What is Gravity?

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.
Heiwa
Banned
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm
Contact:

Re: What is Gravity?

Unread post by Heiwa » Sun Jun 23, 2013 4:38 pm

sceppy wrote: The weight is the mass upon mass upon mass,etc, creating a force like people would, stacked on top of each other. The people on top are only exerting their own force but those at the bottom are exerting their own force onto the ground but also have to contend with the forces above.
So people or a weight of mass upon mass upon mass, etc, stacked on top of each other create a force. Why on earth would they do that?

I think a force applied to a mass will always move the mass (in the direction of the mass). But you suggest that two masses stacked on top of each other create a force. Do four masses stacked on top of each other create two forces?

sceppy
Member
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 2:39 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Unread post by sceppy » Sun Jun 23, 2013 4:50 pm

Heiwa wrote:So people or a weight of mass upon mass upon mass, etc, stacked on top of each other create a force. Why on earth would they do that?
It should be obvious.
If you got trapped under a pile of rubble, you would feel the force of that rubble.

Heiwa wrote:I think a force applied to a mass will always move the mass (in the direction of the mass).
Can you clarify what you mean here as you are being a little bit confusing.
Heiwa wrote: But you suggest that two masses stacked on top of each other create a force. Do four masses stacked on top of each other create two forces?
Any mass stacked onto mass will create a force against that mass. Can you be a bit more clearer in what you are suggesting please.
Last edited by sceppy on Sun Jun 23, 2013 5:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7002
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: What is Gravity?

Unread post by simonshack » Sun Jun 23, 2013 4:52 pm

hoi.polloi wrote: Hmm. A false dichotomy, or is this Donald Sim-fellow really invoking the Apollo hoax in hopes of that alone disproving the experiments?

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/morrow.htm
Well, Hoi...

Even Wickedpedia's all-important "Gravitation" article has an Apollo15 video at the very top of the page - and the text reminds you, from the very first paragraph, that Newton's gravitation law is crucial to make "calculations as critical as spacecraft trajectory..."
"The simpler Newton's law of universal gravitation postulates the gravity force proportional to masses of interacting bodies and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. It provides an accurate approximation for most physical situations including calculations as critical as spacecraft trajectory."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation
As far as I'm concerned, each time NASA's "exploits" are presented as 'corroborating proof' of any of the so-called established, universal laws of science, I tend to raise my red flag and switch my mind to bs alert mode.

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Sun Jun 23, 2013 5:01 pm

I agree with Heiwa. sceppy's model is not sufficient to explain why solids should decide to form around a central point in the first place. If you are going to have pressure, you need to have a counter-pressure. You can't have all your atoms pushing against each other freely. There must be something causing the atoms to encounter one another.

In traditional gravity it is the attraction of one to the attraction of the other. In sceppy's version, all you have is pressure, and you need something else or there should be no reason for planets, planetoids, Earth, and so on.

A simple "expansion" of the idea is that the reason we encounter gravity is because all of existence (or at least Earth) is inflating simultaneously in all directions, and solids are pushing slightly harder than liquids, which are pushing slightly harder than gases, which are pushing slightly harder than plasma. Denser atoms have greater potential for expansion and are doing so harder and faster. So Earth's theorized dense core is expanding ever-so-slightly faster than the surface, but luckily the biosphere is adaptable and continues to spread on Earth's growing, unfolding surface area. So the pressure we feel toward the Earth's surface (gravity) is caused by simple Newtonian acceleration combined with sceppy's pressures. Basically, this is a globe version of the Flat Earther's accelerating plane. Just musing, but this would also account for Expanding Earth Theory, since all the continents allegedly fit together on a smaller shape. Perhaps the different expansion pressures of various elements are what caused the continents to break apart. This might also explain observations of the expanding universe.

Although, I agree with Simon that NASA's exploits are not a good defense for any theory.

Heiwa
Banned
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm
Contact:

Re: What is Gravity?

Unread post by Heiwa » Sun Jun 23, 2013 5:09 pm

sceppy wrote:
Heiwa wrote: But you suggest that two masses stacked on top of each other create a force. Do four masses stacked on top of each other create two forces?
Any mass stacked onto mass will create a force against that mass. Can you be a bit more clearer in what you are suggesting please.
OK - Say that Your Mass, YM, is say 70 kg and that Earth's Mass, EM, is 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 kg or so and that we stack YM on EM or EM on YM in vacuum space. I agree with you that YM applies a force on EM and that EM applies a force on YM and I suggest that these forces are equal in magnitude but opposite and due to Gravity (topic).

Note that the very big EM stacked upon YM does not crush YM because YM applies the same force on EM.

It would appear that YM applies a force of about 700 N on EM and that EM applies identical 700 N on YM. Do you agree?

sceppy
Member
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 2:39 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Unread post by sceppy » Sun Jun 23, 2013 5:36 pm

Heiwa wrote:
sceppy wrote:
Heiwa wrote: But you suggest that two masses stacked on top of each other create a force. Do four masses stacked on top of each other create two forces?
Any mass stacked onto mass will create a force against that mass. Can you be a bit more clearer in what you are suggesting please.
OK - Say that Your Mass, YM, is say 70 kg and that Earth's Mass, EM, is 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 kg or so and that we stack YM on EM or EM on YM in vacuum space. I agree with you that YM applies a force on EM and that EM applies a force on YM and I suggest that these forces are equal in magnitude but opposite and due to Gravity (topic).

Note that the very big EM stacked upon YM does not crush YM because YM applies the same force on EM.

It would appear that YM applies a force of about 700 N on EM and that EM applies identical 700 N on YM. Do you agree?
You've lost mere here, Heiwa.
Can you apply what you are saying to earth, using stuff on earth.

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:46 am

Perhaps it's easiest to compare magnetism to gravity. They are both seemingly invisible and working over long distances. I can see the appeal of Electric Universe or Relativist ideas of saying gravity is just a sort of different way something can be charged.

This should mean that changing some kind of charge of an object should result in reversing its buoyancy and having it start flying upwards? The legendary 'anti-gravity'?

sceppy
Member
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 2:39 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Unread post by sceppy » Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:45 am

Magnetism is just a dense extension of atmospheric pressure. It's all pressures.
To understand how a magnet works, people need to fully understand how atmospheric pressure works.
Many people think they know... but in truth, most don't understand what it does and what and why it's capable of doing what it does, as in, vacuum chambers and compressed air cylinders etc.
Once people get a full grip on this, I will explain magnetism.
It will most probably be scoffed at, yet I know there are people on this forum that are really clever, deep thinkers and I'm confident a few will grasp what I explain.
If anyone believes they know why a car tyre has a pressure of around 30+ psi and a bicycle tyre has a pressure of around 120+ psi and why they don't just burst... can they explain it all, simply and as thoroughly as possible, explaining exactly what happens in this process from pumping in the pressure to over pressurising to the point of explosion.
The reason I ask this, is because, if you can fully grasp this, then you will also grasp magnetism and then you will grasp the fact that gravity is a made up word to describe nothing more than pressure densities.

Not one person I've spoken to has yet to grasp atmospheric pressure in it's entirety, yet know the basics of it...yet cannot quite accept the real power of it when I explain.
I believe that will change with some of you on here, because I know the logic is far greater.

Boethius
Member
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Unread post by Boethius » Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:53 am

Sceppy,

I suggest you take advantage of the opportunity this forum provides to explain your theory. You'll get pushback and criticism which, as you respond to it, will only serve to solidify your understanding. You'll also get some abuse and crankiness which you'll need to ignore.

In my opinion this is the best place on the Internet for exploring new and alternative theories. By best I don't mean 100% perfect but better than the rest, that's for sure. So, go ahead, start talking.

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:56 pm

No offense intended to sceppy or others who truly believe the world we inhabit is a giant artificial construction, with precision functions like an enormous clock, but I don't think it meets the requirements of the forum to just spout off such wild assumptions and then pretend that the logic is hard to follow and that's why no reason or scientific examination can be given.

It makes it look like you just had an idea that you are trying to force the world to fit into. If you really stumbled on something true, you shouldn't have to be cheeky about it; you should be able to just carefully lay out, with as few wacky metaphors as possible, the principles by which your mechanistic/measurable results work. You should be able to point to the concepts and some repeated/repeatable tests and explain how you arrived at your thinking.

Being coy and cryptic makes it sound like you want people invested in your thinking before you show your hand. Sorry, but I don't buy that the world is "unworthy" of some secret. You either have an open curiosity and critical logic you are willing to share or not. Otherwise, you're playing the "magician" game and we are obviously all very tired of that.

totalrecall
Member
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:23 am

Re: What is Gravity?

Unread post by totalrecall » Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:02 pm

Don't worry Hoi,

I was just putting a heads up to a few ideas. I will put everything down as evidence on my blog (as ordered to by Simon. I was going to do it on cluesforum, but he was right as it takes a lot of time to postulate everything). Just three articles to go.

Screppy, this will probably be put in the derailing room again. We can talk there if you wish. You said this earlier.
everything rotates around the inside of the dome due to magnetism at the ice rim what is known as Antarctica, which is the ice foundation of the ice dome and a magnetic rippled or waved plate runs under it, whilst the north pole is another giant magnet, both are repelling.
The sun and moon etc all drop due to their mass but are repelled as they move around the dome in a spiral motion and drop into a wave recess and back up...and down and up , creating sunrise and sun set, which to a person stood at a certain point on the circle of earth or half an orange part of earth, will see it as the sun going down, when in fact, it is simply dipping and moving away as it journeys around,
I didn't know you were a flat earth theorist. I am not, at least in the traditional sense. I hung around the flat earth society for a while looking for new and fresh ideas, but their general flat earth theory can easily be proved wrong. If it was correct, flight times in the northern hemisphere for roughly the same distance must be vastly shorter than their southern hemisphere counterparts and this clearly doesn't happen.

I won't post my example here as this post will get derailed anyway. How do you explain worldwide flight times?

Back on the subject of gravity. Check out this thread from the flat earth society concerning the Bruce Depalma ball spinning experiment. At least they have the balls to explore new ideas, which cluesforum tries to do, but fails (Cluesforum is the best on the net at debunking fakery).


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/foru ... /wap2.html

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Sun Jun 30, 2013 5:16 am

At least they have the balls to explore new ideas, which cluesforum tries to do, but fails ...
Your vague wording is not appreciated. Try to think about not slipping subtle insults into your posts next time. By the way, see more about your "brave new scientist" Bruce E. DePalma later on in this post.



THE MOON: DOES IT HELP US DETERMINE WHAT GRAVITY IS or WAS NEWTON WRONG?

The biggest 'clue' we have about gravity is literally the Moon and its relationship to tides. If that relationship were just an assumption rather than a proven correlation, we would have some more difficulty defining what gravity is. It would be very frustrating to take that away from us.

This is why, for the time being, I am assuming that the Moon's effect on gravity is an electromagnetic kind of mass-based gravity interaction, as postulated by Relativists.




EVEN CENTRIPETAL FORCES or AN EVEN EXPANSION/CONTRACTION FORCE account(s) for GRAVITY?

But taking what we know about the documented theory that the Earth cannot be spinning, if you wanted to explain Earth gravity as something familiar and caused by simple Newtonian motion, you could either declare that our (convex) Earth ball is expanding quickly, causing pressure against the Earth's surface or a (concave) Earth shell (whose inside we inhabit) is spinning (much, much more rapidly than the "expansion" acceleration idea) on every point.

Why must it be every point? Because:

If you rotate a sphere on one axis (e.g.; axis X, spinning East-to-West), you produce two poles, the approach of which gradually reduces one's centripetal force to nothing. (This is why the present mainstream heliocentric model doesn't work. No centripetal force, no spin without complex coincidental maths to explain it away.)

However, if you spin it on the two other Y and Z axes (such as a couple perpendicular spins North-to-South and South-to-North) you don't create even spin as you might at first imagine. You create something like this:

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-abgSNIGRE

Which just results in 6 poles with uneven forces. It would be like if there were 6 points on the Earth's surface where one felt extremely lightweight because the Earth's gravity had suddenly been reduced by one third. Since we don't experience this, we can presume the model must be impossible or even more complex.

For the sake of argument, let's take it into the more complex realm.

If you were to spin this inverted sphere as per the Koreshans (hmm, was simulated Branch Davidian WACO-wacko "David Koresh" created specifically to discredit the interesting Koresh research?) and you wanted to somehow explain gravity as familiar motions we observe, you could postulate:

1. The Earth is rapidly shrinking (!) towards a central point, and the contraction is the opposite of Earth expansion model
~or~
2. The Earth is spinning evenly on every single point (or enough points so that the diminishing gravity at all the poles is negligible), causing uniform centripetal force against the inside of the Earth shell and preventing polar effects

However, all of this runs into the same problem as before, which is that there appears to be no spin whatsoever to our ground, and a great deal of force pushing or pulling directly upon us. And if you try to account for it with these Newtonian physics, you end up with extremely wacky Sun and Moon motions, magical atmosphere behavior and other things that are necessary to explain away with complex mathematical models. (Everything is expanding or contracting simultaneously?)




A LITTLE FRESH AIR: DOES THE REASON FOR GRAVITY MATTER?

No matter how you look at it, it doesn't matter how you look at it. As long as you predict for gravity, it doesn't matter how it works. As long as you predict for Sun and Moon motion and you are rewarded by correct predictions, it doesn't matter how they travel. As long as you predict for everything you can, it doesn't matter how or why it continually functions that way. Hence, the models for the universe we have are just maps to get around. And if the map gets you from Aunt Flora's house in Kansas to Uncle Alfred's in Bangladesh, it doesn't matter why.




CONTINUING TO ASK, 'WHY?'

Still, our consistent and persistent question of "why gravity?" pushes us onward. If we want to continue to pursue this question, we need to build and confirm hypothetical maths on top of the few gravity experiments done on Earth. Those are:

1. The tamarack mine experiment(s) which account for gravity as a pushing force approximately 4,000 miles "above" a uniform center in a concave shell Earth (Web search: Koreshanity)
2. The inadequacy of centripetal force to explain the seemingly still Earth in the Aether (see: Universe thread)
3. Measurements of effects on gyroscopic motion (as referenced by totalrecall: Spinning Ball Experiment by Mystery-man DePalma )




BRUCE DEPALMA WANTS US TO KNOW: SPINNING FORCES DO NOT EXPLAIN GRAVITY?

DePalma does say some interesting things:
Time as a manifestation of a much deeper and basic force is what we have a concern for here. The point of connection I want to make is the inertia of objects relates to the time energy flowing through them. [His underline] [...] Naturally the question of how old the Universe is becomes invalid then because a possible interpretation is that the Universe existed for-ever because inertial mass exists at all. [My bold] Measurements of the age of the Universe are also invalid. All the time in the world is summed up in the inertial mass of an object.
In short, knowledge is not worth seeking, but he does have knowledge (thanks to his odd MIT "Simularity Institute") that a shell-shaped inner Earth spinning on every possible axis (which is hilarious to think about, let alone describe, but why does he feel the need to debunk it?) is not likely to create our isotropic (equal at every point) force we call gravity. Does his experiment actually seek to disprove spin as a significant force? Why? Has he deliberately skewed physics as part of an assignment to make knowledge still more unattainable? Perhaps it is unattainable, perhaps not. Perhaps we are meant to side-step reality and get invested in his poorly documented "free energy" machines.

So, I would like to see these experiments redone since they are odd for a number of reasons. They had apparently never been done before, the online documentation seems spotty and in one case on nearly illegible background as if to specifically obscure the results, and completely subjectively and unscientifically the name DePalma (as common as it is, sharing similarities with New York Times' Tony DePalma who may have been responsible for writing much of the fictional 9/11 victims' profiles) does not inspire my confidence. Not in spite of the fact that this Bruce DePalma is a huge proponent of futuristic free-energy flights of fancy, as well. I am not so sure about this fellow's legacy. Need I go into Bruce's brother the Hollywood director [name you can guess] DePalma? Or his awful connection to NASA shill Richard C. Hoaxland? Why is spooky MIT DePalma science used to explain away Von Braun's impossible rockets? Did DePalma literally just throw into the air — with his hands — some steel BBs, and this is supposed to be science?




MY BIAS

I don't think the Earth rotates, or I think we are not effected by its movement in predicted manner. This means the cosmos is in motion relative to us, perhaps absolutely in motion while we remain still. I am fond of the expanding ball Earth, accelerating flat Earth or contracting shell Earth model because of their simplicity. I am particularly fond of expanding Earth because of the shape of continents which fit together on a smaller sphere. I like the idea that gravity acts like acceleration because it is acceleration. But I guess too much simplicity - as we've seen with Relativity - leaves too much fictional math to explain away the problems. How does the Moon both fall away from the Earth and expand in place? One would have to mathematically re-position and re-size the Moon and Sun to account for everything expanding.

Perhaps in time, and with further exploration, we will put the pieces together and discover a more accurate Earth/Universe model with gravity accounted for. But we're going to have to dig through the shills first, or the misinformed, or our own assumptions. Which is where this profound question meets its main opponent: our laziness.

I think our mission to redefine our world based on observed facts may look something like this, where each section has its own "artificially loony conspiracy theorists" group meant to draw attention away from the fact that their assigned charge is nothing but hot air:
NASA_ziggurat.GIF
Minor off-topic rant:

Are NASA, Disney, the CIA/Air Force and Hollywood really the main proponents of this cosmology? Are little limited hangout characters like Judy Wood, Alex Jones, David Icke and so on really the main draws away from science and theory, using attempts at pure charisma to distract us from bigger questions? Why does this spinning force Hoagland-DePalma-Merritt team (is that Ferrari expert Merritt?) come from the same MIT/NASA/military-industry groups we see the big hoaxes coming out of?

Why is science such a tight-knit group? It seems as though every real industry company is also doing hoaxing on the side to support a false demand. Hence, NASA does some real science and some fake science. They control the truth and they control the debate on it. So it goes with all the steps of this pyramid.

Why have we gone so long without testing Earth science for ourselves, why have we so easily fallen for the claptrap and parlor tricks given to us in high school and universities to explain physics? Why are we so satisfied to accept previous findings and retest them the same way, why can't we re-test basic physics and find more real evidence for our real cosmology?

Is it because most of us only desire to be at the top of this pyramid accepted as an "elite", so we worry about 'grades' and 'certificates' and we have no compassion for our less informed or more creative fellows? I can't believe that's true for everyone. It's not true for me and I think most readers will agree. We are really overdue for some kind of wake up call to — and away from — so much elite flatulence from NASA and whomever is behind it.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by simonshack on Mon Jul 01, 2013 4:59 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Reason: rant

kervik
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 5:17 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Unread post by kervik » Sat Aug 10, 2013 4:14 am

scud wrote:
Naturally, ‘Lord Steven Christ’ <_< has concluded that this means that we must be living on the inside of the Earth where our environment is actually con-caved rather than con-vexed (yeah...what we see is all just an illusion created by a ‘glass dome’ at the Karman line... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFXqIVXvrkg ).

That's exactly who I thought of when I read this
sceppy wrote:Everything you see in the night sky is inside the earth
I'm not saying they're the same person, or discrediting Sceppy, I'm just saying his explanation makes me think of Koreshanity.
I'm going to read more before commenting any further.

agraposo
Member
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:48 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Unread post by agraposo » Tue Aug 27, 2013 2:03 am

In this thread only sceppy has made a reference as gravity as a fictitious force, such as the Coriolis force:
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 9#p2385899

I can't explain myself in an easy way, but reading this information you get an idea. It can be thought as if gravity is real, but the weight (force of gravity) is not.

http://cseligman.com/text/physics/fictitious.htm

Unfortunately, that brings to the discussion the General Theory of Relativity, which I presume most of you don't like. In fact, all the forces which are proportional to the mass may be considered as fictitious. To scratch even more our heads, this article leads to the conclusion that perhaps only the electromagnetic force is a real one (it is not mass dependent) :huh:

http://www.av8n.com/physics/fictitious- ... seudo-grav

kickstones
Member
Posts: 307
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:15 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Unread post by kickstones » Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:55 pm

agraposo wrote:In this thread only sceppy has made a reference as gravity as a fictitious force, such as the Coriolis force:
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 9#p2385899

I can't explain myself in an easy way, but reading this information you get an idea. It can be thought as if gravity is real, but the weight (force of gravity) is not.

http://cseligman.com/text/physics/fictitious.htm

Unfortunately, that brings to the discussion the General Theory of Relativity, which I presume most of you don't like. In fact, all the forces which are proportional to the mass may be considered as fictitious. To scratch even more our heads, this article leads to the conclusion that perhaps only the electromagnetic force is a real one (it is not mass dependent) :huh:

http://www.av8n.com/physics/fictitious- ... seudo-grav
There is also the Casimir effect to take into account, which highlights the affect of zero-point energy (ZPE) on two non-magnetic metal plates, not carrying an electrostatic charge, and are suspended very close to each other.

On this subject matter I also cannot explain myself in an better way than the author, so I have copied / pasted an extract from the article linked below.


Image

Each plate screens out a little of the Zero-Point Energy field which passes directly through both plates, so the second plate gets slightly less of a push

The result is that between the plates, the horizontal force pushing them is unbalanced. Hang just one plate up and the horizontal Zero-Point Energy (“ZPE”) forces coming from the right exactly balance the ZPE forces coming from the left, and the plate hangs vertically below its point of suspension with the supporting cord (shown in red in the diagram above) hangs vertically. But with two plates as shown, the push from the left is reduced very slightly as it passes through the left hand metal plate. This means that there is a lesser push from left to right on the right hand plate. This causes the plate to move very slightly to the left, until the horizontal pull caused by the red cord not being vertical, just balances the difference in the ZPE thrusts on that plate. So, the right hand plate moves slightly to the left.

The same thing happens with the left hand plate. The ZPE thrust coming from the right is slightly reduced as it passes through the right hand plate, and the left hand plate moves slightly to the right until the angled pull of its supporting cord balances the net thrust on that plate. The overall effect is that the gap at point “A” in the diagram is very slightly larger than the gap at point “B”, though the amount is not nearly as great as suggested by the diagram, which has been deliberately exaggerated to show the effect clearly. There is nothing complicated about this, it is just simple common sense.

"The Zero-Point Energy field exists everywhere in the universe and it flows in every direction equally. It acts like a flow of particles thousands of times more tiny than electrons, and so, it flows through matter. No matter can shield completely from the flow of this energy field. But, a tiny percentage of the flow does happen to collide with the electrons, atoms and molecules of matter as the energy flow moves through matter. The bigger the chunk of matter, the more of the energy flow collides with it. The collisions convert the energy into additional mass, which is why our Sun is not losing mass as rapidly as theory would predict.

Image


The force of the Zero-Point Energy field is slightly reduced having passed through (and interacted with) the large mass of the Earth. This reduced strength in indicated in the diagram by the light-blue arrows. The incoming Zero-Point Energy field is not reduced in strength in any significant way as the molecules in the atmosphere are not nearly as tightly packed as those in the matter which makes up the Earth itself. The imbalance of these two thrusts causes a net push towards the surface of the Earth.

For clarity, the diagram only shows the field acting in one direction, while in reality, the same situation applies in every possible direction around the planet. When you let an object go and it moves towards the surface of the planet, it is not being pulled down by “the force of gravity”, but instead, the downward push of the Zero-Point Energy field is greater than the upward push of the Zero-Point Energy field which has just passed through the planet. The object moves “downwards” because the push from above is greater than the push from below."
http://www.free-energy-info.tuks.nl/Chapt11.html

Post Reply