Artificial gravity - theories

[Martian]

An opposing field is only created when a magnetic field is moving toward the conductor. If you pull a magnet away from a conductor, the induced field in the conductor reverses direction and becomes attractive. You can uses Faraday's left hand rule to visualize this. Don't worry about the math. Just stick with what is real.

In the dynamic situation, that's certainly true. But there's another thing that happens with a static magnetic field, due to the Lorentz force. Basically, because some electrons are free to move through a conductor & they already tend to have a nonzero velocity, the Lorentz force causes them to move in a circle.

F = qv x B

If you use the right hand rule and the definition of the magnetic field in terms of the magnetic potential (which is proportional to the velocity of an individual charged particle), you'll see that the charged particles are bent into a path that creates a magnetic field opposite to the external one. It's how thin layers of diamagnetic materials are able to float over a strong magnet.

And I love math. I know not everything can likely be described mathematically yet, and I sometimes screw it up. But gosh darnit, I love it. lol

 

[TimeFlipper]

In the dynamic situation, that's certainly true. But there's another thing that happens with a static magnetic field, due to the Lorentz force. Basically, because some electrons are free to move through a conductor & they already tend to have a nonzero velocity, the Lorentz force causes them to move in a circle.

F = qv x B

If you use the right hand rule and the definition of the magnetic field in terms of the magnetic potential (which is proportional to the velocity of an individual charged particle), you'll see that the charged particles are bent into a path that creates a magnetic field opposite to the external one. It's how thin layers of diamagnetic materials are able to float over a strong magnet.

And I love math. I know not everything can likely be described mathematically yet, and I sometimes screw it up. But gosh darnit, I love it. lol

I came across an interesting Lorenz practical Radio Direction Finding set up (RDF), named the Lorenz Blind Landing System, that was produced in the late 1930s...German pilots used that combined with their own radio beams to accurately bomb targets in the UK during World War 2..

 

[Einstein]

In the dynamic situation, that's certainly true. But there's another thing that happens with a static magnetic field, due to the Lorentz force. Basically, because some electrons are free to move through a conductor & they already tend to have a nonzero velocity, the Lorentz force causes them to move in a circle.

F = qv x B

G

And I love math. I know not everything can likely be described mathematically yet, and I sometimes screw it up. But gosh darnit, I love it. lol

The right hand rule only applies to protons in motion within an electric field. Be real careful where you got your info. Anything you build using the right hand rule will not work! Are you willing to risk your life with misinformation? Get a compass and a voltmeter and prove to yourself that the left hand rule applies to electrons in motion through a conductive wire.

 

[Martian]

The right hand rule only applies to protons in motion within an electric field. Be real careful where you got your info. Anything you build using the right hand rule will not work! Are you willing to risk your life with misinformation? Get a compass and a voltmeter and prove to yourself that the left hand rule applies to electrons in motion through a conductive wire.

Sorry, you're right about that. I was thinking in terms of conventional current. Mathematically, you end up with the same fields if you have positive charges moving one direction as you'd get if negative particles are moving in the opposite direction.

 

[Martian]

As for the original post in this thread, I do have an idea, but it's probably not a very good one. lol

I read in an old electromagnetism book a derivation where they mathematically proved that a slab of dielectric material should be sucked into the space between two capacitor plates, because doing so reduces the electrostatic energy between them. So if you had very large metal plates partly above & partly below the floor, a high voltage should cause people to be pulled downward. Just be careful with the voltage, as people would get mad at you if they got shocked.

 

[Einstein]

Sorry, you're right about that. I was thinking in terms of conventional current. Mathematically, you end up with the same fields if you have positive charges moving one direction as you'd get if negative particles are moving in the opposite direction.

Yes, I have seen the academic community try and confuse people with their convoluted bullshit. Even conventional current theory used to conform to Faraday's left hand rule. So how did it get turned around? It seems to me like it's an assault on our knowledge base. I think it stems from the idea that the electron is negatively charged. What seems to be removed from the knowledge base is that the charge state on electrons will generally equalize with the surrounding voltage state. Usually the ground state, which can be an isolated ground state. That does imply that the charge state of an electron is variable. Of course that is verifiable when you look at an oscillating voltage on an antenna with a scope.

My pet theory based on those observations is that with enough of a voltage swing, that electron can oscillate between an electron and a positron. After all doesn't the voltage swing go from negative to positive? Seems like a nifty way for mother nature to hide all the antimatter in the universe. The two charges are separated in time. Normally neither charge possesses enough temporal energy to cross that temporal barrier.

 

[Martian]

@TimeFlipper @steven chiverton

As far as I can tell, the 3 6 9 thing originally comes from John Ernst Worrell Keely, a man who worked with vibration in the 19th century. Supposedly, he broke apart water molecules & other things using sound. First, he'd break apart the molecules, then the atoms, then the subatomic particles. He claimed there were 7 levels of subdivision achievable before they got too small to interact with, but that matter itself is infinitely divisible. When he found the resonant frequency, he would then superimpose on that vibrations at the 3rd, 6th, & 9th octaves of the scale.

There used to be a website called KeelyNet, but unfortunately its curator died a few years ago. The website doesn't seem to exist anymore, but you can probably find it on the Wayback Machine.

Keely also claimed that "time is gravity", whatever that means.

I am aware of the Tesla quote about 3 6 9 being a key to the universe or some such thing, but I'm not aware of him ever explaining it publically. If anyone knows his explanation, please tell me.

 

[Martian]

Yes, I have seen the academic community try and confuse people with their convoluted bullshit. Even conventional current theory used to conform to Faraday's left hand rule. So how did it get turned around? It seems to me like it's an assault on our knowledge base. I think it stems from the idea that the electron is negatively charged. What seems to be removed from the knowledge base is that the charge state on electrons will generally equalize with the surrounding voltage state. Usually the ground state, which can be an isolated ground state. That does imply that the charge state of an electron is variable. Of course that is verifiable when you look at an oscillating voltage on an antenna with a scope.

My pet theory based on those observations is that with enough of a voltage swing, that electron can oscillate between an electron and a positron. After all doesn't the voltage swing go from negative to positive? Seems like a nifty way for mother nature to hide all the antimatter in the universe. The two charges are separated in time. Normally neither charge possesses enough temporal energy to cross that temporal barrier.

I have mixed feelings on the academic community. lol I think that once upon a time, when it was a small group of guys in different countries communicating back & forth and doing real research & analysis, like in the 1800s & before, it was absolutely respectable. If you've read some of the books & papers they published, you can see their brilliance. The cold war and its secrecy, followed by the dumbing down of many people seem to have done a lot of damage to its credibility. Now we've got so-called academics talking about climate change & so much fake BS that it's easy to tune it all out. But it wasn't always that way, and it doesn't need to remain that way.

As for your pet theory, I'll have to think about it more before commenting. Something I find interesting, though, is that there were physics PhDs in the early 20th century still writing books discussing the aether (in a detailed, mathematical way) as if it was fact. These days, people act like the aether was officially done for good & discarded after Michelson & Morley's experiment. Not true! One of those guys had a nervous breakdown during the experiment, by the way, which makes me question the entire thing.

There's a lot more to say, but I need to think through the details first.

 

[JustMe]

I don’t need artificial gravity to be honest. I’ve never started floating away. The real gravity seems to work fine for me. What issues are you having with it where you are?

 

[Martian]

I came across an interesting Lorenz practical Radio Direction Finding set up (RDF), named the Lorenz Blind Landing System, that was produced in the late 1930s...German pilots used that combined with their own radio beams to accurately bomb targets in the UK during World War 2..

This thing?

Lorenz beam - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Lorentz & Lorenz were different people, but it's still interesting. Too far left & you hear dots, too far right & you hear dashes. Center line you hear a constant tone.

I don't think it could be used for artificial gravity, but I could be wrong.