Generating Gravity

[studiot]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

Once you have done that, then if you are sure this is a gravitational effect then you need to do something simple to eliminate the possibility of airflow. For example, cover the end of pipe with cling-film/Saran-wrap. This will block any air but, obviously, won't block gravity. Good luck!

I see no purpose to the pipe.

It cannot possibly direct/focus gravity.

Gravity is a 360 all round phenomenon.

If the effect created had a gravitational component then it should be the same if the paper was dangled to the side of the tube.

[Theredbarron]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Needs to save up and buy a G-clamp.

Your comments made me go out of my way to watch the video. This has got to be one of the worst experimental setups I have ever seen. No attempt at rigour or measurement. 

@Theredbarron You need to do a lot better than this. Studiot's comments are spot on, but just the start. You must at least fix the device to the bench and find a better way of measuring the "force". 

Once you have done that, then if you are sure this is a gravitational effect then you need to do something simple to eliminate the possibility of airflow. For example, cover the end of pipe with cling-film/Saran-wrap. This will block any air but, obviously, won't block gravity. Good luck!

The problem with eliminating air flow is that air is effected by gravity. So its going to flow no matter how I make this even if I seal if all up it will pull air based upon what theory your using correct? My Theory prove otherwise so this would be a problem. Where in the cosmos is gravity pulling through a solid that is not moving with the field that any one has proved? If you get me that information where they have tested this exact thing "you need to do something simple to eliminate the possibility of airflow. For example, cover the end of pipe with cling-film/Saran-wrap. This will block any air but, obviously, won't block gravity."  Unless you want to build one yourself then do that.

Just now, studiot said:

I see no purpose to the pipe.

It cannot possibly direct/focus gravity.

Gravity is a 360 all round phenomenon.

If the effect created had a gravitational component then it should be the same if the paper was dangled to the side of the tube.

Its only a phenomenon because no one has answer the questions yet. This is exactly what mine disproves

17 minutes ago, Strange said:

Needs to save up and buy a G-clamp.

Your comments made me go out of my way to watch the video. This has got to be one of the worst experimental setups I have ever seen. No attempt at rigour or measurement. 

@Theredbarron You need to do a lot better than this. Studiot's comments are spot on, but just the start. You must at least fix the device to the bench and find a better way of measuring the "force". 

Once you have done that, then if you are sure this is a gravitational effect then you need to do something simple to eliminate the possibility of airflow. For example, cover the end of pipe with cling-film/Saran-wrap. This will block any air but, obviously, won't block gravity. Good luck!

If I had seen how shonky your current setup is I would never have recommended that. You need to go a lot further in demonstrating that there is a real effect, and eliminating other possibilities.

You seem to have convinced yourself and that is a very dangerous position to be in. You need to do everything you can think of (and more) to try and prove yourself wrong. 

 this is what I'm trying to do which requires more than just my brain and ideas to do this but people saying that it's not gravity doesn't mean it's not gravity. I'm going to make some modifications today after work and post another video later. I'll do what I can to make it as scientific as possible but if no one else has been able to create gravity then how can you actually measure it with any measuring tool that we have. You can see the G forces by the paper towel moving

[studiot]

39 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

Its only a phenomenon because no one has answer the questions yet. This is exactly what mine disproves

Did you ask a question?

All a see is a short video, quite disconnected from the short paragraph that accompanied it, along with the claim that gravity is somehow involved.

I see no proof or disproof of anything at all, nor any proper explanation of what is expected to happen and what does happen, along with a proposed explanation of why there is any difference between the two.

I repeat, your paper should have moved when it was near/to the side of the pipe if gravity was involved.

The paper didn't move so gravity was not involved.

 

In the words of the Market Manager

"Set out your stall properly"

Edited August 20, 2018 by studiot

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

The problem with eliminating air flow is that air is effected by gravity. So its going to flow no matter how I make this even if I seal if all up it will pull air based upon what theory your using correct?

By sealing the end of the pipe, it would demonstrate that your mechanism is not behaving like some sort of fan/suction device (an obvious possible explanation). If you still get air (and paper towel to other measuring device) to move when the pipe is sealed then we would need to eliminate the next possible explanation.

15 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

Where in the cosmos is gravity pulling through a solid that is not moving with the field that any one has proved? 

Everywhere. You are still held in your chair by gravity even if there is floor below you (whether that is made of wood, metal or concrete). We don't see a change in gravity at times of eclipses. You can't block gravity so one of the ways of confirming that you are looking at a gravitational force is try blocking it.

We have a theory of gravity which is tested and shown to work. There is no point coming up with "what if it doesn't work like that" statements unless you can shows some specific evidence that it is wrong. 

33 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

Unless you want to build one yourself then do that.

It is up to you to do everything possible to eliminate objections and alternative explanations. 

Of course, if the only person you want to convince is yourself, then you don't need to do anything.

 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Theredbarron said:

 In a pressurized environment the molecules are trying to move into a space and in a vacuum they are trying to leave it.

In a vacuum there are many fewer molecules. To say that molecules are trying to leave a vacuum is...an interesting take. Personally, I have problems with molecules from outside the vacuum getting in and compromising the vacuum.

2 hours ago, Theredbarron said:

The air will move just like the air that is moving in our atmosphere right now. Everything on earth is moving at approximately 1k mph.

Not relative to the earth, which is the important metric.

2 hours ago, Theredbarron said:

If none of the test were performed in space then they were being effected by the environment just like mine. we are inside a gravitational field so anything inside is effected directly and all the time. I understand that its not going to be easy but if you were to ignore what you have been taught and do your own test from what is actual proven like that all planets are rotating. What would you do if you figured this out?  If you think that air is not in space just because then you haven't been look around very much. The air is full of molecules that are effected by gravity. So that very lightweight molecule is going to move to the closes gravitational field that attracts it.  So again how is it not going to effect the air if you were to create gravity on earth? So the amount of force from gravity to hold the paper towel is equal to the weight of the paper towel.  To lift it is dependent upon the speed of which it is lifted.  

Not sure where you are going with this. You still need to show that your device is not functioning because there is air present. And yu still owe me your calculations.

2 hours ago, Theredbarron said:

Did they even consider that the centrifugal force is counteracting the gravity?

Since centrifugal forces are not real, there isn't much to consider. But if you think somehow that rotation is responsible for gravity, compare earth and the moon. We rotate once a day, the moon rotates once every 27 days. And yet the gravity difference is only 1/6. Perfectly consistent with Newtonian gravity, but not with any straightforward rotation-based model. 

 

1 hour ago, Theredbarron said:

The problem with eliminating air flow is that air is effected by gravity. So its going to flow no matter how I make this even if I seal if all up it will pull air based upon what theory your using correct?

Only if you are correct. You could seal the paper towel in a clear, airtight box. Air is not going to "slow" in that situation.

1 hour ago, Theredbarron said:

 For example, cover the end of pipe with cling-film/Saran-wrap. This will block any air but, obviously, won't block gravity."  Unless you want to build one yourself then do that.

It's your idea and experiment. You own the burden of proof.

[Theredbarron]

The whole are thing that you guys are getting hung up on is it exactly what I'm proving. My version of gravity affects the outside of everything and not the inside. when I say you need to proof is that I do not need to prove that you're Theory works. You need to prove that you're Theory works because mine is visually showing you what I'm saying. So I cannot use what you are saying to disprove mine because it's exactly what I'm proving so I cannot use what you are saying to disprove mine because it's what I'm proving to you with what you see. So yes the air is going to move with my theory and no it will not penetrate through solid because there is nothing in our Cosmos penetrating through solid creating gravity unless that solid is moving. So come up with proof of what you're saying to try to disprove what I'm saying when I have already created my proof in that fact. That's why it is not my responsibility to prove your theory but rather to prove my theory. The visual effects on the air is what I'm demonstrating as my gravity device pulls it. I'm not creating gravity at the size of a planet.

Edited August 20, 2018 by Theredbarron

[Strange]

3 hours ago, Theredbarron said:

You need to prove that you're Theory works

Science doesn't really "prove" anything.

The way science works is to create a model and then compare it against reality. In the case of Newtonian gravity, this works extremely well but a few odd cases were found where it wasn't completely accurate - such as the precession of Mercury.

When GR came along as a theory of gravity, it correctly predicted the results for those cases. So it is, in general, a better theory. However, Newtonian gravity is good enough in almost all cases.

You do not have a model (or at least, not one you have presented here). Therefore your "idea" (for want of a better word) cannot be tested against the real world. As such, there is no reason for anyone to consider it as a better theory than those we have at the moment. I'm really not sure why you think anyone should take your vague claims and dodgy video seriously.

3 hours ago, Theredbarron said:

The visual effects on the air is what I'm demonstrating as my gravity device pulls it.

Then it should still move the air even if you cover the end of the tube. That can't be difficult, so why not try it?

[Theredbarron]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Science doesn't really "prove" anything.

The way science works is to create a model and then compare it against reality. In the case of Newtonian gravity, this works extremely well but a few odd cases were found where it wasn't completely accurate - such as the precession of Mercury.

When GR came along as a theory of gravity, it correctly predicted the results for those cases. So it is, in general, a better theory. However, Newtonian gravity is good enough in almost all cases.

You do not have a model (or at least, not one you have presented here). Therefore your "idea" (for want of a better word) cannot be tested against the real world. As such, there is no reason for anyone to consider it as a better theory than those we have at the moment. I'm really not sure why you think anyone should take your vague claims and dodgy video seriously.

Then it should still move the air even if you cover the end of the tube. That can't be difficult, so why not try it?

See that quote at the bottom “Facts don’t come naturally. Drama and opinions do. Factual knowledge has to be learned.” No one told you it was going to be pretty. Maybe you just cant comprehend it. If its too much for you then dont act like your better then it. You dont even know my theory yet your claiming it vague. Its vague because you wont listen anyways just as you proved to everyone here so I'm waiting for how you think it works so that maybe instead of all this crazy information at one time you might actually understand it. I'm not sure if you know this but air is matter and that's what its attracting no matter how YOU put it. Model or no model where yours. 

18 hours ago, t686 said:

I didn't say oscillating the speed.  I referred to the vibration (up-and-down) of the metal apparatus on a metal table.  You can see it vibrating and I wasn't referring to varying the speed.   But thank you for telling me that the sides may have something to do with it, maybe so (the hidden part).  I doubt it, because the shape of the regularly spaced tabs that are welded and curved to shape like a fan (when the apparatus is vibrating like hell, again not referring to speed but vibration like that football game that vibrates and causes the players to move randomly).  The bird crap tabs shaped like tabs when the apparatus is vibrating is an up-down repeating and regular oscillation from the vibration and those tabs convert to circles side-by-side when vibrated (just look at the f****** video and you can see the conversion to circles in the back from regularly spaced tabs to circles just look at the f****** video).  Putting circular raised solder blobs on your rotating metallic cylinder in the back on the metal rotating cylinder, would "bump" the air up-and-down as well as those "bump" impact air along the rotating cylinder surface with now bumps on it.  But you also need the curved metal repeating bird drop weld in the back which you already have.  The vibration causes them to close over a neighbor forming a train of continuous circles side-by-side whereas without vibration they were only regularly spaced curved lines with distinct spacing (having circles, which have nothing to do with the blobs of solder in the shape of tiny half spheres placed on the cylinder surface,  now causes repeating tubes of air parallel to each other in a circle along the cylinder and the tubes of air exit which is what is drawing the air in just like a fan along those tubed, like you said you found something new).   Putting the apparatus on a nonvibrating surface and doing what I told you to do, which is putting circular or half sphere blobs in some pattern on the cylinder wheel does the same thing the vibration does so you don't need to vibrate it any more.  Sorry if I burst your bubble.  By the way, this reminds me of the Enigma machine or similar machines that were cryptographic and makes me wonder if the raised circular blobs (which you don't have but I'm saying put on the cylinder surface so you don't have to vibrate it) on the rotating cylinder might have some other application.

I'm not sure if you have your own theory but you do have something that is part of mine in very small way. The logic with the bump where and object occupies a space them moves from that space rapidly then returns before anything else including the atmosphere can occupy it. This will create a void which is what I'm using to generate the pull. I tried to modify it to where its as smooth as possible. I apologize if I come off as a Dumb A**. I'm not very good at this explaining things. I'm genuinely interested in testing this thing. I would call it centripetal force if that is better. I was aiming for gravity but I can accept centripetal if that what makes sense.

 

[beecee]

5 hours ago, Theredbarron said:

The whole are thing that you guys are getting hung up on is it exactly what I'm proving. My version of gravity affects the outside of everything and not the inside.

All I'm hung up on is the actual results of experiments, the observations made, the successful models formulated over the last 300 years or so as to what gravity is and its effects. GR of course has nailed that as close as we are able to determine so far.

Quote

when I say you need to proof is that I do not need to prove that you're Theory works. You need to prove that you're Theory works because mine is visually showing you what I'm saying.

No wrong. Firstly scientific theories are not about proof, but about the success of models matching our observations and making successful predictions....secondly it is you are making or supposing a claim...it is you who needs to show it is as you say. The onus is on you.

Quote

So come up with proof of what you're saying to try to disprove what I'm saying when I have already created my proof in that fact. 

A short video of some device is not any evidence of anything unusual that I can see. The onus is on you to show that it is not caused by any other number of natural physical happenings.

[Theredbarron]

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

All I'm hung up on is the actual results of experiments, the observations made, the successful models formulated over the last 300 years or so as to what gravity is and its effects. GR of course has nailed that as close as we are able to determine so far.

No wrong. Firstly scientific theories are not about proof, but about the success of models matching our observations and making successful predictions....secondly it is you are making or supposing a claim...it is you who needs to show it is as you say. The onus is on you.

A short video of some device is not any evidence of anything unusual that I can see. The onus is on you to show that it is not caused by any other number of natural physical happenings.

As close as we are able to determine so far. Interesting. Would you like me to use words like show instead of prove? Its still producing that force that you see. No amount of words are going to be able to disprove or disshow, which is not a word because it doesn't happen, the fact that it is creating and controlling it by design and not by accident. So its a demonstration model of how my theory works. I have a cognitive disorder from getting blown up in Iraq so I'm not that good at explaining things. Never was in the first place and not its even better. Just take a second and think about it. It is in fact creating that force that you see. If its not gravity then what is it? The only reason why there is a tube is to direct it in a manner to be manipulated or for use of demonstration. By my theory you can manipulate and create this force. In person it is very obvious.

This is not a final copy. It cost me 18$ to make this wheel. This is the very first edition and I want input for making the next one. It will be determined on how I make it based upon which part is so confusing. So it can hopefully attempt to demonstrate the fundamentals of it. The next will not vibrate. If the vibrations are in fact what is causing this then it will not work on the next one. Do you see where I'm going with this?  I dont care what people believe in but if they have a question and think it will prove or shed light on something based on there belief or logic then I'm all ears. That being said. If your using information and just stating it and expecting me just to believe what is stated you are wrong. You cant get answer without asking. If you dont want to ask then dont. It doesn't matter to me. It still create that force and controls it even though its very ugly.  

[beecee]

26 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

As close as we are able to determine so far. Interesting.

Not so much interesting as the basis of the scientific methodology. All theories are purposely open ended so to speak, as new and further observations may see the need for modification and/or addition. And as they continue to stand the test of time, like GR, they do grow in certainty. 

Quote

Would you like me to use words like show instead of prove? Its still producing that force that you see. No amount of words are going to be able to disprove or disshow, which is not a word because it doesn't happen, the fact that it is creating and controlling it by design and not by accident. So its a demonstration model of how my theory works.

No, its nothing more then a short video with obviously faulty methodology the most obvious being that the device is not clamped, and of course other factors may be in play. That is your job to eliminate them.

 

Quote

 If its not gravity then what is it? 

Your first job, to actually show beyond any reasonable doubt that it is not gravity. You havn't done that.

 

Quote

 I dont care what people believe in but if they have a question and think it will prove or shed light on something based on there belief or logic then I'm all ears. That being said. If your using information and just stating it and expecting me just to believe what is stated you are wrong. You cant get answer without asking. If you dont want to ask then dont. It doesn't matter to me. It still create that force and controls it even though its very ugly.  

In actual fact, you can proceed do just about any science forum, and inevitabley it will always have those that claim to have shown some incumbent science model wrong. There are many reasons for this, religious animosity, delusions of grandeur, misunderstandings of the science and the scientific method. I find it just about impossible to accept that anyone can come on a forum and make claims about invalidating some aspect of accepted incumbent science or have made some exciting new discovery that mainstream science is not aware of. But these forums by their very nature are open to any Tom, Dick or Harry, to claim whatever tickles their fancy. Pretty u tube videos prove nothing. There are nuts out there that have similar videos of Aliens, UFO's etc that also claim as indisputable.

 

Edited August 20, 2018 by beecee

[swansont]

6 hours ago, Theredbarron said:

The whole are thing that you guys are getting hung up on is it exactly what I'm proving. My version of gravity affects the outside of everything and not the inside. when I say you need to proof is that I do not need to prove that you're Theory works. You need to prove that you're Theory works because mine is visually showing you what I'm saying.  

But it doesn't exclude other possibilities, like air flow. So it doesn't actually constitute scientific support for your idea. 

[Theredbarron]

57 minutes ago, beecee said:

Not so much interesting as the basis of the scientific methodology. All theories are purposely open ended so to speak, as new and further observations may see the need for modification and/or addition. And as they continue to stand the test of time, like GR, they do grow in certainty. 

No, its nothing more then a short video with obviously faulty methodology the most obvious being that the device is not clamped, and of course other factors may be in play. That is your job to eliminate them.

 

Your first job, to actually show beyond any reasonable doubt that it is not gravity. You havn't done that.

 

In actual fact, you can proceed do just about any science forum, and inevitabley it will always have those that claim to have shown some incumbent science model wrong. There are many reasons for this, religious animosity, delusions of grandeur, misunderstandings of the science and the scientific method. I find it just about impossible to accept that anyone can come on a forum and make claims about invalidating some aspect of accepted incumbent science or have made some exciting new discovery that mainstream science is not aware of. But these forums by their very nature are open to any Tom, Dick or Harry, to claim whatever tickles their fancy.

 

Your right. So I'm not going to bring up some cliché phrasing to try to reason with you. How is someone supposed to demonstrate a theory to people if all they do is throw other people words at me just because of what they are used to. Lets call it centripetal force if it upsets you that much to expect perfection on the first try. People are the reason why this type of stuff gets missed as well. I will gladly say its not gravity. I still have a question thought if you could take a crack at it. How is it doing what its doing? I never said I had all the answers. I also never said all other theory are incorrect as well. Its rather the misunderstanding of some early observations surrounded by not so modern technology. I do not know anyone in person that is interested in this type of stuff and or could even understand it. If everyone here has an opinion then there are no facts to be found here is there? Im sorry I didn't come up with and awesome cup warmer or something. This is what I've got. No matter how ridiculous it sounds or looks it does not exclude it. I didn't accidently make this happen. I used a theory that just happen to pop up and made me curious. Its not just a " because this is wrong its this type theory". It was "why is this so similar to this type of theory" at first. Then I notice a few other things that correlate. So I started coming up with logic that I know works likes in electricity "opposites attract". I went down that road of what the opposite of gravity is deal. I did find something. I found that something is always occupying space in order for it to be considered space. Then I noticed that all gravity in our cosmos is observed only in motion to include whats creating it. This is why I have stated the very basics of it may have to be forgotten in order to understand. Not all of it. My changes it a little. It may sound crazy and not what anyone is used to but out of just that I was able to create this. You could be right. It may not be gravity by your standards. This is not by your standards. This is just the start. I'm pretty sure someone is going to comment on some things I just said so I will stop there for a min

33 minutes ago, swansont said:

But it doesn't exclude other possibilities, like air flow. So it doesn't actually constitute scientific support for your idea. 

Can you describe what you mean by air flow? I know it sound dumb but I dont want to assume what you mean because no air is going out the other side.

Edited August 20, 2018 by Theredbarron
to clarify im not done

[beecee]

57 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

Your right. So I'm not going to bring up some cliché phrasing to try to reason with you. How is someone supposed to demonstrate a theory to people if all they do is throw other people words at me just because of what they are used to.

Please accept that forums like this, open to any Tom, Dick or Harry, that inevitably claim something or other that they perceive to be against or unknown to mainstream, will certainly have the 300 and more years of mainstream knowledge, theories, models, and laws "thrown at them" . That's science, that's the scientific methodology.

Quote

Lets call it centripetal force if it upsets you that much to expect perfection on the first try.

No, let's not. Centripedal force is simply that force that a body feels, keeping it moving along a circular path. eg: the gravitational force acting on a satellite, keeping it in orbit. And in actual fact it appears that you are the one apparently upset that people are not accepting your claim or whatever on face value. Again you need to show that you have ruled out the myriad of other reasons that could be playing a part. Otherwise you have nothing other then a poorly produced video. 

Quote

 You could be right. It may not be gravity by your standards. This is not by your standards. This is just the start. I'm pretty sure someone is going to comment on some things I just said so I will stop there for a min

My standards are not what is in question here. It is your apparent claim that you believe you have discovered something or other, that others are saying is probably due to some other interaction and gravity.

Quote

 Then I noticed that all gravity in our cosmos is observed only in motion to include whats creating it. This is why I have stated the very basics of it may have to be forgotten in order to understand

Well since mass warps spacetime which we interpret as gravity, and all massive objects are in motion relative to something, it follows that warped spacetime/gravity must also be in motion. No reason whatsoever to have to forget about some basic aspect [if that is what you are saying] just so it gives legs to your hypothetical situation.

[Theredbarron]

10 minutes ago, beecee said:

Please accept that forums like this, open to any Tom, Dick or Harry, that inevitably claim something or other that they perceive to be against or unknown to mainstream, will certainly have the 300 and more years of mainstream knowledge, theories, models, and laws "thrown at them" . That's science, that's the scientific methodology.

No, let's not. Centripedal force is simply that force that a body feels, keeping it moving along a circular path. eg: the gravitational force acting on a satellite, keeping it in orbit. And in actual fact it appears that you are the one apparently upset that people are not accepting your claim or whatever on face value. Again you need to show that you have ruled out the myriad of other reasons that could be playing a part. Otherwise you have nothing other then a poorly produced video. 

My standards are not what is in question here. It is your apparent claim that you believe you have discovered something or other, that others are saying is probably due to some other interaction and gravity.

Well since mass warps spacetime which we interpret as gravity, and all massive objects are in motion relative to something, it follows that warped spacetime/gravity must also be in motion. No reason whatsoever to have to forget about some basic aspect [if that is what you are saying] just so it gives legs to your hypothetical situation.

Then what is it?

With proof or something that supports your locgic 

It actually sounds like your mad

Please

I only say to forget just to see what im saying not that the basic dont matter. Maybe that last bit where you say interpret is what I'm paying attention to.

[koti]

A pvc pipe is getting static charge from a motor rotating some contraption inside and pulls the sheet of paper towards the pipe. Just ground the damn pipe and poof, „gravity” will be magically gone.

[Theredbarron]

Lets just say you figured it out. I mean anyone who is reading this. just for this question you actually figured it out or at least you are certain. Would you show the wheel if at all or try to explain fist? I only ask because I have not done either. Even if Inevitable you are wrong.

8 minutes ago, koti said:

A pvc pipe is getting static charge from a motor rotating some contraption inside and pulls the sheet of paper towards the pipe. Just ground the damn pipe and poof, „gravity” will be magically gone.

Why isn't the static attracting or repelling from the sides?

Edited August 21, 2018 by Theredbarron
to clarify the question

[koti]

4 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

Why isn't the static attracting or repelling from the sides?

Gee I dont know, maybe because nobody in the film stuck the piece of paper close to the sides of the pipe? Hint - when you see PVC, paper and a rotating motor moving some junk which is touching the PVC its static charge or airflow. Gravity works a „little” different.

[Theredbarron]

and how can I test this for that? and the plastic is isolated by rubber.

Edited August 21, 2018 by Theredbarron

[koti]

Just now, Theredbarron said:

and how can I test this for that?

Just spin the motor as fast as you can and touch the charged PVC pipe with your wet tongue. If you feel a tingling sensation its static charge.

[Theredbarron]

 If the tube was metal would that make a difference?

I hope you can see why I made it this way. It for exactly what I'm getting out of you right now. Modifiable is the new ugly

Edited August 21, 2018 by Theredbarron

[koti]

12 minutes ago, Theredbarron said:

 If the tube was metal would that make a difference?

A metal tube wouldn’t accumulate static charge since electrons move freely in a conductive material such as a metal pipe. But since you have a constatnt supply of charge from that 6K RPM motor and that thing moving inside the pipe - yes, a sufficient charge could be generated to move that piece of paper. Or its air that is moving the paper - one of the two.

You need to understand that gravity, which is in essence spacetime curvature doesn’t work anything like shown in the films. Firstly, you would need trillions of tons of matter or a ridiculous amount of energy to create gravitational attraction capable of moving a piece of paper. In space that is where there is not source of gravity - your desk is here on earth and everything around it is affected by earths gravity pull. I can’t even begin to think where I should start explaining that what is shown in the films has nothing to do with gravity, you need to ingest some very basics of physics first, start with this:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

Edited August 21, 2018 by koti

[Theredbarron]

The air is for the demonstrate of its effects. Gravity by all means attract matter correct? 

So what material could I use or do to the material to get rid of the static charge causing it to attract? 

What do you think I would need to actually try to test it and remove any possible way of it having a static charge? Not joking. I will do it. This is why im here on this site because for the obvious reason it would be kind of hard to do this and have this amount of feedback from multiple source anywhere else. Agreed?

If I made a different wheel not using my theory and spun it the same just to eliminate my theory completely from it should it do the same? I will keep the vibrations by purposely making it imbalanced to keep that variable. 

[beecee]

3 hours ago, Theredbarron said:

Then what is it?

Perhaps english is not your first language? Again all we are presented with is a video. But rest assured, you havn't discovered anything new or has not been known for 300 years or more.

Quote

With proof or something that supports your locgic 

My logic is more then 300 years of Newtonian gravity, and the scientific method which you appear to be avoiding.

 

Quote

It actually sounds like your mad

You certainly are not the first person that believes he has discovered something new that may invalidate mainstream thinking, but refuses any argument against his proposals to resort to insults. 

Quote

 

Please

I only say to forget just to see what im saying not that the basic dont matter. Maybe that last bit where you say interpret is what I'm paying attention to.

 

I say to you, to set up your experiment properly, follow the scientific method and eliminate all other possible causes, then look at your results, accept criticism, and if afterall that you still are under the illusion you have discovered something new, then submit your results for professional peer review.

 

[koti]

5 hours ago, Theredbarron said:

The air is for the demonstrate of its effects. Gravity by all means attract matter correct? 

So what material could I use or do to the material to get rid of the static charge causing it to attract? 

What do you think I would need to actually try to test it and remove any possible way of it having a static charge? Not joking. I will do it. This is why im here on this site because for the obvious reason it would be kind of hard to do this and have this amount of feedback from multiple source anywhere else. Agreed?

If I made a different wheel not using my theory and spun it the same just to eliminate my theory completely from it should it do the same? I will keep the vibrations by purposely making it imbalanced to keep that variable. 

Look man, I’m assuming you’re not some nutcase trying to hoax people on youtube and you’re genuinely interested in finding things out. Am I right assuming that?

If that is the case,

1. Ground the pipe (if its metal, if its PVC you wont be able to) Tape a bare wire to the pipe and the other end connect to the ground (your vice or some other big chunk of metal should be enough for this purpose) You can also use an ESD set if you have one around the shop.

2. Use your multimeter to check for presence of static charge. Set it to measure „amperes” and be sure your meter has an option to retain a reading as the neasured discharge will take a microsecond or so only. Use tape to attach the myltimeter probes to the pipe. If the pioe is PVC it probably won’t work. Practise by rubbing a sweater or your bare feet on a carpet and measure that with your multimeter to get a readout by using the probes on your hands.

3. Use a feather instead of the paper to get a better idea of where and how much of air movement occurs. There might actually be both factors playing a role here at the same time - electromagnetism and air movement.

4. Read the wikipedia article I linked you to on gravity. Come up with questions and post them here, there are PHD physicists in this very thread who will answer all the questions you have, you can learn a lot from them. 

5. Forget about hope you discovered how to „generate gravity” There is no way that could have happened, learn the basics of gravity what it is and how it interacts and you will laugh yourself a year later at this whole thing.

I think its cool youre doing the experiments and I fully support you in this. Providing you’re not a nutcase or deliberately trying to find out how to hoax people.

Edited August 21, 2018 by koti