The Quonset Hut

I read this from a poster elsewhere. I don't have the knowledge to discuss it.

Only enough to find it very curious and interesting. Maybe you too will.

Is it true, I wonder ? What he says, I mean ? (colors are mine)

"There are several ways to disprove gravity :
1) Experimentally
One simple experiment shows there is no gravity. The Helium Balloon. It rises. How is this possible? Classical Mechanics shows that Force equals the Constant of Gravity multiplied by the Mass of Object 1 multiplied by the Mass of Object 2 divided by the Distance between the two masses raised to the second power. F=GM1M2/r^2
With this logic, the mass of the Earth is so great that the helium balloon would have no choice but to be attracted to the Earth. We have mass 1 pulling on mass 2 and mass 2 pulling on mass 1. F1 = F2. This is just wrong. The force of the balloon that pulls the Earth is not equal to the force that the Earth pulls on the balloon. It would not rise. What we see in the experiment that the helium is rising to meet its level of density.

2) Commutitive
The mathematics of gravity is a concept called Zero Point Mass. This is a mass without a volume. This is not found in the universe. The main problem here is the reduction of 3 dimensional densities to 0 dimensional masses. Once a density is reduces to a mass, the mass cannot be returned to the original shape of the density. So we cannot cube a zero and get anything but another zero. This breaks the commutative properties of addition.
Let’s look at some of the equations and how gravity fails at a fundamental level. F=ma : Force equals mass times acceleration.
We have a zero dimensional mass * a 2 dimensional vector and that does not equal a 3 dimensional field. So the main axiom of gravity fails the commutative test.
This alone should disprove gravity.
F = G(M1*M2)/r^2 : Force = The constant of Gravity * (The zero dimensional mass 1 * The zero dimensional mass 2)/ The 3 dimensional length between them squared. So every object pulls every other object. The dimensional problem occurs again.
A constant is what is used to fill in the gaps. When things do not work the way we want them to, we just add a constant to fix the problem. When the equation no longer works, we change the constant value.

Physicists know about this problem. They created gravity waves and shell modeling to compensate for the dimensionless mass. But gravity is still dimensionless. The dimensionless mass cannot create a 3 dimensional shape.
We all know that gravity collapses under the scrutiny of the tiny. Quantum level objects do not show any signs of gravity. The particle accelerators prove this. They have yet to find any force that works as gravity is described.

3) Gravity fails the multi-body test.
Gravity can only compute the force between 2 objects. Any equation that uses a sum of objects fails in this way. First the two objects force is computed then the third body is computed with the resultant of the first two bodies. Then that resultant is computed with the 4 body... That is how summation works. The problem is that the distance between object 1 and 2 is not evaluated in the next iteration.

4) Gravity and Complex Systems.
Let’s look at a hurricane that is traveling over the ocean. The spinning winds cause rotation in the ocean. The low pressure of the storm causes a bulge upward in the ocean. Heat and pressure are two of the main variables in this system. As the temp increases it decreases the pressure of the storm, causing an increase in intensity in the storm. The heated air is forced up the eye wall. This is an example of a temperature/pressure force on density. It is not possible for gravity to describe this system, with or without spheres."

I have pondered many ideas on what Gravity is, and one of the most plausible in my opinion is Walter Russell's description in The Universal One, whereas Gravity is a difference between generation and radiation of a specific field, or light density, whether element or mass.

Male versus Female, Sexing, centripetal generation versus centrifugal radiation..it all depends on the filed which dominates..this I learned from Kevin first, and have now seen it in several places, and it makes sense in a ethereal or spiritual manner.

I do believe gravity that we have so far encountered is somewhat relative to the location of the transmutation taking place, to other fields which it is either immersed in, or adjacent to. Hence why it seems so weak a force as it is ultimately affected by all other fields within this finite universe.

For me mathematics has no place in my personal understanding of anything, so as usual, I am woe to ponder the importance of math or formulas and equations, and instead I look within for my answers...hey the jesus dude said it, so it's ok, righ? Lol!

I'm also tempted to mention Stellar Metamorphosis in my reply here, but I'm not sure how it applies to the descriptions above.

At any rate, field interactions, and the theory of field frequency modulation, which I still struggle to grasp from David Barclay, make the most sense to me....empirical evidence regarding gravity is likely decades, if not centuries away though.

Pressure differentials between differing states of matter (water and air) give the impression of gravity,much as in the tropical system, but electricity and magnetism may be the source of these differentials when fields interact.

Of course, this is just what I have seen and felt is a decent place to rest my head when thinking of gravity and what it is. I could be way off base here.

Hope this helps in some way....

Kevin, could you elaborate, good sir?

David,
You mentioned ...gravitycontrol.org
I have several times suggested that such a title is not correct.
Gravity is a consequence , not a force.

The apple that supposedly hit Newton as it DISPLACED ( thank you mikado) in location ,should have given a clue.
Not to why it was displacing at that moment, but why it was able to stay part of the tree as it transmuted into been.
Paulcmuir shows clues with His orbs photos of buds attracting the orbs.
Think of a negative pole attracting a positive pole, as such.
It takes two to tango.
The tree needs to attract vast local opposite spin flows to each bud to enable the transmutation into been of an apple.
Then if Newton had discected the spple He may have been able to see the heart centre arrangement displayed.

I have learn't more from trees than from any human being.

Luisp,
Pressure????????
Spin , spin , spin, which way does the spin spin, and WHY?????

I detect flows going in both directions( horizontal) above each other, with another detectable occurance leading Me to understand about fibonacci sequencing of these flows .
Centripetal versus centrifugal , the net rate of implosion into CREATION of 3D matter and mass been 55 over 34
Thats how creation is baked in a Phi.
http://www.goldennumber.net/
Kevin

Russell confirms all is spiral in nature, and that's clear to any boy who find a pine cone...but science still wishes to instill linear thinking into their dogma.

I always picture gravity as what I call a life force, but not force as a force, but an effect of creation versus annihilation....so each field has its own gravitational behavior.

Interactions between matter densifying creates gravity, and it can be an accumulative effect I would think, hence us being held to the planet, even though everything we see or perceive has its own gravitational field.

A foam, or bubble bath describes the ALL of existence in form for me, with absolutely zero space between fields, and a penchant for fields in equilibrium to combine into one.

Each human is a little bubble, with each other density of matter a field of its own, of which desire to generate, eventually becomes a desire to radiate back to its source.

Maybe I'm just a new age fruitcake....who knows...but it makes sense to me in some natural way.

As for David Barclay, I believe what he is hoping to do is use magnetic fields interacting with one another to visualize that transmutation, and somehow insert mass into the transition stages..but that where I am probably off a bit, as gravity control is not what the outcome of such an experiment will be, and instead he will witness the creation of visible light, and new densities of already existing matter into other trans mutated so called dimensions.

Will his device allow travel? Hard to say...but it will allow for observation of that which has eluded hamfisted science heads since the beginning of their search for answers, to a question which eternally awaits them on the forest floor.

Luis wrote:1) Experimentally
One simple experiment shows there is no gravity. The Helium Balloon. It rises. How is this possible? Classical Mechanics shows that Force equals the Constant of Gravity multiplied by the Mass of Object 1 multiplied by the Mass of Object 2 divided by the Distance between the two masses raised to the second power. F=GM1M2/r^2
With this logic, the mass of the Earth is so great that the helium balloon would have no choice but to be attracted to the Earth. We have mass 1 pulling on mass 2 and mass 2 pulling on mass 1. F1 = F2. This is just wrong. The force of the balloon that pulls the Earth is not equal to the force that the Earth pulls on the balloon. It would not rise. What we see in the experiment that the helium is rising to meet its level of density.

The scrivener of the above is ignoring something called buoyancy. Gravity has nothing to do with it. How about a ship in the water? Why doesn't gravity pull it to the bottom?

Luis wrote:2) Commutitive
The mathematics of gravity is a concept called Zero Point Mass. This is a mass without a volume. This is not found in the universe. The main problem here is the reduction of 3 dimensional densities to 0 dimensional masses. Once a density is reduces to a mass, the mass cannot be returned to the original shape of the density. So we cannot cube a zero and get anything but another zero. This breaks the commutative properties of addition.
Let’s look at some of the equations and how gravity fails at a fundamental level. F=ma : Force equals mass times acceleration.
We have a zero dimensional mass * a 2 dimensional vector and that does not equal a 3 dimensional field. So the main axiom of gravity fails the commutative test.
This alone should disprove gravity.
F = G(M1*M2)/r^2 : Force = The constant of Gravity * (The zero dimensional mass 1 * The zero dimensional mass 2)/ The 3 dimensional length between them squared. So every object pulls every other object. The dimensional problem occurs again.
A constant is what is used to fill in the gaps. When things do not work the way we want them to, we just add a constant to fix the problem. When the equation no longer works, we change the constant value.

The Zero Point State is the ground state of all fields thus the assumption of is is incorrect and is ignoring what Einstein and Stern were discussing in regard to Planck.

Luis wrote:3) Gravity fails the multi-body test.
Gravity can only compute the force between 2 objects. Any equation that uses a sum of objects fails in this way. First the two objects force is computed then the third body is computed with the resultant of the first two bodies. Then that resultant is computed with the 4 body... That is how summation works. The problem is that the distance between object 1 and 2 is not evaluated in the next iteration.

The scrivener ignores n-body problems and assumes only one derivative. Look at the choreography of the planets which are multiple bodies reacting with each other. This can become very complicated. It has been too simplified by the presenter above and is ignoring so very much.

Luis wrote:4) Gravity and Complex Systems.
Let’s look at a hurricane that is traveling over the ocean. The spinning winds cause rotation in the ocean. The low pressure of the storm causes a bulge upward in the ocean. Heat and pressure are two of the main variables in this system. As the temp increases it decreases the pressure of the storm, causing an increase in intensity in the storm. The heated air is forced up the eye wall. This is an example of a temperature/pressure force on density. It is not possible for gravity to describe this system, with or without spheres."

This does not even deserve an argument. Might as well have used an airplane for an example.

Mikado

Yes, yes.....what Mikado said!

I avoided trying to debunk that post, because I am clueless as to the deep science of things such as Mikado provided explanations of..

Thanks Mikado!

Thanks all for your help. Much appreciated for I’m not “built” to understand this stuff, only find it curious … much due to Hobbit’s fault, I must say, for it was his observations that first led me to get intrigued, and then very intrigued.

That said – with due bow to your very clear explanations Mikado, and if I’m not stressing too much the limits of your patience with my ignorance – regarding the “Experimentally” section as you, so to speak, “debunked” it, am I out of reason by questioning what did the “scrivener” meant by mentioning in his formula that “the Distance between the two masses raised to the second power” was a factor ?

I mean, inside “buoyancy” where is the distance between the two “masses” ? But if you raise the ship from the sea it will surely crash into it, so I’m not getting your point that your example invalidates what he said, only that “buoyancy” is a distinct matter than gravity is.

My capacity to make questions is exhausted by this single one, for other items are far out of my reach to understand.

Thanks in advance if you find the time to clarify what you said there.

LuisP wrote:Thanks all for your help. Much appreciated for I’m not “built” to understand this stuff, only find it curious … much due to Hobbit’s fault, I must say, for it was his observations that first led me to get intrigued, and then very intrigued.

That said – with due bow to your very clear explanations Mikado, and if I’m not stressing too much the limits of your patience with my ignorance – regarding the “Experimentally” section as you, so to speak, “debunked” it, am I out of reason by questioning what did the “scrivener” meant by mentioning in his formula that “the Distance between the two masses raised to the second power” was a factor ?

If you look at the original equation, you will see that the formula - F=GM1M2/r^2 - shows the denominator as being r squared. This is referred to as the inverse square law.

Continuing...

LuisP wrote:I mean, inside “buoyancy” where is the distance between the two “masses” ? But if you raise the ship from the sea it will surely crash into it, so I’m not getting your point that your example invalidates what he said, only that “buoyancy” is a distinct matter than gravity is.

Let us look at the original statement:

Luis original post wrote:.... the mass of the Earth is so great that the helium balloon would have no choice but to be attracted to the Earth.

The scrivener is ignoring bouyancy. The atmosphere is a fluid just as the ocean is a fluid. The density of each is apparent but both are a fluid none the less. A helium balloon will rise to a point of equilibrium in the atmosphere just as a ship rises to a point of equilibrium in water. Gravity is still having an effect but then there are other forces at work here.

Here is question (even though I answered it earlier), how high will a helium filled balloon rise?

...and another...How high will a hydrogen filled balloon rise?

LuisP wrote:My capacity to make questions is exhausted by this single one, for other items are far out of my reach to understand.

Thanks in advance if you find the time to clarify what you said there.

Your welcome and if this answer spawns another question...ask.

Now here is a question for you.....are you ever going to finish the Ciba-Geigy thread?

Mikado

Mikado14 wrote:
Your welcome and if this answer spawns another question...ask.

Mikado

Many thanks, Mikado. I have none.
I really shouldn't have asked any in the first place, for I have no knowledge to pursue them and just ended wasting your time to all practical purposes, truth be said. It's just that some things make sense and others don't, and I have meanwhile found a lot of them not making sense to me that I would like to understand.

Mikado14 wrote:Now here is a question for you.....are you ever going to finish the Ciba-Geigy thread?

Mikado

Good question. One that I've asked myself many times.
I don't know. I've tried. I wish I can do it. I want to do it. But I'm up against a wall.

A good question deserves another in reply. So here's one for you ....why, really, do you ask ?

*cri, cri, crickets*