DandelionTheory

okay lets start with particles. force on a moving proton in a magnetic field: the force vector is reversed for an electron. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/movchg.html force on a current carrying wire when in a magnetic field: current is the same vector direction as the electron. https://study.com/academy/lesson/understanding-forces-on-current-carrying-wires-in-magnetic-fields.html so if i want a wire with current; or an object carrying current, to be forced in one direction i would have to expose it to a magnetic field, and have that magnetic field be perpendicular to the wire/charged object as well as the velocity vector(or current direction) of that wire/object. static charged plates: magnetic field is created by moving charges. "The whole basis for electromagnetic wave propagation relies on displacement current producing a magnetic field." -second answer. https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/282694/is-there-a-magnetic-field-between-capacitor-plates-while-the-capacitor-is-chargi so its the moving charges that create the magnetic field. moving charged plates would then create a magnetic field around themselves. i wonder if i could set up a way for ions natural motion around a magnetic field to produce an additional perpendicular magnetic field to act on those plates... so the moving charged rings rotate around the main magnetic field, each ring charges ions. because each ring is moving while charged, they produce a magnetic field around themselves. the newly charged ions are forced in the direction of the electric field between the two rings, and produce their own magnetic field inline with the electric field. that magnetic field acts on the ions in the rings. it also makes ions off the ring surface spin around it.

i actually deduced it over a 5 year period. my math skills are bad geometry at best.

so i was wrong about frame dragging i admit that, i guess i was still trying to wrap my head around the ionc motion of this thing. so, i broke it down to its bare pices. the green arrow between the 2 counter rotating rings is a representation of the magnetic field generated by ions leaving each ring surface, and being attracted to the opposing ring. if i drew out the magnetic field each ring generates as it spins, the electric field between these rings is inline with the mane axis of the magnetic field generated by ions naturally moving towards the oppositely charged ring as they rotate. so positive ion up, negative ion down. twirly motion. all i have to do is some vector math. and i didn't do it yet. i assume this is what you wanted; you know... "proof". ps, hacking will get you nothing.

Is the frame dragging effect dependant on the magnitude of mass? for example: the frame dragging effect has been measured to exist around earth after the results from gravity probe-B came to the public. does the same go for any size of mass? because i can think of some interesting things to do with space being bent by any size mass being able to produce a frame dragging effect when angular momentum is applied. i would think that you could stretch it from one side of you and place it on the other like a breast stroke but with ions. i can think of ways to compress and shape space, maybe even use it to naturally fuse things together at the micro levels. but thats only if space is bent by mass small enough and in large enough quantities to be readily charged and manipulated with a magnetic field... like the air.

i hoped you would look up something you're unfamiliar with. An ion craft is a toy that some people say is propelled by thrust from ions emitted from a wire towards an oppositely charged sheet of tinfoil with a rounded edge. odd how the rounded edge is essential, i would speculate that it is essential because its needed for even distribution of ions and not the attraction of them. I am implying that it is the emitter. Ion craft. (i joke) You can assume all you want, its not very scientific. We can agree all mass, when it has an angular momentum, produces a small frame dragging effect on the space around it. Thats MASS, not some witchcraft; and because it has mass, and because we would be attempting to make dark matter have angular momentum, it needs to be in a loop to keep the mass around, breh. I assumed in my hypothesis this was the case. i mean, for frame dragging to have a relevant effect on anything, it would have to be close to it. like almost on top of it, or right next to it like neutrinos seem to be >.> point being that's just the start, once you pulse the wire enough and get enough momentum from the dark matter/ions(thats dark matter AND ions, don't divide nothing...) that collect there over time its enough to make any mass close enough to be effected effected. i have youtube videos of ion craft in action, you can make one at home. The explanation, which is crap, is ion propulsion. i would now be reiterating what i said above when referring to your "Peanut Butter" comment. -DT

Ion craft. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensity_(physics) I can't answer the strength of the gravitational effect from ion to DM, only that the ion needs to be close enough to pull the dm into the same general path as the ion. Because we are exploiting the frame dragging effect, not the magnetic or electric fields. The illustration points out that mass carriers in a group act like a solid rotating mass, when the mass carriers move past a reference point per unit of time. The difference I point out is the ions speed and therefore relative mass change with each pulse. "does "better" mean, in this context?" I am mistaken, not ion curve, the dark matter loop. I like to visualize it like an AC motor with small pulls combined into one continuous motion.

Intensity They still possess gravity. The right hand rule, and I didn't say increase I said "better".

So I've only posted a few times. And I don't really like to think of myself as a physicist, just a thinker. I get concepts, I get how they relate to each other and somehow I see them play out as a whole. this is the basics of "dark matter" manipulation. if dark matter exists, we can conclude a few things about it: it does not directly interact with the electromagnetic spectrum. it is effected by gravity. so we can almost treat them like neutral particles that cannot carry charge or light conceptually. right? so hypothesis: this picture displays what ions would do if the green object was a wire going into the screen and the orange line below it is a positively charged, evenly spread ion emitter with mass close enough to be effected by the rotating dark matter's frame dragging effect. the magnetic field and dark matter is implied, i don't mean to go so far as to illustrate the frame dragging effect. I think the rotation of the positive ions stir around dark matter particles, and since there are more of them the need for angular momentum is met by sheer number and anything with mass close enough to be effected "falls" towards the direction of rotation, which is up. I would guess the wire needs to be physically attached to the ion emitter, like with a wood stick. the power applied to the wire is better as a high frequency dc pulse. It makes the ions curl better. What this clearly shows is what will the ion do to anything the ion doesn't run into?(hint: this is the question) Thank you for your thoughts. -DT

Hrm, I should add more parameters to the example. Given: 4 massive objects in space, A, B, C, D, positioned in a 2x2 pattern with center point Q; A and B, C and D. L distance from one another. Each with rotation about there respective central axis, and each axis of rotation is parallel to each other. Lets talk about the concept of "rolling over" frames. If each objects angular momentum drags on the space around it, there is only the factor of effective range we have to worry about. If objects A-D rotated the same direction there would be little change to any space around. If, on the other hand, objects A-D orbit point Q with no rotation about there respective axis, there would be a larger average effective range after a certain angular momentum is reached. Now lets do something weird, lets fluctuate the objects angular momentum in tandem (Ex: from a momentum of 4 to 7 to 4 back to 7 and so on), essentially attempting to drag space from one side of the system to another. I personally would do this by pulsing gravity like an electromagnet. To myself this example resembles an AC motor, but here the "excited poles" would be the objects relative change in mass to an outside observer and the magnetic field would be the frame dragging effect induced on the space directly outside the circumference of rotating masses. Question: after recovering from the shear awe caused by that thought experiment, I thought this would be interesting to use like wire in a coil. But I need to know if frame dragging "stacks" or "rolls over" so the next object's frame drag blurs into the other. sort of like how multiple turns of wire shapes the magnetic field into a larger one when current is applied. So, does frame dragging "roll over"? After thought, purely speculative: I would suspect the higher the total number of objects used in the example, the lower the angular momentum of the system needs to be in order to achieve the roll over effect. My logic comes from rotating bodies being the source of frame dragging, and magnetic fields have this weird property on charged masses. They rotate.

I'm replying again to address the rest of your question. I was referring to the assumed hypothetical that the dynamo effect could apply somewhere in the answer, but in order for that to apply both objects would need a magnetic field for a torque to be induced. I'm assuming.

Thank you. Another question: say object B starts with an angular momentum on it's axis, would the frame dragging effect from A to B "stack" with the frame dragging effect generated by object B?

I'm not sure this is in the right spot, but here it goes. 2 massive objects in space, object A has an angular momentum of X, while object B has an angular momentum of 0 in relation to the stars. the question is when does object A induce object B to have an angular momentum or greater than 0 in relation to the stars? When or does the dynamo effect apply? I attempted to find my answer within the explanations of frame dragging and I got as far as "list". thank you in advance.

Well swansont, I guess ill explain to you why I didn't need math. Because concepts can be explained by relation, that and the fact that I chose to rebel against your rule of engagement. Other people have explained physical and imaginary concepts through math, I visualize them because once everything has been considered and learned conceptually; Its easier to mill over partial and complete theories with a thought. It seems daunting for someone to chose to think in this manner, and it is, but as I said before "I think to relax". I would agree math would benefit my knowledge in this way; but alas I'm an A-hole. If a physicist like yourself cannot and will not conceptualize something without math, then what may I ask do you contribute to the ingenuity of humanity? Because a walking calculator is only good for so many years before cell phones arrived. I don't need someone with an elitist complex telling me my speculation is correct, what I DO need is the rest of physics to realize natural flow, and how patterns come together to make a whole, instead of trying to pick the lock with math. Dare I ask it possible for me to describe a physical system you could TRANSLATE INTO MATH IF YOU UNDERSTOOD THE CONCEPT?! no NO, certainly not true. That would be absurd, I'm sure.

What's wrong guys? I thought you wanted proof. Is no one going to debate this? Do I have to make a post in the theory thread...? AM I WRONG!?

I'm back B*****s! The last requirement I was given was math. Oooohhhhhh, daunting. BUT Einstein already covered this shindig with relative mass. So "faster" particles relative to you have more RELATIVE mass, if you can shape their containment field to cycle back on its self; All y'alls need to do is speed those hoes up breh. What the OP diagram was meant to do was PAINT THE PICTURE for how the containment field would look as a whole. Not Ion Vectors. So if your containment field is open to the atmosphere, you attract more charged ions and anything else into your "closed loop" the more energy you put into it. AND because gravity is an inverse square law, the small gravity potential shift would attract you relative to your distance to it while cycling oppositely charged ions out the top pole and around the bottom. Therefore MOVING the other ions FARTHER from your relative position, and exploiting the inverse square law ONCE AGAIN. SO, THE ONLY CONSTRAINT WOULD BE THE AMOUNT OF POWER REQUIRED TO SPEED UP AND SHAPE ION MOTION. So my assumption is your relative position must be between the 2 field coils, or "standing" on the larger field coil if it is attached to a platform.

fine, ill come back after math.

What makes you think I want this for myself? Maybe I'm sharing something of this magnitude to the skeptical public BECAUSE I need help. Hrmm? That doesn't happen normally? Neither does deducing a unifying gravity theory, but look at that. You already told me my evidence was hogwash before I presented it, that's not someone I want to talk to normally. I asked for resources, and you said it would "take 10 years" to come close. Yet someone willing to take on such a brain teaser like this is well aware of that task. Let me ask you, what do you do when you're relaxing? I THINK. Its what I love to do, and this task is a background process while I work with my hands. SHOW ME WHERE TO LOOK OH KIND GURU, you want that? yessss master with paper certificate, tell me how to speak maths so I may be blessed by your learned stature. You have forgotten people dont always think in math like you.

You're right, I'm not using magnetic fields or electromagnetic force to influence dark matter. I'm using the gravity of the charge carriers themselves. Says someone arguing about physics... Right, the system is. The 2 magnetic fields collapse matter into itself and attract more, more becomes too much and it tries to balance itself out via ejection of matter which eventually causes the neutral system to form; which is a bipolar fusion reactor that spits matter like a hose, and because it is bipolar it spins violently causing a vortex of charged particles and energy which starts the cycle again. IT BECOMES INFINITELY BIGGER because entropy? See now we get to the relative infinite space, because the system that makes up the black hole is the same system that makes up the atom; which means atoms could be MADE OF black holes. See? Relative infinite space.

From my original post. Well first I wanted to see if anyone would give me the time of day, then I was told there were problems with my approach. APPARENTLY explaining the small magnetic fields are DC pulsed when this approach is done with electromagnets, which causes charge carriers to vortex naturally, is too much to logic out for some people; While the larger field coil needs to be counter rotating relative to the immediate adjacent smaller magnetic field, like earths rotating core's mass, which also suggests our Moon does not posses such a magnetic field and I will GUESS it has less overall gravity-to-mass ratio because of that. What you end up with is a gravity trap that utilizes charge carriers to string along ANYTHING that will follow its gravity into a toroidal vortex. Be it dark matter or neutral matter. The OP attachment is a diagram of a NEUTRAL system; A black hole would be a GROSS IMBALANCE to this system, why? Well its about infinite relative space. This system suggests all of space would be naturally occurring aggregates of this "bubble" formation, but how does this bubble formation then return to neutrality? MY OPINION: After a while the core becomes too large for the magnetic field to mass ratio, and is expelled via path of least resistance; Which would be the poles. Those charge carriers then naturally create the adjacent neutralizing bubble to form. Look at the neutral system, its a flipping pitching machine for charge carriers.

maybe looking closer would help.

Like this?

Regardless of your opinion, I did not need math to visualize this. Being a physicist is a credibility requirement made by man, not the universe. If I figure out the motion of energy within the universe, I can predict the motion of the universe. I'm not offended, I just want to make clear that this isn't a whim I made up to piss off smart people. Right, so I can show you my cards, but the money is yours? haha. CREDIT FIRST right? Make up your mind bro.

I see how discerning between these points is important, I just don't have the math to back it up right now. That's why I asked for resources. I understand once matter falls past the event horizon its gone, but tell me, where is the event horizon? can you come up with a model for it? All we CAN say is matter is ejected from black holes some how and I think it's because of the magnetic fields produced by the shear size of the damn thing. https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4753

@Lord Antares Okay, you're right. My assumption of this idea having merit came off as arrogant. I assumed someone would consider the hypothesis before throwing the book at them, but that is naive on my part. So tell me, where would someone go to learn the math involved with such calculations? As for your list of requirements: Number 1 will take a few days to gather, but its apparent in the formation of galaxies, stars, black holes, rotating planet cores, molecules; As to quark behavior I'm not too sure, I mean who is with quantum physics? lol. Number 2 was discussed above. Number 3 I actually have some experiments in mind; one involving gravity manipulation to exploit a potential difference, and another involving fusion. If you would like to know what they are, I would gladly show you an example after I've made the ladder of your list of questions to satisfaction. I know I don't have all the details, it was posted in the speculations section for this reason. It is a feat of imagination and understanding to see how attraction and motion are separate but linked without mathematical models, yet I just claimed to do so. I see how that is ridiculous and still plausible. @Handy Andy "...Gravitational attraction is caused by the stretching of space, space can be stretched by making a well for it to flow into and disappear in the form of a black hole..." I believe this to be true. "With the announcement of the most powerful eruption ever witnessed in the Universe in the galaxy cluster MS 0735.6+7421, astronomers are seeing that how supermassive black holes eject matter is just as interesting as how they consume it. " http://chandra.harvard.edu/chronicle/0105/bh_ce/index.html

So, I deduced this neutral system over a 3 year period. When you pair a larger and smaller Field coil, charged particles are trapped around the smaller field coil in a toroidal vortex when DC current is applied. I think this is what Harold White was stumbling upon with the Warp Drive research he has been doing. I think Normal matter and Dark matter are coupled by gravity, and collecting Dark Matter into one spot with a toroidal vortex is brilliant. That way you can control the localized gravity shift made. I'm not a science major, just a normal Joe with a knack for pattern recognition. I'm open to questions, because if it is an ACTUAL unifying theory of gravity it would stand up to scrutiny, right?