"The long and constant persuasion that all the forces of nature are mutually dependent, having one common origin, or rather being different manifestations of one fundamental power, has often made me think on the possibility of establishing, by experiment, a connection between gravity and electricity …no terms could exaggerate the value of the relation they would establish." — Michael Faraday, physicist, 1865
It seems that, in April/May 1985, there was an experiment performed by the United States Microgravity Laboratory aboard Spacelab 3 via the space shuttle Challenger (Mission STS 51-B) that NASA and the scientific establishment don't want you to know about: Geophysical Fluid Flow Cell.
The geophysical fluid flow cell (GFFC) experiment simulates a wide variety of thermal convection phenomena in spherical geometry. By applying an electric field across a spherical capacitor filled with a dielectric liquid, a body force analogous to gravity is generated around the fluid. The force acts as a buoyant force in that its magnitude is proportional to the local temperature of the fluid and in the radial direction perpendicular to the spherical surface. In this manner, cooler fluid sinks toward the surface of the inner sphere while warmer fluid rises toward the outer sphere. The value of this artificial gravity is proportional to the square of the voltage applied across the sphere and can thus be imposed as desired. With practical voltages, its magnitude is only a fraction of earth's and so requires a microgravity environment to be significant. The advantage of using this apparatus is that it simulates atmospheric flows around stars and planets, i.e. the "artificial gravity" is directed toward the center of the sphere much like a self-gravitating body.By Dr. James E. Arnold.
The GFFC experiment flew on Spacelab 3 in April/May and operated for more than 100 hours during the mission. The experiment verified that dielectric forces can be used to properly simulate a spherical gravitational field to drive thermal convection.
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
37 comments:
OiM,
A quick point - The Earth is electrically isolated from the plasma of space by Double Layers, the most obvious one being it's surface and the ionosphere.
DL's occur in the presence of electric currents, so perhaps what we call gravity could be explained in terms of electrical forces, rather than some mysterious property of matter that causes matter to attract other matter.
Gravity is not a mysterious property of matter that causes matter to attract other matter
It is the curvature of space/time. Its been proven dozens of times, starting with an eclipse back in the 30s when a distant star's apparent position was shifted by the sun's gravity. It's a fact. There is no coverup. There is no conspiracy. There are no victims.
Louis,
A lot to consider. Thx!
Jeffery,
Excellent job of ignoring the article which proves artificial gravity is electromagnetic.
Space is not a material object and neither is time. How can time be curved?
In what way does a solar eclipse prove time is curved?
"Einstein’s theory of gravity is the craziest explanation of the phenomenon imaginable." -- Wallace Thornhill, physicist, 2001
...NASA and the scientific establishment don't want you to know...
It is so secret they put it on a pubically accessable webpage and gave the phone numbers of the guys involved. What a crappy way to conduct a conspiracy.
OiM, you should talk to these folks about proper execution of crazy ideas and delusion in general. I don't think they know it's a secret.
Also, they are talking about convection... not gravity.
It's on a NASA website but no one knows about it because it's been deliberately swept under the rug by people who think the word gravity actually means convection.
I guess I overreacted to this in my excitement and also I was being paranoid. Sorry if I seem crazy haha.
OIM, the title of this thread says "NASA Coverup". You haven't provided one shred of evidence that there was any coverup. The data you are basing your post on all came from NASA. If there was some coverup how is it that you have access to the data?
Jeffery Keon
Curvature of space/time is a pure mathematical abstraction that has not meaning in physical reality.
All Einstein did was do thought experiments - he spurned physical ones.
And justy how can "space" wich is an absence of matter, be "curved"?
It's mathematical gobbledygook.
@louis,
Do not tell that to anyone at JPL.
They'll laugh in your face.
And you'll have deserved it.
Jeffery,
The only person being laughed at right now is you for your failure to answer simple questions.
In 1915, an eclipse "moved" the planet Mercury out of place. Einstein showed how gravity was responsible for the apparent shift. Eddington also went to great pains to show a similar proof in 1919.
Again, your incredulity does not disprove anything.
Simple questions? Like how space/time is curved? How is the onus on me to prove what nearly 100 years of open-book science has shown? You act as if I'm the first person to suggest space/time curvature.
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
Jeffery,
It's obvious from your response that you don't know how it's possible for time to be curved. That's ok. No one does.
Space is not a material object (See Zeno, Aristotle, Hobbes, Descartes, Leibniz, Maupertuis, Kant, Mach)
Euclid and Lobachevsky proved that curved space is absurd even in mathematics where it seems anything is possible.
The fact that you worship Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and other practitioners of the occult does not make time miraculously curve.
Time cannot be curved anymore than it can be yellow.
Sure, this is a case of simulating bouyancy and gravitation by using electrical voltage potentials. A simulation is not necessarily the real thing though.
Mathematically speaking, spacetime can be curved by using a transformation matrix on the basis vectors (x,y,z,t). This can reflect reality, say if the coordinants of spacetime aren't flat but instead elliptical or hyperbolic and using a linear transformation thusly. This, of course, can be utilized to explain the apparent uniform expansion and contraction of the universe via a cosmoligical constant.
"Occult?"
This from a guy that gets his cosmology from Euclid?
Ever heard of time dilation?
Pound, Rebka in 1959 measured the very slight gravitational red shift in the frequency of light emitted at a lower height, where Earth's gravitational field is relatively more intense. The results were within 10% of the predictions of general relativity. Later Pound and Snider (in 1964) derived an even closer result of 1%. This effect is as predicted by gravitational time dilation.
QF,
Has anyone been able to simulate gravity with anything other than electromagnetism?
"Mathematically speaking, spacetime can be curved by using a transformation matrix on the basis vectors (x,y,z,t)."
No. See Lobachevsky Theorem 20.
"This can reflect reality"
No. Reality has straight lines, parallel lines, and triangles with interior angles equal to two right angles.
Jeffery,
Yes occult.
"...to establish it [gravity] as original or primitive in certain parts of matter is to resort either to miracle or an imaginary occult quality." -- Gottfreid W. Leibniz, polymath, July 1710
"This from a guy that gets his cosmology from Euclid?"
If you mean me the answer is no. I don't believe in cosmology because the whole universe is not an object of experience but only a very limited part of it. And yes I get my geometric imagination from Euclid just as every other known conscious being. Who do you get your geometry from? Bozo the clown?
Did Liebnitz have the instrumentation we do now?
No.
His viewpoint is invalid.
Some folks stand on the shoulders of giants... you kneel before them and can't see around them. Let go of this classicism, wake up and smell the New Physics.
Jeffery,
Do you have the intelligence and intellect that Leibniz had?
No.
Your viewpoint is invalid.
Some people worship Isaac Newton and the occult, some people reject it in favor of electromagnetism and science.
Do you deny that the Law of Universal Gravitation requires divine intervention?
Because if you do then it's obvious you've never read Newton.
I've come to a conclusion. This is my last post on this blog.
I make this my last post based on the mindset of our host. His is a mind embroiled in controversies where none exist, a mind bent on seeing conspiracy, cover up and secrets. NASA coverups, BIG SCIENCE coverups... gag orders and clandestine meetings where They get together and discuss how to suppress the TRUTH.
This is more than a little similar to answersingenesis (big science lying about God), uncommon descent (big science lying about design), realians (big science lying about everything), enterprisemission (big science lying about big science) and Ted Jesus Christ God (no science, but a lot of ranting and self-imposed victimization).
On all of these sites, there is a bias toward distrust of modern academia, quote mining, out-of-context citation and a certain smugness over being the victim of big science. You know the TRUTH, and somebody, somewhere wants you suppressed.
You can't all be right, but you can all be crazy as fuck.
So here is my promise: I will continue to read, to be interested in your viewpoint (narrow as it may be), and to consider the limitless possibilities of nature, for I am a student of science first, last and always.
I will not be called an occultist, a creationist or unintelligent. That said, I am a guest here, this is not my forum, and I take my leave without hostility toward my host.
Jeffery,
"I will not be called an occultist, a creationist or unintelligent."
Then perhaps you should abandon gravitation -- an occult, creationist force, that is totally unintelligible.
"...lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1687
Newton and Einstein didn't have the instrumentation that we do now.
DID NASA HIDE THE BALL?
No, NASA didn't hide the ball, but then again they didn't take the ball out to play at the local park much, either.
How's that you say?
OilIsMastery found the data, so it wasn't suppressed, but apparently NASA let the experimental results go quietly into obscurity.
Did NASA follow up on the experimental results?
What are the complete implications of the experiment?
In spite of what Jeffery Keown says, some experimental results get more publicity than others.
Some geological discoveries get more publicity than others.
And some astronomical observations get more publicity than others.
Why?
Many reasons, but human nature plays a part: The good, the bad, and the ugly.
The experiments that recorded light bending around planets or the moon could also be explained by electromagnetism rather than curved space-time. The possibility of that effect was ruled out by the scientific community apriori because nobody believed planets were electromagnetic entities.
I don't see any justification for accusing NASA of a coverup. They're just a bunch of academics climbing the academic/political ladder. There isn't a wondering bone in their bodies. Nobody who had played the academic game well enough to get a job there would risk allowing themselves to think heretical scientific thoughts that would kill their careers.
@Anaconda "No, NASA didn't hide the ball, but then again they didn't take the ball out to play at the local park much, either."
OIM cried "NASA Coverup"! at the top of his lungs. Then he went and changed the thread heading from"NASA Coverup" to "Geophysical Fluid Flow Cell: Electromagnetic Gravity" with no explanation given. Perhaps this is a first for this blog? An actual retraction by OIM of something stupid he had to say?
@Jeffery Keown "...and a certain smugness over being the victim of big science. You know the TRUTH, and somebody, somewhere wants you suppressed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)
"In addition, many cranks
- seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting
- stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone entails that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error
- compare themselves with Galileo or Copernicus, implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is in itself evidence of plausibility
- claim that THEIR IDEAS ARE BEING SUPPRESSED by secret intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their allegedly revolutionary insights becoming widely known
- appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical importance
@ Tom Marking:
All of what you say can be true.
On the other hand, sometimes there are interests that prefer that ideas not get widely circulated for whatever reason.
The challenge is to seperate the insightful ideas from the worthless ideas.
Calling somebody a "crank" does nothing to sort the insightful ideas from the worthless ideas.
Many times calling somebody a "crank" is done as simply a conversation "stopper" because somebody else doesn't like the idea.
And just because somebody else doesn't like an idea doesn't make the idea invalid.
Something to think about.
Tom,
I provided an explanation but you ignored it. It is one of the comments posted above.
As far as stupidity is concerned, I refer you to my latest post.
Anyone who uses the word crank is simply resorting to ad hominem because they have no logical or scientific argument.
@Anaconda "Calling somebody a "crank" does nothing to sort the insightful ideas from the worthless ideas."
@OIM "Anyone who uses the word crank is simply resorting to ad hominem because they have no logical or scientific argument."
Note, that nowhere did I ever call OIM or Anaconda a crank. I merely cited some of the defining characteristics from Wikipedia which apparently hit rather too close to home. I'll let the readers decide for themselves if the term applies to anyone on this blog.
Tom,
Crank is the language of pseudoscience and those who use the word are pseudoscientists.
At least we now know where you stand.
@OIM "Crank is the language of pseudoscience and those who use the word are pseudoscientists."
Hmmm, you just used the word in a sentence. Does that make you a pseudoscientist? This reminds me of the skit in the Monte Python movie "The Life of Brian" concerning the word Jehovah. :)
@ Tom Marking
I'm sorry, but you are being disingenuous.
You place a comment that introduces the idea of "crank" well into the comments section.
Then you place a comment quoting both OilIsMastery and myself, and then self-servingly claim your remarks aren't directed at either of us.
Marking: "[N]owhere did I ever call OIM or Anaconda a crank."
Then go on to state: "[it] hit rather too close to home."
It's rather like myself coming on to your blog and placing a wikipedia entry for liar, then when you object in writing, I turn around quoting you, but say "I didn't call you a liar, but judging by Marking's response it hits too close to home.
Marking, your rationalization is intellectually dishonest, and I can't help wondering if that bleeds over into your assessment of scientific evidence?
@Anaconda "Marking, your rationalization is intellectually dishonest, and I can't help wondering if that bleeds over into your assessment of scientific evidence?"
Since you are so into intellectual honesty then perhaps you won't mind answering this simple question that requires a Yes or No answer: Did I call you a crank?
@ Tom Marking:
If you you don't understand the concept of an inference or an insinuation, I can't help you, man.
Post a Comment