A device that combines a gyroscope, a magnet, and an electric capacitor

[zbigniew.modrzejewski]

Hello, and warm greetings from Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

I believe I understand how attractive, as well
as repulsive gravity is generated.

My understanding comes from contemplating

how our solar system (a complete, natural
gravitational system) works.

It is worth noting that Newton's apple did not fall

just under a tree. It fell under a tree, but in our solar system,
where the Sun, and (almost) all planets and their moons,
spin and rotate :

• http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6324.pdf

" The obtained empirical data contradict the equivalence
principle of inertial and gravitational mass :

1. http://phys.org/news/2011-07-gyroscope-unexplained-due-inertia.html
2. http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.2775
3. https://arxiv.org/abs/1101.4678

In my opinion, one of the principal elements that compose
the complex phenomenon of gravity is a spinning mass, or
a mass composed of spinning elementary particles, or both.

I consider matter to be essentially an electric structure,
and that could be the basis of connection between gravity

and electromagnetism, as postulated in Kaluza-Klein unification —

" Kaluza and Klein showed, using general relativity, that
this extra dimension would still have an effect on the space
around us. In particular they showed that the effect of gravity
in that very small fifth dimension would actually appear to us,
from our larger-scale perspective, as electromagnetism :

• https://plus.maths.org/content/kaluza-klein-and-their-story-fifth-dimension
• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241520428_Antigravity_and_classical_solutions_of_five-dimensional_Kaluza-Klein_theory

and, also in another scientific mainstream theory —

" Gravitomagnetism is produced by stars and planets
when they spin. "It's similar in form to the magnetic field
being produced by a spinning ball of charge,"
explains physicist Clifford Will of Washington University.
Replace charge with mass, and magnetism
becomes gravitomagnetism :

• http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/19apr_gravitomagnetism.html

If magnetic field is being produced by a spinning ball of charge,

gravity, according to my conjecture, is produced

by a spinning mass which, similar to the Earth,
possesses its magnetic field, as well as
an electric field ( " the 'electric terms' correspond simply
to the gravity that keeps our feet on the ground " ),
because the Earth is considered to be also an electric capacitor :

In my view, it is not so much an issue of unification

of "gravity" and electromagnetism, but gravity
(attractive or repulsive) being a result of spinning mass
with its magnetic and electric fields.

The theory of gravitomagnetism indicates that

gravity could also be, to some extent, produced

even by a spinning mass with its magnetic filed :

" Written out in full glory, the equations of General Relativity
are intensely complicated. Indeed, they have been solved in only
a few special cases. One of them is the case of weak gravity,
like we experience here on Earth. In the 'weak field limit',
Einstein's equations reduce to a form remarkably like Maxwell's equations
of electromagnetism. Terms appear that are analogous to the electric field
caused by charges and the magnetic field produced by the flow of charge.

The 'electric terms' correspond simply to the gravity

that keeps our feet on the ground. The 'magnetic terms' are
wholly unfamiliar; we don't sense them in everyday life. "

A similar theory, called electrogravity, (see the attached)
postulates possibility of generating gravity, to some extent,
by a spinning mass with its "asymmetric" electric filed,

with a gradient :

• https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0211/0211001.pdf

In my view, in order to fully generate gravity, we need

a spinning mass with its magnetic, and electric field.

In this case we have three parameters with two values each :

• direction of spin (left or right);
• orientation of magnetic poles;
• orientation of lines of electric field.

Now, we could consider two spinning massive bodies,

in a cosmic space, with variety mutual configurations

of the above three parameters.

Some of these configurations may yield gravitational attraction between
these two bodies, some may yield gravitational repulsion, and some may,
perhaps, even yield a gravitational stability, like in our solar system,
see the image below: toroidal vortex (due to both spins),
because "gravity" is even a more complex phenomenon than magnetism,
and therefore I do not consider it to be an elementary,
fundamental, or exclusively attractive and repulsive, force :

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72LWr7BU8Ao
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnbJEg9r1o8
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=al799tMnAk8
• http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/02/03/solving-a-physics-mystery-those-solitons-are-really-vortex-rings/

I have good reasons to think that the phenomenon of gravity

is a so-called "emergent phenomenon".

My approach to solving the mystery of attractive
and repulsive gravity is a "macro-empirical" approach,
like Faraday's, because Faraday was no quantum physicist,
to be sure.

After Faraday had laid his "macro-empirical" groundwork,

it was only Maxwell, who finally was able to produce
the full (non-quantum) mathematical description.
Then again, finally, there was a quantum level
mathematical description produced.

So, with my hypothesis, I am at the "Faraday" stage.

Both, gravitomagnetism and electrogravity,

happen to have some empirical evidence in their favor.

My conjecture, in general, combines gravitomagnetism

with electrogravity from the perspective

of the Kaluza-Klein unification.

IF, in fact, there were also to be
a repulsive gravity, FIRST, I am deeply convinced,
we need to be able to demonstrate this fact empirically,
like Faraday, instead of mathematically "fish" for it,

like Einstein did with GTR, and Superstring theorists do.

All we need to empirically verify my hypothesis

is a simple and inexpensive experiment

that requires constructing a device that combines

a gyroscope, a magnet, and electric capacitors :

• appropriately oriented and tuned —

which is essentially how planets, their moons,
and entire Solar system seems to work,
in general.

.

I welcome your questions, and at the same time
I am looking forward to our discussion,
and especially I welcome your criticism.

Thank you.

With respect and much gratitude, I am

Sincerely yours,

Zbigniew Modrzejewski

http://db.naturalphilosophy.org/member/?memberid=2608&subpage=contact

P. s.

„Dear Dr. Zbigniew Modrzejewski, thank you for your interest in my experimental gravity research. You will find all relevant research papers attached. They concern, among other issues, the speed of gravity. We have experimentally determined the propagation speed of the gravity impulse to be 64 times faster than the speed of light (see: book). In my opinion there is no need to replicate the results that I achieved over 20 years ago, as these antigravity experiments had been successfully replicated by Dr. Martin Tajmar, who was working for the European Space Agency (ESA), and is now a professor of physics at the University of Dresden, Germany. Prof. Tajmar performed over 250 experiments during 3 years and had accumulated several groundbreaking results, which are completely new in modern physics. I have also performed experiments with rotating disks using German military engineers' classified research papers from the second World War, and these results are outstanding. This attached data has not been published yet, but allows for the immediate practical application. One of the most effective methods of creating an artificial gravity field are rotating magnetic fields. At present, we have the technology that allows us to build an antigravity spacecraft able to fly in Earth's atmosphere, as well as in the cosmic space. Best wishes, Prof. Evgeny Podkletnov, Ph.D. ”

Dr. Ning Li: „I have all measurement data of the rotating magnetic Earth calculated in my formula. If we take a mass and rotate it very rapidly, we can generate gravity. We can increase gravity, we can weaken it, we can steer it in any direction. I have the theory. I will publish it. I have all the mathematical equations. I will explain it. I think my theory is mature. I will tell the whole scientific world: antigravity is nothing to laugh about. I think the experiments of Dr. Podkletnov have shown the antigravity effect crystal clear.”

http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~gerbrehm/nw/Podletkov_Antigravitation.htm

 

 

 

 

Gravitomagnetism-successes.pdf

ANTI-GRAVITY_BOOK.pdf

[Strange]

Really? Another thread on the same thing? Sigh.

I believe I understand how attractive, as well
as repulsive gravity is generated.

As there is no evidence for repulsive gravity, this seems a bit moot.

In my view, in order to fully generate gravity, we need
a spinning mass with its magnetic, and electric field.

There is no evidence that gravitational force depends on anything other than mass.

You mentioned the solar system; well, there we have many bodies spinning at different rates and yet their gravity is determined only by their mass.

Well, OK. If the object is spinning then it has more energy and therefore more gravity. But we know that already.

In general, they also have zero or near zero electric charge so there appears to be no evidence that is required to create gravity either.

I have good reasons to think that the phenomenon of gravity
is a so-called "emergent phenomenon".

 

What are these reasons?

So, with my hypothesis, I am at the "Faraday" stage.

 

You seem to be ignoring the fact that Faraday was an excellent experimentalist. His collection of empirical data is what enabled Maxwell to mathematise his results.

So where is your experimental data? Or are you not at the "Faraday stage", but rather at the Wild-Ass Guess stage?

 

I think the experiments of Dr. Podkletnov have shown the antigravity effect crystal clear.

Relying on a well-known crackpot for support does not seem sensible.

(I have just seen that Wikipedia describes Podkletnov as a "ceramics engineer"; so he really is a psychoceramicist! Brilliant.)

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/psychoceramic

Edited November 9, 2016 by Strange

[Moontanman]

 

" Gravitomagnetism is produced by stars and planets

when they spin. "It's similar in form to the magnetic field

being produced by a spinning ball of charge,"

explains physicist Clifford Will of Washington University.

Replace charge with mass, and

magnetism

becomes gravitomagnetism :

 

 

Again I ask how does this explain the gravity of Venus?,

[zbigniew.modrzejewski]

Stars, planets, moons, comets and asteroids have no (or negligible charge). Many have no magnetic field. They spin at a wide range of speeds (including near zero). And yet our current theories of gravitation work very well.

 

Please explain why this does not falsify your idea.

It is a good question. Thank you, Dr. Strange.

I appreciate it.

I will answer it tomorrow.

Ziggy

 

 

 

Again I ask how does this explain the gravity of Venus?,

 

 

In the meantime, please take a look at this :

 

http://anna-modrzejewska.webs.com/Podkletnov/Gravitomagnetism-successes.pdf

Edited November 10, 2016 by zbigniew.modrzejewski

[StringJunky]

I'm no expert, but AFAIK: if gravity was magnetic in character, its strength would vary with distance according to the inverse cube relation; it actually conforms to an inverse square relation.

[zbigniew.modrzejewski]

I'm no expert, but AFAIK: if gravity was magnetic in character, its strength would vary with distance according to the inverse cube relation; it actually conforms to an inverse square relation.

 

 

http://www.slideshare.net/johnkhutchison/gravitomagnetism-successes-3-1

 

http://www.slideshare.net/johnkhutchison/gravitomagnetism-successes-3-1

[Strange]

So you have nothing original to say? All you can do is copy things from other sources with no explanation.

 

I assume there is no explanation or comment from you because you don't have a clue what any of it means. You are just trolling. That is why all you can do is repeat the same things over and over.

[Phi for All]

It is a good question. Thank you, Dr. Strange.

I appreciate it.

I will answer it tomorrow.

 

!

Moderator Note

Instead, you offer no explanation at all, and continue to post unnecessary pictures and links to slideshows. This is not up to the standards for this section. You need to supply supportive evidence and answer questions about your idea in a communicative manner. You are failing at this, and you need to fix it if this thread is to stay open.

 

Spend your time responding to the members instead of this modnote, but you can always Report it if you don't agree with it.