is due to charge separation, all matter has a field, and a charge......
therefore all matter can have field spin if some mechanism spins it's field.
Read on McDuff.... the papers that is..
I have deliberately refrained from being controversial, but I expect the aether is mandantory to an understanding.
There are no flaws in the math, the results of the calculations are unbelievably consistent with observed results.
We live in a very precise mechanism, and Newton supplies wonderfully relevant tools to analyse the construct we exist in.
Zarkov
You had best understand what the math implicates first before you try to teach me "attractive gravity" or GR.
So, does that mean you don’t know anything about General Relativity yet are trying to come up with an alternative? Why not try to refute GR first?
All matter is due to charge separation, all matter has a field, and a charge......
According to Coulomb’s law? Does matter have a positive or negative charge? If matter has one like charge, shouldn’t it repel other matter and not attract?
therefore all matter can have field spin if some mechanism spins it's field.
What happens if there is no mechanism to spin the field? Does gravity therefore not exist in that matter?
I have deliberately refrained from being controversial, but I expect the aether is mandantory to an understanding.
What does the aether have to do with gravity?
We live in a very precise mechanism, and Newton supplies wonderfully relevant tools to analyse the construct we exist in.
Yes he does, but he does not invoke electrical charges in his theories.
As well, you have evaded my other questions. Will you be answering them in due time?
You had best understand what the math implicates first before you try to teach me "attractive gravity" or GR.
So, does that mean you don’t know anything about General Relativity yet are trying to come up with an alternative? Why not try to refute GR first?
All matter is due to charge separation, all matter has a field, and a charge......
According to Coulomb’s law? Does matter have a positive or negative charge? If matter has one like charge, shouldn’t it repel other matter and not attract?
therefore all matter can have field spin if some mechanism spins it's field.
What happens if there is no mechanism to spin the field? Does gravity therefore not exist in that matter?
I have deliberately refrained from being controversial, but I expect the aether is mandantory to an understanding.
What does the aether have to do with gravity?
We live in a very precise mechanism, and Newton supplies wonderfully relevant tools to analyse the construct we exist in.
Yes he does, but he does not invoke electrical charges in his theories.
As well, you have evaded my other questions. Will you be answering them in due time?
>> Yes, you said that but did not respond to the begged question – what about objects with NO “electrodynamics fields” - do they have gravity?
IMO, there are no objects without electromagnetic fields, charge can never be neutral, there is always a potential to some point in the universe. Neutral to us is plus + minus = zero... the plus and the minus are always there.
In this Solar System, and throughout the Universe, magnetic field pervade every nook and crany, and all matter is charged....
To answer your question above, the differential spin comes from systems beyond our Solar System. ESG gives the Universe a structure, preferred frames of reference, the sequence could go back to the beginning of time.
PS, Newtonian Gravity, I do not adhere to, nor GR.... BUT Newtonian mechanical principles work extremely well, accurate and clear in the application, so I have used these mathematical concepts to display the structure of our Solar System, and therefore the Universe.
IMO, there are no objects without electromagnetic fields, charge can never be neutral, there is always a potential to some point in the universe. Neutral to us is plus + minus = zero... the plus and the minus are always there.
In this Solar System, and throughout the Universe, magnetic field pervade every nook and crany, and all matter is charged....
To answer your question above, the differential spin comes from systems beyond our Solar System. ESG gives the Universe a structure, preferred frames of reference, the sequence could go back to the beginning of time.
PS, Newtonian Gravity, I do not adhere to, nor GR.... BUT Newtonian mechanical principles work extremely well, accurate and clear in the application, so I have used these mathematical concepts to display the structure of our Solar System, and therefore the Universe.
Hi Moving 88
" The plant aberrations described above are thought to be caused by exposure of the plants to a complex atmospheric plasma energy system which is emitting heat (probably microwaves) in association with unusual electrical pulses and strong magnetic fields."
from your earlier links.
Legitimate crop circles are horizontal electromagnetic spin, IMO
" The plant aberrations described above are thought to be caused by exposure of the plants to a complex atmospheric plasma energy system which is emitting heat (probably microwaves) in association with unusual electrical pulses and strong magnetic fields."
from your earlier links.
Legitimate crop circles are horizontal electromagnetic spin, IMO
In regards to Electrodynamic spin gravity, it is encouraging to note there is
NO REAL OBJECTIONS on a scientific ground against this theory
Therefore it must be considered as a real contender against Newtonian Gravitation and the contortions of GR and SR.
It is complete in itself, it requires no additional input (such as dark matter etc).
It gives structure to the Universe.
* It explains "escape velocity",
* and explains Lagrangian points more accurately and more clearly than any other explanations,
* it allows a navigational mapping of space that properly predicts the path of space craft,
* it explains the voyager anomolies,
* even though I havn't finished this, it gives a good explanation for the precession of the perihelion of all the planets of the Solar System, including the supposed problem with Mercury's orbit.
The theory is philosophically sound in that the human concept of "pull" can not even occur in reality... all movement is due to pressure PUSHING.
It also explains the Michaelson Morley failure to find a speed difference in their light experiment.
That list is just a start.
NO REAL OBJECTIONS on a scientific ground against this theory
Therefore it must be considered as a real contender against Newtonian Gravitation and the contortions of GR and SR.
It is complete in itself, it requires no additional input (such as dark matter etc).
It gives structure to the Universe.
* It explains "escape velocity",
* and explains Lagrangian points more accurately and more clearly than any other explanations,
* it allows a navigational mapping of space that properly predicts the path of space craft,
* it explains the voyager anomolies,
* even though I havn't finished this, it gives a good explanation for the precession of the perihelion of all the planets of the Solar System, including the supposed problem with Mercury's orbit.
The theory is philosophically sound in that the human concept of "pull" can not even occur in reality... all movement is due to pressure PUSHING.
It also explains the Michaelson Morley failure to find a speed difference in their light experiment.
That list is just a start.
Last edited:
bigjnorman
Registered Senior Member
and for neutron stars?
how does your theory explain neutron stars.
As the former neutron star collapses, its protons and electrons are forced to become neutrons. The end product is a star made up of mainly neutrons.
So how does a neutron star keep its gravity?
Also, you say that the sun's field spins earth's field to create gravity, but what created the sun's gravity, the galaxy? but what spins the black hole's field at the center of the galaxy?
how does your theory explain neutron stars.
As the former neutron star collapses, its protons and electrons are forced to become neutrons. The end product is a star made up of mainly neutrons.
So how does a neutron star keep its gravity?
Also, you say that the sun's field spins earth's field to create gravity, but what created the sun's gravity, the galaxy? but what spins the black hole's field at the center of the galaxy?