An Empty Sun - Is Gravity being Induced?

Conspirator
Posts: 1050
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 5:39 pm

PostThu Mar 18, 2010 8:26 pm » by Blotto


ridee wrote:okay blotto the award has been given to the students ho presented the paper ...

if you are not in ET i can't give you the hole picture , you will never get it mate i am sorry

Nassim and many others have the complete picture ( it is already in use for many many years actually ) again because at the past all of our ancestors where using it .

What Nassim lacks is the final formula and frankly for a guy with 0 budget and NO ONE to support him in the main stream charlatans i don't really know how on earth will he make it .

I have a friend from childhood working in CERN and even he knows that it's a big :bullshit: scam in order to keep charlatans getting Nobel prices , and they will never find anything , and if they do they will not see it , and even if they see it they will never tell us about it , and guess what the thing is going down for a year of restoration , i wonder why :think:

It's in your face actually , but you need to use the other part of your brain to see it , and that my friend is up to you .


i am still not getting it . so can you break the complete picture down in layman terms, as you obviously get it. i would be intrested in your breakdown of the complete picture. i am here to be enlightened.

jetxvii

PostThu Mar 18, 2010 10:43 pm » by jetxvii


gfellow wrote:
jetxvii wrote:I'll stick with the sun being a big gas bubble...... actually now if you look at it that way technically the Sun is a big empty gas bubble, so technically it makes sense, but not the way he explains it, I would believe if he was talking about a planet like Jupiter but not a flaming radiating star.


I had seen this video before, and thought it interesting, but watching it again...those opposite bubbles at each 'pole' - I wonder is there is something qualitatively different between them. Might they have a subtly different chemical composition? If the 'bubble' was spun, would a small residual magnetic field be in evidence?

Best,

Stephen Goodfellow


Exactly my thoughts as well goodfellow,

I was thinking that perhaps it all depends on how the solid composition or liquid (depending on what type of nucleation) and how it enters the gravity forming planet or celestial body, at what time, and also what materials may be present and at what rate they are being introduced, if you watch the first bubble you can see it makes a hollow bubble in the middle while the other gases wrap themselves around the big bubble ( in fact it looks alot like Jupiters weather and planet strips that run in opposite directions)

The second time they did it, it seems they had to much water floating for the ring they fashioned for it, as when they started the nucleation you can see the bubble expand past the rim of the "holder" that is potentially why I think the second time it may have formed 2 bubbles as sort of a hour glass effect if you know what i mean ( squeeze and funnel the center and get 2 opposing bubbles).

anyways as I said before (your) theory could actually hold up since I thought about it some more, the only technicality I had with it is the resources for ignition and constant combustion as the only reliable way it could stay ignited is through a combustible resolution..... so the hollow thing is a technicality for me because hollow is technically a gaseous state as well...

That would be why I posted the bubble video because it shows ( at least for a non combustible planet as shown) that it seems to still be holding it's spherical shape however there is still a reaction going on inside of it much like Jupiter surface, which leads me to believe in your theory even more is because of the fine line between Jupiter being a second sun vs. our sun which actually may be hollow itself.

also Saturn came to mind when when you mentioned the 2 bubbles, if you look at the north and south poles of Saturn ( minus the alka seltzer thing) perhaps Saturn at one time had an unstable gravitational force in the center during it's time of completion causing it's anomalous poles. might also be that Saturn has a solid interior and that those gases flowing around it are being pushed into that sort of symmetrical flow at the north pole... Who Knows I am only 23 and still have alot of science to look into... but I think about astronomy and science experiments all the time.

I enjoy this conversation immensely, please don't feel I am digging into you I am just trying to reflect ideas off of you and engage in a view changing discussion.

EDIT: I just realized I left out the Magnetic field part, I realize they didn't do anything to test for that, even if there was a small difference in electromagnetic composition of the bubble, if you take that and multiply it to the size of the planet it could form that could have very great implications as well, and could very well explain a magnetic force for a gas planet and perhaps a liquid Iron Magma state planet.

jetxvii

PostThu Mar 18, 2010 10:58 pm » by jetxvii


methaneslurpee wrote:
gfellow wrote:
jetxvii wrote:I'll stick with the sun being a big gas bubble...... actually now if you look at it that way technically the Sun is a big empty gas bubble, so technically it makes sense, but not the way he explains it, I would believe if he was talking about a planet like Jupiter but not a flaming radiating star.


I had seen this video before, and thought it interesting, but watching it again...those opposite bubbles at each 'pole' - I wonder is there is something qualitatively different between them. Might they have a subtly different chemical composition? If the 'bubble' was spun, would a small residual magnetic field be in evidence?

Best,

Stephen Goodfellow


"I wonder is there is something qualitatively different between them. Might they have a subtly different chemical composition?"

There does not seem to be a reason to suspect that the two are different in any way. It would be logical to predict that any number of equally-sized and equally-spaced bigger bubbles could reach an equilibrium with each other, inside the water. The fact that there are only two in the video may suggest that a slight rotation of the entire group, leading to an axial arrangement where only certain (even) numbers are possible. There'd be no need to confuse that with polarity, at this point.

"If the 'bubble' was spun, would a small residual magnetic field be in evidence?"

You bet!

Picture a yellow rubber balloon filled with air. Now say you rubbed it against your sweater to give it a nice static charge. Now let's call this balloon the Sun. Let's figure that the guy in the video also has this balloon to work with the experiment. So, as we imagine bringing this charged yellow balloon closer and closer to the water bubble in the video space experiment, what do you think happens? Well, the minute the charged balloon comes near the water glob (or anything else, for that matter) the balloon will then induce a charge separation in the water glob. If the balloon has say an overall negative charge then it will cause the water glob to be polarized with a positive electrical charge, closest to the balloon. Make sense?

Now, because the positive side of the water glob (the "+" pole) is closer to the balloon than the negative side is to the balloon, the water glob will be attracted to the yellow balloon. Let me say it again...the entire water glob will be attracted to the yellow balloon. So, until we can rule out this behavior as not being the cause of gravity, we have no scientific justification to assume that it isn't.

Moving on, let's prove this for electrically neutral objects. Let's say, instead of the yellow balloon, we use a typical "AA" cell battery. The battery has an overall (net) charge of zero, but we can say it is highly polarized. It is so polarized that one end is completely (+) and the opposite end is completely (-). We can replace the balloon with the battery in the video experiment, and achieve the same result.

And to answer your question "would a magnetic field be induced if you spun the water glob?" Absolutely, here's why...As you spin the water glob and keep the balloon in place (or the battery) you will create a current of electrons within the water glob while it spins, as the electrons "fight" to hold their location with respect to the balloon. So, as we widely agree, any movement of electrons constitutes an electric current. AND, when an electric current takes the path of a loop or circular shape, a magnetic field is always induced, where the axis of the magnetic field is perpendicular to the loop itself. Voila!

I do appreciate your approach, though. If a scientist asks enough question, eventually some of them will be the right ones.

Sank You. I vill be here all ze veek.


I like you guy!

jetxvii

PostThu Mar 18, 2010 11:11 pm » by jetxvii


@ Ridee, I have a question for you and also a request.

first the question, your friend that works at the LHC says that the LHC will not work? so that confirms that Steven hawkings theory of radiation is wrong and is that the reason why he doesn't want people to get the nobel peace prize?

or does that confirm that your friend is working for no reason or purpose and frauding the public of many different countries also hindering his scientific learning capabilities / Discovery implications just to gain a paycheck and that he has a potential to lie to you about the workings of what is going on there as well?

just curious about that because I honestly don't think the LHC is going to work either or I should say that they did not build it well enough to work to even the full strength. I do believe however that smashing particles together at the speed of light is going to give some results of something but not the answers they are looking for.

Also, I have noticed that you are kind of a stand offish person, we are here to discuss things, not say " That is how it is you need to learn more" or something like "if you haven't read this than you shouldn't talk about where we came from."

no one is telling you that your wrong, or that you are less of a person for not seeing or understanding something the way you do or saying people are stupid..

so my request is,

QUIT BEING A FUCKING ASSSSHOLE!!!!!!

lol, not that extremely but you could lighten up....

peace love and chicken grease...

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 8431
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 7:37 am

PostThu Mar 18, 2010 11:19 pm » by Lucidlemondrop


methaneslurpee wrote:
gfellow wrote:
jetxvii wrote:I'll stick with the sun being a big gas bubble...... actually now if you look at it that way technically the Sun is a big empty gas bubble, so technically it makes sense, but not the way he explains it, I would believe if he was talking about a planet like Jupiter but not a flaming radiating star.


I had seen this video before, and thought it interesting, but watching it again...those opposite bubbles at each 'pole' - I wonder is there is something qualitatively different between them. Might they have a subtly different chemical composition? If the 'bubble' was spun, would a small residual magnetic field be in evidence?

Best,

Stephen Goodfellow


"I wonder is there is something qualitatively different between them. Might they have a subtly different chemical composition?"

There does not seem to be a reason to suspect that the two are different in any way. It would be logical to predict that any number of equally-sized and equally-spaced bigger bubbles could reach an equilibrium with each other, inside the water. The fact that there are only two in the video may suggest that a slight rotation of the entire group, leading to an axial arrangement where only certain (even) numbers are possible. There'd be no need to confuse that with polarity, at this point.

"If the 'bubble' was spun, would a small residual magnetic field be in evidence?"

You bet!

Picture a yellow rubber balloon filled with air. Now say you rubbed it against your sweater to give it a nice static charge. Now let's call this balloon the Sun. Let's figure that the guy in the video also has this balloon to work with the experiment. So, as we imagine bringing this charged yellow balloon closer and closer to the water bubble in the video space experiment, what do you think happens? Well, the minute the charged balloon comes near the water glob (or anything else, for that matter) the balloon will then induce a charge separation in the water glob. If the balloon has say an overall negative charge then it will cause the water glob to be polarized with a positive electrical charge, closest to the balloon. Make sense?

Now, because the positive side of the water glob (the "+" pole) is closer to the balloon than the negative side is to the balloon, the water glob will be attracted to the yellow balloon. Let me say it again...the entire water glob will be attracted to the yellow balloon. So, until we can rule out this behavior as not being the cause of gravity, we have no scientific justification to assume that it isn't.

Moving on, let's prove this for electrically neutral objects. Let's say, instead of the yellow balloon, we use a typical "AA" cell battery. The battery has an overall (net) charge of zero, but we can say it is highly polarized. It is so polarized that one end is completely (+) and the opposite end is completely (-). We can replace the balloon with the battery in the video experiment, and achieve the same result.

And to answer your question "would a magnetic field be induced if you spun the water glob?" Absolutely, here's why...As you spin the water glob and keep the balloon in place (or the battery) you will create a current of electrons within the water glob while it spins, as the electrons "fight" to hold their location with respect to the balloon. So, as we widely agree, any movement of electrons constitutes an electric current. AND, when an electric current takes the path of a loop or circular shape, a magnetic field is always induced, where the axis of the magnetic field is perpendicular to the loop itself. Voila!

I do appreciate your approach, though. If a scientist asks enough question, eventually some of them will be the right ones.

Sank You. I vill be here all ze veek.


That was a good way of explaining your point methane, the visuals always help me to understand the point being made!
What a long strange trip it's been..............

Conspirator
Posts: 1050
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 5:39 pm

PostFri Mar 19, 2010 6:31 pm » by Blotto


Scientists supersize quantum mechanics
full article
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html

excerpt
Still, he says, there's plenty of reasons to keep trying to get large objects into quantum states. Large quantum states could tell researchers more about the relationship between quantum mechanics and gravity — something that is not well understood. And quantum resonators could be useful for something, although Cleland admits he's not entirely sure what. "There might be some interesting application," he says. "But frankly, I don't have one now

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 3137
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 12:10 pm
Location: Neutral Zone

PostFri Mar 19, 2010 7:45 pm » by Svaha


To me we (with the entire universe) are on the inside of a big bubble, that is one of the bubbles that are inside a bubble.
All created by one thought. A thought has two 'directions', one outward, one inward, meaning that the creation was 'ready' at the 'moment' it was created.
Thought (male) is like a line, thought gives direction to energy (female) and this 'makes' a spiral, a vortex. In the center, the source there is no matter possible only mind, matter comes into being on the spiral.
That way you could say that gravity depends on the circumference of a planetary body, on the place it has on the vortex.
This is also the reason why sound comes before light.
Follow your bliss(ters) - Joseph Campbell

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 200
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 10:52 pm

PostFri Mar 19, 2010 10:42 pm » by Methaneslurpee


Thanks, lucid.

Yeah, it's the best way I can relate to it, too. I'm not sure what the point is, to all these other abstract attempts to explain gravity...as if they did anything for us. I think my approach brings us much closer to understanding anti-gravity as well. Though that part gets lost on people who are too quick to guzzle everything mainstream "science" puts out there. But, I'm afraid I just don't care anymore.

@ Jetxvii: Thanks. I like you too, guy!
IN GOD WE RUST

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1236
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 2:00 am

PostFri Mar 19, 2010 10:50 pm » by Ridee


guys please just look the Rogue valley presentation from Nassim Haramein , everything is in their .

i got it and i am not an expert on the field so everybody can do this .

the LHC is working ( well almost as expected ) but they just build it to find something that doesn't exist , the graviton you know , they are trying to tell us again and again that there is a fundamental particle that builds all and gravity is coming from that mystic particle witch is crazy .

if they just go out and tell people we are wrong , everything in 'modern' physics will collapse and they are not willing to give you that , the truth i mean .
My blog --- > http://uplifting7.blogspot.com/

Conspirator
Posts: 1050
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 5:39 pm

PostFri Mar 19, 2010 11:37 pm » by Blotto


methaneslurpee wrote:Thanks, lucid.

Yeah, it's the best way I can relate to it, too. I'm not sure what the point is, to all these other abstract attempts to explain gravity...as if they did anything for us. I think my approach brings us much closer to understanding anti-gravity as well. Though that part gets lost on people who are too quick to guzzle everything mainstream "science" puts out there. But, I'm afraid I just don't care anymore.

@ Jetxvii: Thanks. I like you too, guy!


that's part of the problem, everyone thinks there approach is correct or the way to go. all approach's should be considered, including the original video. to many take the view of its my way or the highway.

i personally think there is still many surprises to come regarding gravity, probably black holes hold the biggest clues, as to regarding gravity. the scientists seem to think there's a black hole at the center of every galaxy. and what do black holes do , for one they SPIN and one of the biggest part of quantum mechanics and physics of particles, is spin
there's a lot of galaxy's out there spinning.

i would be interested in your take on anti gravity, it all counts , i do agree i am not to fussed on mainstream science . but now and again they throw up some good stuff. i like the idea that i found on super sized quantum mechanics, if true it would be a big leap forward. since we cant see the quantum world with the naked eye. if we can manipulate the properties of quantum mechanics. then it opens up all kinds of possibility's. as we know how bizarre the quantum world is. i think super sized quantum mechanics. and the current work being done to bring quantum computing into reality. could potentially be 2 major break through's.
Last edited by Blotto on Fri Mar 19, 2010 11:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.


PreviousNext

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook