Magnetic Levitation

"Diamagnetic substances include water, protein, diamond, DNA, plastic, wood, and many other common substances usually thought to be nonmagnetic." -- Martin D. Simon, professor, May 2000

New Scientist: Frog defies gravity.

USING a giant magnetic field, scientists at the University of Nottingham and the University of Nijmegen in the Netherlands have made a frog float in mid-air.

The levitation trick works because giant magnetic fields slightly distort the orbits of electrons in the frog's atoms. The resulting electric current generates a magnetic field in the opposite direction to that of the magnet. A field of 16 teslas created an attractive force strong enough to make the frog float—until it made its escape.

The team has also levitated plants, grasshoppers and fish. "If you have a magnet that is big enough, you could levitate a human," says Peter Main, one of the researchers.

He adds that the frog did not seem to suffer any ill effects: "It went back to its fellow frogs looking perfectly happy."

Simon, M.D., Geim, A.K.,. Diamagnetic Levitation: Flying Frogs and Floating Magnets (Invited), Journal of Applied Physics, Volume 87, Number 9, Pages 6200-6204, May 2000

Simon, M.D., Heflinger, L.O., and Geim, A.K., Diamagnetically Stabilized Magnet Levitation, American Journal of Physics, Volume 69, Number 6, Pages 702-713, Jun 2001

Acoustic Antigravity

Carbon Is Magnetic

The electron density of states on a grain boundary of defects. The arrows (pointing in the reader's direction) indicate the direction of the magnetic moments. (Credit: Kees Flipse, Eindhoven University of Technology)

No wonder we stick to the Earth.

Science Daily: Graphite Mimics Iron's Magnetism: New Nanotech Applications.

ScienceDaily (Oct. 5, 2009) — Researchers of Eindhoven University of Technology and the Radboud University Nijmegen in The Netherlands show for the first time why ordinary graphite is a permanent magnet at room temperature. The results are promising for new applications in nanotechnology, such as sensors and detectors. In particular graphite could be a promising candidate for a biosensor material. The results will appear online on 4 October in Nature Physics.

As usual, WikiAnswers is on the case.

Geophysical Fluid Flow Cell: Electromagnetic Gravity

"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.

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.

By Dr. James E. Arnold.

HD 80606b

HD 80606b is a very special planet.

Scientists are now referring to HD 80606b as "everyone's second favorite planet" (after the Earth of course).

HD 80606b has "the most eccentric orbit of any known exoplanet."

Bloomberg: NASA Telescope Spots Weather Changes Outside This Solar System.

Laughlin, 41, a professor at University of California, Santa Cruz, said the gaseous planet has an unusual orbit that brings it closer to its star than Mercury is to the sun, and it then shoots out to a distance almost as far away as Earth is from its sun.

“The orbit is extremely eccentric,” Laughlin said. “Of the exoplanets that have been detected -- we’ve observed 300 -- this is the most extreme orbit we’ve seen so far.”

Translation: gravity is a myth.

The Sound of Gravity?

This is too funny. These idiots think that gravity makes noise and that the sounds can be detected. More than that, they say space (nonbeing) and time (tic-toc?) make noise as well. Do you have your tinfoil hat ready? Forget the Electric Universe. I offer you the Holographic Universe: Holographic Universe: Discovery Could Herald New Era In Fundamental Physics.

Craig Hogan, a physicist at Fermilab Centre for Particle Astrophysics in Illinois is convinced that he has found proof in the data of the gravitational wave detector GEO600 of a holographic Universe – and that his ideas could explain mysterious noise in the detector data that has not been explained so far.

The British-German team behind the GEO600, which includes scientists from the School of Physics and Astronomy's Gravitational Physics Group, will now carry out new experiments in the coming months to yield more evidence about Craig Hogan's assumptions. If proved correct, it could help in the quest to bring together quantum mechanics and Einstein's theory of gravity.

In order to test the theory of holographic noise, the frequency of GEO600´s maximum sensitivity will be shifted towards ever higher frequencies. The frequency of maximum sensitivity is the tone that the detector can hear best. It is normally adjusted to offer the best chance for hearing exploding stars or merging black holes.

Even if it turns out that the mysterious noise is the same at high frequencies as at the lower ones, this will not constitute proof for Hogan's hypothesis. It would, however, provide a strong motivation for further study. The sensitivity of GEO600 will then be significantly improved by using 'squeezed vacuum' and by the installation of a mode filter in a new vacuum chamber. The technology of 'squeezed vacuum' was particularly refined in Hannover and would be used in a gravitational wave detector for the first time.

Professor Jim Hough of Glasgow University, one of the pioneer developers of gravitational wave detectors, says: 'Craig Hogan made a very interesting prediction. It may be the first of a number of unexpected possibilities to be investigated as gravitational wave detectors become more sensitive.'

Professor Bernard Schutz, Professor at the School of Physics and Astronomy, member of the Gravitational Physics Group at the School, and recently elected as an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society said: "It would be truly remarkable if GEO600 is sensitive to the quantum nature of space and time. The only way to confirm that would be to carry out controlled experiments, the results of which can be solely attributed to holographic noise. Such an experiment would herald a new era in fundamental physics".

Indeed. Or a new era of insanity.

Abandoning Geocentrism and Gravity

The Big Bang hypothesis is a geocentric hypothesis since, according to Big Bangers, redshift indicates that the universe is receding away from the Earth in every direction. It is time to abandon geocentrism and gravity.

Thomas Wilson: From Ptolemy to Dark Matter - Part 1.

Fundamental assumptions have an overwhelming influence on how we interpret and discuss new observations.

One such assumption that shapes our accepted view of the Universe is that gravity dominates the motion of galaxies.

It is difficult to change these types of fundamental belief systems. For example, in the time of the Hellenic astronomer Claudius Ptolemaeus, it was a widely held fundamental assumption that the Earth was the center of the cosmos. In fact, there were many good reasons to believe it. The stars, the sun, and the planets visibly move across the sky and the Earth obviously feels very solid and fixed.

According to the best thinkers at the time, the heavenly bodies were positioned on invisible spheres with as many as five spheres per planet. By allowing for spheres within spheres, one could explain the retrograde movement of the planets. To its credit, much was explained with this world-view. With Ptolemy’s sophisticated use of epicycles, deferents, and the innovative introduction of the equant, the Ptolemaic system was very successful at predicting such things as the precession of equinoxes as well as planetary motion (more so than the Copernican system when it was first developed).

However, by the sixteenth century, Galileo’s observations of the phases of Venus were completely incompatible with the Ptolemaic system. Subsequently, Kepler’s prediction of the transit of Venus in 1631 was a great success for the heliocentric, Copernican view of the solar system.

Not to be unnecessarily provocative, but there are interesting similarities between the Ptolemaic paradigm and the current theories surrounding Dark Matter and galaxies. Just as there were good reasons to believe in invisible celestial spheres driving a Geocentric Model, there are reasons to believe in invisible spheres (called “haloes”) of dark matter surrounding galaxies.

It all has to do with how the mass of a galaxy is measured. One popular approach to compute galactic mass is the orbital method. In the orbital method, the rotational velocity of stars (the red shift of radio waves from hydrogen gas around the stars) is used to infer the mass of the galaxy. The math is relatively straightforward: once the stellar orbital velocity (or “velocity dispersion” for the galaxy) and the distance from the center of the galaxy that contains the mass in question are measured, then it is easy to solve for mass. However, the math only includes gravity as the potential energy source for the system.

The problem that begets dark matter is as follows. When the mass of a galaxy with this gravity-only approach is derived, there is more computed mass than visible matter. That is, the sum of the mass of all the stars and visible dust in the galaxy is far less than the mass derived with the Orbital Method. If gravity drives the rotational velocity of the stars in the galaxy, then there must be hidden mass in the form of invisible dark matter. What if gravity is not the dominant force driving the rotational velocity of galaxies?

Today, asking this question is like asking a learned astronomer in 1550, “What if the Earth is not at the center of the cosmos?” Asserting that gravity is not a dominant dynamical force in the motion of galaxies is just as shocking to astronomers of our current time. However, there is good evidence that supports the notion that electromagnetic forces in plasma act on the cosmological scale.

Hannes Alfven (Nobel Laureate for his work in plasma physics), proposed that galaxies reside in immense, gyrating, Birkeland currents that convert large-scale electromagnetic forces into rotational energy in a galactic system. In turn, leakage currents in the galaxy are converted into rotational energy in star systems. Seminal work by Anthony Peratt (e.g. see Snell and Peratt, 1995) has shown that the flat rotational curve of galaxies is well modeled by plasma simulations without the need for dark matter. All the observations of the galactic core, the intense X-rays, gamma rays and rotational energies could be explained with sufficient current densities driving the galactic system (Peratt, 1986).

The typical flat rotational velocity curve of a galaxy does not indicate hidden dark matter mass, it indicates that another force is at work. This is why deriving the mass of a galaxy using equations that only include gravity as the source of potential energy leads to problems. Additional electromagnetic forces are at work that drive the galaxy like an electric homopolar motor (see a summary in Donald Scott’s book “The Electric Sky”).

New Planets Defy Gravity

Cosmology Quest: New Planets Defy Gravity.

It looks like Hubble just keeps bringing the pain. Standard cosmologists, astronomers, and planetary theorists must be pulling their hair out by now.

In this article from New Scientist it is reported that scientists have discovered three massive exoplanets, theoretically estimated to be 10 times the size of Jupiter, closely orbiting their parent star. The catch is that according to gravitational theory, they are in a supposedly unstable orbit.

From the paper the article is based on (arXiv:0812.0011v1 [astro-ph])

“We point out that the nominal circular, face-on orbits of the planets lead to a dynamical instability in ~1e5 yr, a factor of at least 100 shorter than the estimated age of the star.”

To put that in English, according to standard theory, the orbits they are in should have fallen apart in less than 100 times the estimated age of the star. That leaves them with some pretty big problems.

This means that at least one or more of these statements are true:

The way a stars age is calculated is wrong (it is)
The way planetary mass is calculated is wrong (it is)
The accretion model of planet formation from a dusty proto-disk is wrong (it is)
The gravitational model governing planetary orbits is wrong (it is)

The article states:

“Aspects of the HR 8799 solar system promise more riches. Daniel Fabrycky and Ruth Murray-Clay of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Boston studied the dynamics of the three-planet system and found that the mutual gravitational pull of the massive planets should be enough to make the solar system unstable. They conclude that the planets have survived until now because they have slotted themselves into so-called resonance orbits: each time the outermost planet orbits the star once, they argue, the next one in must orbit twice and the innermost planet four times.”

“Resonance orbits” hey? It’s quite the coincidence that out of the handful of exoplanets discovered, that have been directly imaged, we just happened to spot a solar system with a configuration of such low probability as to be nearly mythical.

Of course the electric universe theory easily explains all the problems with these findings. As I have detailed in my previous articles, EU theory states gas giant planets are born by electrical separation from their parent star. As the stars electrical load increases to the point where it can no longer cope with the stress, it will electrically "split" in order to distribute the electrical load over a wider surface area. This means the most common configuration of planets and stars that we see in space should be tightly orbiting gas giant planets around their parent stars or stars in binary/multiple star systems – which is exactly what we see. The planets will interact electrically with each other and their star until an electrically stable configuration is reached.

The Death of Gravity

Thomas Wilson: The Weakening Gravity-Dominated Cosmos Theory.

Neutron stars and their rapidly spinning pulsar manifestations are among the most outlandish creations bogging down modern astrophysics.

Neutron stars were first proposed as a theoretical possibility in 1933 by Baade and Zwicky. In seeking an explanation for the energy released by supernovae (a term coined by Zwicky), they proposed that a supernova was the result of a normal star transitioning to a neutron star.

They calculated that the supernova energy could be explained by the equivalent transformation of a stellar mass to energy following Einstein’s E=mc^2 equation. Baade and Zwicky's new theory was founded on the assumption that the only energy available to a star is in the star itself. Unfortunately, at that time, no one understood that a star could be part of an immensely long electrical transmission line storing vast amounts of energy.

However, in the late 1930s, Oppenheimer and Volkoff produced a theoretical equation of state that validated the neutron star concept. Ironically, despite this early theoretical work, even today there is no acceptable equation describing the state of neutron stars. Regardless, in 1968, shortly after the first pulsar was discovered, Thomas Gold proposed spinning neutron stars as a mechanical explanation for the pulsed radio emissions.

Over the forty years since the spinning neutron star model has been proposed for pulsars, the astrophysics community has been regularly forced to update the rotational speed limit and has met with a long list of “surprises” in new observations. There have been a number of issues:

* pulsars spinning faster than theoretically believed possible (XTE J1739-285 at 1122 Hz)
* pulsars spinning more slowly than theoretically predicted (PSR J2144-3933, once every 8.5s)
* pulsars with too much mass, in the wrong orbit, and with the wrong binary companion (J1903+0327)

All these observations were contrary to predictions but have not been credited as falsifying the accepted theory of pulsars. However, some of the most important predictions with neutron stars and pulsars concern their role as gravitational wave generators (as predicted by the General Theory of Relativity). ...

LIGO will never detect gravitational waves. Black holes and neutron stars do not exist. There are no mass densities great enough to test General Relativity at that scale. And what is to be gained from testing General Relativity when it merely describes gravity in unphysical geometric terms and doesn’t explain it?

LIGO II (or its equivalent) will likely be built and it will not detect gravitational waves. If the gravity-dominated view of the Universe collapses, it will be from failures on many theoretical fronts. One key theoretical front will be the failure to detect gravitational waves. Another will the failure of General Relativity.

There is no cosmological electromagnetic event hitherto explained by black holes, neutron stars, or their various collisions that is accompanied by gravitational waves. In addition, over the next few years there will be increasing evidence of electrical currents at an immense scale in our own solar system. Probes like Cassini and others continue to amass large quantities of data and images substantiating the role of electricity in space. Change is coming.

Newborn Stars Forming At Center of Galaxies

Stars have been observed forming near alleged black holes thus proving that black holes and gravity do not exist: Stars Forming Just Beyond Black Hole's Grasp At Galactic Center.

ScienceDaily (Jan. 6, 2009) — The center of the Milky Way presents astronomers with a paradox: it holds young stars, but no one is sure how those stars got there. The galactic center is wracked with powerful [imaginary] gravitational tides stirred by a [imaginary] 4 million solar-mass black hole. Those [imaginary] tides should rip apart molecular clouds that act as stellar nurseries, preventing stars from forming in place. Yet the alternative – stars falling inward after forming elsewhere – should be a rare occurrence.

Using the Very Large Array of radio telescopes, astronomers from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy have identified two protostars located only a few light-years from the galactic center. Their discovery shows that stars can, in fact, form very close to the Milky Way's [imaginary] central black hole.

"We literally caught these stars in the act of forming," said Smithsonian astronomer Elizabeth Humphreys. She presented the finding today at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Long Beach, Calif.

EMST: An Explanation For Gravity?

Tassos: In the Pacific and Any Other Tectonic Belt, Seismic and Volcanic Activity Relate To Positive Gravity

Therefore, iron having the highest nuclear binding energy of all the elements, 8.8 MeV per nucleon, should be the last element to form, and the fact that the bulk of iron rich rocks is younger than about 200 m. y. is supportive of that reasoning, and of the juvenility of oceanic crust. Another important property of iron is that under high pressure its 4s orbital is brought down to the 3rd orbital that can be filled with 10 electrons, 5 more than without compression, forming the Fe(21) anion. The newly formed in the outer core atoms that constitute Excess Mass (EM) relative to the overlying mantle and crust, and emplaced atom by atom, the great bulk concentrically and the active part vertically, in the preexisting "old" continental granitic crust, and cause it's oxidation, and all other geodynamic phenomena.

A New Gravity Hypothesis?

I just wrote Herndon and Tassos the following letter:

If you would be so kind.

In the context of gravity, astronomical collisions, mass accretion, and planetary growth, what do you think of the following quote?

"My research, based on irrefutable evidence of constant accretion of meteorites and meteor dust, concludes that Earth began as an asteroid remnant of an earlier comet captured by the Sun. The proto-planet then grew over uncountable years (possibly many more than the 4.5 Ga now believed) in an accretion process that is still underway and will continue into the future at an accelerating pace because of Earth’s constantly increasing mass and gravitational power." -- Lawrence S. Myers, cryptologist/geoscientist, 2005

Furthermore, as an alternative mechanism for mass accumulation and growth, what do you think of pair production?

"The creation of electron–positron pairs constitutes an example for the conversion of energy into mass." -- Jörg Eichler, physicist, March 2005

Is it possible that gravity is caused by positron pair production in astronomical cores?

The positrons act as an oppositely charged magnetic pole and hold the electrons (negatrons) in place?

Thus the center of the Earth, and all astronomical bodies, act as giant magnets and this accounts for the existence of gravitational force?

The missing so-called Dark Matter (anti-particles) are the positrons in all astronomical cores?

Absurd? What say you?

-- September 30, 2008

Mass Accretion On Mars: More Evidence For Growth

Scientists have identified iron (Fe), the sixth most adundant chemical element in the universe, all over the surface of Mars. Iron is one of the heaviest elements which do not require a Supernova for their creation. Scientists recognize that Mars is accreting mass, as all astronomical bodies must do because of gravity, (in the form of iron) from meteorites, thus growing. The New Scientist: Mars iron is ideal for building future bases.

FUTURE colonisers of Mars needn't worry about lugging materials from Earth to build their bases - the most widely used building material on Earth, steel, could be manufactured on the Red Planet.

The rover Opportunity has found elemental iron - a key ingredient of steel - peppered across the Martian surface as a result of collisions with iron-rich meteorites.

They also say mass accretion contributed to Mars's unique magnetic field: Giant impact explains Mars's wonky magnetic field.

The strange magnetic field of Mars, which is concentrated in the planet's southern hemisphere, could have been caused by a giant impact.

The finding clears up one of the biggest remaining mysteries about the planet.

The study, led by Sabine Stanley of the University of Toronto, has shown that the asymmetric field could be linked to the planet's strange surface features.

The relatively smooth, flat surface of Mars' northern hemisphere lies around 6 kilometres lower than the more mountainous surface of the southern hemisphere. Earlier this year, researchers proposed that this "Mars dichotomy" can be explained if a huge object, almost as big as Earth's moon, hit the northern hemisphere of Mars at a shallow angle.

It has long been known that the planet's oddly shaped magnetic field – first observed by the Mars Global Surveyor in 1985 – originated about the same time as the Mars dichotomy.

And Mars was decapitated (and killed?) by the biggest impact in the system: Almighty smash left record crater on Mars.

EVERY scar tells a story, yet a huge gash on Mars has long proven very hard to read. Now a peek beneath the planet's surface reveals that the scar is the largest known impact structure in the solar system - gouged out by a collision that reshaped the Red Planet.

"My research, based on irrefutable evidence of constant accretion of meteorites and meteor dust, concludes that Earth began as an asteroid remnant of an earlier comet captured by the Sun. The proto-planet then grew over uncountable years (possibly many more than the 4.5 Ga now believed) in an accretion process that is still underway and will continue into the future at an accelerating pace because of Earth’s constantly increasing mass and gravitational power." -- Lawrence S. Myers, cryptologist/geoscientist, 2005