This Is Not Theory - The Moon Hitting the Earth Is Real - Very Real!

  • 174 Replies
  • 56890 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Kryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 641
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
First of all, your theory of gravity is wrong. It is known for a fact that gravity has an effect on space-time. Altitude experiments have proven that time progresses more quickly at high altitudes than at low altitudes because the gravity is weaker at high altitudes. Gravity Prove B managed to measure distortions in the space around Earth caused by the combination of its gravity and rotation (the geodetic effect). Actually, the first confirmation of relativity came from the observation that starlight is bent by the Sun's gravity (and by precisely the amount that Einstein predicted it would). This is called gravitational lensing and has been observed for galaxies as well. GPS systems have to be programmed to take into account gravity's distortion on space-time in order for them to be accurate. There is so much support for the idea that gravity affect space-time that it is accepted as everyday reality by physicists and laymen alike. It's probably more appropriate to say that gravity is a kind of space-time distortion, to be honest.

Second of all, no existing technology can get anywhere near the Earth's core. The deepest holes drilled in the world are on the order of 12 kilometers deep. The inner core, on the other hand, starts around 5,150 kilometers beneath the surface. It will remain out of our reach for a very, very long time. Even if we could reach it, there is no way that we could affect it in any meaningful way because of its shear size. We are talking about an object over 2,000 kilometers in diameter.

What is this about an "active core" you are talking about? When it comes to gravity, the only important thing about the core is its mass. Gravity has nothing to do with what materials is made of other than their contribution to mass. If you think that the government is going to change the Earth's gravity by messing with the core, that is completely impossible and at odds with everything we know to be true of gravity.

Your new arguments don't make any more sense than your old ones. Gravity can't "cut in and out". It doesn't work that way. The Moon blowing up like a balloon? Seriously? Entering the Roche Limit is not going to have any such affect. The forces involved would stretch it out like a football until it broke up. Not only that, but you seem to believe that inflating the Moon will increase its gravity. The opposite would happen in reality.
« Last Edit: 21/11/2013 07:02:46 by Supercryptid »
----
Jesus is coming soon. Be prepared for him.

*

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 103
    • View Profile
I have a another point about the moon ... Now if spacetime is bending wouldn't that mean that only the larger mass body would have any affect if any at only .i say this coz if u have a mass bending space lines and a different mass bending doing the same both of them would only be affected by its own gravity coz for a mass to be affected by 1 it would have to clime up hill of its own bending line and then come down the other side .and that Including the smaller mass having affect on the bigger mass witch they do.so under bending space the only way it would work is for to 2 masses to make a Channel in line of site witch would mean at the in of site gravity would have hugely lower gravity pull at the line of site and would also mean masses of the same size would have no affect on each other .so if gravity also has a pull on space it could pull over the bent lines but at the point that are almost touching the bent line would almost straighten out and gravity would have a massive lower affect and only really the motion doing anything .now that can work for the Roche point to have no affect on the moon at its later stage but .but again that should mean the moon gravity shouldnt have little affect of the other side of earth and a lease affect higher at the line of sites plus all orbit would have to be way of center. .so for gravity to work and not digging space and to affect all matter it would have to be polarized .that wood allow the bending of space to happen with no affect on each own bending but still pull each other.but with polarizing at some point the 2 polarizing bend will form 1 when the angels start to match and that would mean at the point when earth bending angels start to match the moon as they close they would form in to 1 angel with starting to channel bend at the Roche point and minamising the affect of the Roche point of earth gravity ,....so under bending space I think most or all planet could bounce at some point but if there is proof of the Roche point having a accelarated affect on a planet only a more logical reason for gravity would give Roche point streight and still allowing the moon to hit earth and not break up coz like most logical thing they have on and off  ,high low affect of each other 

*

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 103
    • View Profile
Hey I'm not talking about time .the time part I think r right it don't mean its gravity .im talking about gravity having a logical reason .the moon is 1/4 the size of earth and 60% the denity of earth but only 1/6 of earth gravity so If gravity is based on mass the moons gravity should be 60% of earths or at less 1/4 of earth .but it's not  so to me that shows the moons core is working at a different rate meaning gravity has highs and lows not doing with mass but with the working of that mass at that time witch mean bigger is better if at full power .again we have seen with stars blowing up it turn into a 0 like mass body but with gravity supercharge in stead stopping shows it's to do with the working of the mass not just coz it's there .when I talk about a active core I'm talking about us making a real life mini core with its own gravity .u can't just turn something like that on with out it being in control state with rules and safety ...I would be happy to talk to about my gravity idea but not on a blog .coz the truth with the internet people can be who ever and I don't think just anyone should be aball to just test a real active core ..... And yes we can't get to the core .thats my point it's hard to tell but what I'm say is it missing the last peace witch makes it logical as matters and works with it
« Last Edit: 21/11/2013 06:10:47 by Missynmax83 »

*

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 103
    • View Profile
If I was to talk about it .i would go back to bacis .it would even give a idea what is going on in a black hole coz it works with thing we know work around us .i thought it for the ground up with my learning testing it and it keeps working ..... My theroy about the moon was under current theory's and not on a more logical reason

*

Offline Kryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 641
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
If I understood that correctly, you're saying that there should be some point between the Earth and the Moon where the gravitational attraction of the two cancels out. This is true in a way. For a third, relatively small object at some set distance between the Earth and the Moon (called the L1 Langrangian point), the combination of the gravitational attraction between the Earth and the Moon (as well as the centripetal force acting on the third object) allows the third object to stay in an orbit at a fixed distance between the Earth and Moon and will keep in lock-step with the Moon as it orbits. The important thing to remember is that this is specific to the third body and not to the Moon and the Earth themselves. That is, it does nothing to prevent the Earth and the Moon from feeling a net gravitational attraction on each other.

The breaking up of a satellite that strays to close to its parent planet once it enters the Roche Limit is caused by tidal forces. The side of the Moon facing Earth experiences a stronger gravitational attractive force than the far side does. On the other hand, the far side of the Moon experiences a greater centrifugal force than the near side. The sum of these effects is that the Moon is put under a stretching force. When the Moon is far away, the stretching force is relatively weak and has little affect. However, as the Moon is brought into a closer orbit to the Earth (for whatever reason), the stretching force will increase. At some point, the stretching force will become more powerful than the forces holding the Moon together (mainly gravitational). This will make the Moon stretch and deform into an elongated shape, which makes the stretching force increase further in a positive feedback loop. This actually somewhat similar to what happens when an objects strays too close to a black hole (spaghettification).

The Roche Limit, therefore, will depend on how strong the forces are that hold the Moon together. The more strongly it is held together, the closer it can orbit the Earth without breaking up. However, due to scaling laws and a relative lack of structural integrity, there is most certainly a limit as to how close it can get before crumbling. Since gravity cannot be shut off, there is no way to prevent this from happening.

Additionally, I programmed a spreadsheet to crunch some numbers for me in order to help visualize just how important scaling factors are when it comes to the durability of a structure. I decided to model the crust of the Earth as an empty shell of pure quartz crystal (as silicon oxides are the major component of the crustal rock). I assumed it to be uniformly 50 kilometers thick (which is a very generous assumption by the way. I then used the spreadsheet to calculate the tensile and compressive strength of the crust at the equator (assuming a force is being along the axis of the poles. Then I divided that by the mass of the crust to get to a strength-to-weight ratio. I got a compressive strength-to-weight ratio of 0.006284 and a tensile strength-to-weight ratio of 0.000168.

Those numbers might not seem to have much meaning, but we can apply those same numbers to my hypothetical basketball-sized Earth I mentioned earlier to get a better visualizing of what they mean. If we were to assumed that the substance which makes up the crust of our tiny Earth has the same strength-to-weight ratio values as the real thing, then we can calculate the tensile and compressive strengths of that material. Turns out that it is approximately 0.0056 pounds per square inch (compressive) and 0.00015 pounds per square inch (tensile).

To put that in more visual terms, you can imagine a square slab of this material that is 1 foot long and 1 foot width (a total surface area of 1 foot). In order to crush or permanently deform this slab, a force of only 0.8 pounds distributed evenly over the surface is needed. A pillar of this material with a cross-sectional area of 1 square for would require only 0.0216 pounds of force to permanently stretch it or pull it apart. That means that this material is absurdly weak. I don't know how strong gelatin is, but my guess is that it's not far off from these values (it might even be stronger than this substance). These values are actually an overestimate, as it assumes that the crust is one big, solid crystal of quartz. In reality, the crust is broken up into different plates and layers and is laced with cracks and fault lines. It also has an uneven composition. Not to mention it's thinner in most places. That means the real crust is even weaker than my calculations would suggest.

So if you want to visualize a realistic mini-Earth the size of a basketball, you'd make the crust out of something akin to gelatin, with the internal structure made of some thick fluid like pudding or honey. The interesting thing about this is that making the crust thicker doesn't help. The most you could hope to do is to make this entire planet out of gelatin. A ball of solid gelatin is still really weak (and furthermore, the crust would be brittle, unlike squishy gelatin).
« Last Edit: 21/11/2013 07:00:45 by Supercryptid »
----
Jesus is coming soon. Be prepared for him.

*

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 103
    • View Profile
I know everything about spacetime test r getting results but I thing if they where to take gravity out of spacetime and into a produce of matter .some things was make sense with only being what is gravity the main missing key

*

Offline Kryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 641
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
Quote
Hey I'm not talking about time .the time part I think r right it don't mean its gravity .im talking about gravity having a logical reason .the moon is 1/4 the size of earth and 60% the denity of earth but only 1/6 of earth gravity so If gravity is based on mass the moons gravity should be 60% of earths or at less 1/4 of earth .but it's not

That's because mass alone does not determine the surface gravity that a celestial body has; the radius matters too.

Quote
so to me that shows the moons core is working at a different rate meaning gravity has highs and lows not doing with mass but with the working of that mass at that time witch mean bigger is better if at full power

If you keep an object's mass constant, but increase its diameter, its gravitational force at the surface will decrease. Why? It's because gravitational force falls off with increasing distance. Being further from the center means that it has less of a pull on you. Imagine two scenarios. In one, the Moon is the size and mass it is now and we are at a position above its surface that is double its radius. This would mean that we feel a force only a quarter of what we would feel if we were standing on the surface. Now imagine a second scenario where the Moon is the same mass but has twice the diameter. If we were standing on its surface, we would still feel a force only a quarter what its current gravity is. This is because, in both scenarios, we are the same distance from the center of the Moon. So ultimately, only mass and distance are important considerations (except in special circumstances, where tension and pressure come into play. However, that is unimportant here).

Quote
again we have seen with stars blowing up it turn into a 0 like mass body

The mass of an exploding star doesn't disappear. The remnants of the explosion carry its mass (as well as the radiation, since E=mc2). In the case where a stellar body is left behind (white dwarf, neutron star or black hole), there is still a large amount of mass locked up in there.

Quote
but with gravity supercharge in stead stopping shows it's to do with the working of the mass not just coz it's there .

Stars explode due to runaway fusion reactions, not super-charged gravity (although gravitational collapse does play a role in the event).

Quote
when I talk about a active core I'm talking about us making a real life mini core with its own gravity.

As far as anyone currently knows, gravity cannot be generated artificially. You need mass to generate a gravitational field. The stronger you want it, the more mass you need. If you want planet-like gravity then you need planet-like mass.

Quote
u can't just turn something like that on with out it being in control state with rules and safety ...I would be happy to talk to about my gravity idea but not on a blog .coz the truth with the internet people can be who ever and I don't think just anyone should be aball to just test a real active core ..... And yes we can't get to the core .thats my point it's hard to tell but what I'm say is it missing the last peace witch makes it logical as matters and works with it

I assure you, your core idea will not cause any disasters, and that is because it won't do what you think it will.

Quote
If I was to talk about it .i would go back to bacis .it would even give a idea what is going on in a black hole coz it works with thing we know work around us .i thought it for the ground up with my learning testing it and it keeps working ..... My theroy about the moon was under current theory's and not on a more logical reason

Be careful here, as black holes are extremely tricky beasts. Even when I think I've begun to understand them, I learn that they are weirder than I thought.

Quote
I know everything about spacetime test r getting results but I thing if they where to take gravity out of spacetime and into a produce of matter .some things was make sense with only being what is gravity the main missing key

Except you can't take gravity out of space-time, as it is a space-time distortion. That would be akin to trying to take sound waves out of air and putting them in a vacuum. The very nature of what sound is makes it impossible for it to exist in a vacuum.
« Last Edit: 21/11/2013 06:49:59 by Supercryptid »
----
Jesus is coming soon. Be prepared for him.

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8185
    • View Profile
... the moon is 1/4 the size of earth and 60% the denity of earth but only 1/6 of earth gravity so If gravity is based on mass the moons gravity should be 60% of earths or at less 1/4 of earth

The mass of the Moon is only 1.23 % the mass of the Earth.

If the Moon and Earth had the same radius the surface gravity on the Moon would be 1.23 % that of Earth.
However the Moon’s radius is only  0.2731 that of Earth so the surface gravity on the moon is ...

0.0123 / (0.27312) = 1/6.06370813
, i.e.  1/6 that of Earth.

Please relax Missynmax83, all is well : the moon is behaving as expected and is not falling to Earth.
« Last Edit: 21/11/2013 07:04:12 by RD »

*

Offline Kryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 641
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
The images on the left came from a map of Mercury. On the right are ones from the Moon.

By the way, yes, I did flip the Moon map.
« Last Edit: 21/11/2013 16:36:57 by Supercryptid »
----
Jesus is coming soon. Be prepared for him.

*

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 103
    • View Profile
Ok it's starting to get hard with out giving In site to my theroy ... But first my core idea I'm not trying to talk much about coz not coz it won't work but I do believe the safes place to test in is in space and maybe with 2 more around earth to balance the afect of there gravity ....... Second
« Last Edit: 21/11/2013 10:34:54 by Missynmax83 »

*

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 103
    • View Profile
Under most theroy of gravity gravity is one way ...with my theroy gravity could be looked at as having 2 way but really it's a circuit

*

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 103
    • View Profile
So see when the earth and moon come to close there interfere with each other's circuit.
« Last Edit: 21/11/2013 13:02:10 by Missynmax83 »

*

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 103
    • View Profile
With this theroy it doent charge what we do know and it would work under basic circuit principle

*

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 103
    • View Profile
And it's ok RD the only reason I'm looking in to the moon is coz of moon truths pic that made me think it was possible and have a good look if it did happen

*

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 103
    • View Profile
Also the pic I saw of moon truth wasnt small little simlar impression .its was the hole North Pacific with high to low stamping and = high points of joining where being pulled apart.. That why I I'm taking it serious
« Last Edit: 21/11/2013 14:34:57 by Missynmax83 »

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8185
    • View Profile
The images on the left came from a map of Mercury. On the right are ones from the Moon.

That should convince any reasonable person that corresponding patterns on the moon and other bodies are not due to the moon colliding with them. However I doubt it will convince MOON TRUTH who has recently gone completely round the bend : late October 2013 they posted the YouTube below claiming the the plot of a Japanese children's cartoon now is confirmation of their moon-hits-earth theory ... 

[attachment=18219]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx4R7JS5WSY

 [ apparently "sailor moon" is a sci-fi cartoon ].
« Last Edit: 21/11/2013 17:37:23 by RD »

*

Offline Kryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 641
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
Quote
Ok it's starting to get hard with out giving In site to my theroy ... But first my core idea I'm not trying to talk much about coz not coz it won't work but I do believe the safes place to test in is in space and maybe with 2 more around earth to balance the afect of there gravity

Then send me a description of your theory in a personal message. That will be a private place where others cannot see it.

Quote
That should convince any reasonable person that corresponding patterns on the moon and other bodies are not due to the moon colliding with them. However I doubt it will convince MOON TRUTH who has recently gone completely round the bend : late October 2013 they posted the YouTube below claiming the the plot of a Japanese children's cartoon now is confirmation of their moon-hits-earth theory ...

I guess that means the creators of that anime are in on some kind of Moon conspiracy then. He's definitely not helping his credibility.

Alright, I finally watched a few of MOON TRUTH's videos and I have to say that his evidence is anything but compelling. The patterns are far from an exact match. He sees two shapes that are somewhat similar and concludes that they must be related. What really gets me is how he can possibly think that the weather has any connection to surface features below the surface of the ocean. In one case, he even had to move a weather formation from the upper Atlantic Ocean down to the side of Australia in order to come up with a match. How is it remotely reasonable to think that features under the ocean beside Australia will create a weather pattern of similar shape a thousand miles north of it?

When it comes to the weather, you also have to keep in mind that it is constantly changing. By that fact along, if you wait around long enough then you will eventually see a cloud formation that looks coincidentally similar to something else ("that cloud looks like a bunny" mentality). MOON TRUTH is seeing what he wants to see. That's it. The fact that he has to assume that the Moon is four times larger than its actual size in order for his theory to have any chance of remotely working proves in and of itself that it is wrong (his version of the Moon would actually be slightly larger than the Earth. Interesting, isn't it?).
« Last Edit: 21/11/2013 20:38:22 by Supercryptid »
----
Jesus is coming soon. Be prepared for him.

*

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 103
    • View Profile
Ok I wish moon truth would come back and have a look at this blog .im not going on I thing I saw of his and not his hole theroy like nasa hiding it and nothing to do with weather .i just saw a possible and thought to strip it down .if he was to come back to here He would probley c that these is no conspiracy theory but it's impossible wright now so no one is wasting there time on dead ends.but like I sed I have a different theroy on gravity witch could possibly allow the moon to hit earth with out gravity destroying it.................. I'll get back to my theroy later today .i need to winded my head down for a bit coz I'm even dreaming about this stuff and sin my wife and I got the day off together we want to do something with the kids
« Last Edit: 21/11/2013 23:09:45 by Missynmax83 »

*

Offline Kryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 641
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
If MOON TRUTH came back, I seriously doubt the content of this thread would change his beliefs. People who adhere to conspiracy theories are particularly hard nuts to crack.
----
Jesus is coming soon. Be prepared for him.

*

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 103
    • View Profile
That is true

*

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 103
    • View Profile
B4 I do go for a couple hours .under my theroy it would also make everything circular and recycling at all levels

*

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 103
    • View Profile
All under my theroy it would also give a better idea how matter ,motion and gravity affect time ...all I say the time space theory we go by now is so close

*

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 103
    • View Profile
And why it's doing it

*

Offline Kryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 641
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
Well if you're not going to tell us how your theory works, then there isn't much sense in discussing it.
----
Jesus is coming soon. Be prepared for him.

*

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 103
    • View Profile
Truth is this is the first time I'm talk about this (and why I'm taking photo of all ow conversations) .so I am really sorry if I'm just open to talk about it but I'm also a bit scared sin Iv never really done much will this theroy so is never really affected my normal life .but I do believe that the people who have spent there hole life work on stuff like this deserve to be the first to test .sin they have done so much for us all.i do believe u maybe 1 of them people but in truth I don't know that for shore .i do want to talk about and will just give me a sec coz it's probly going to drag out long
« Last Edit: 22/11/2013 00:51:20 by Missynmax83 »

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8185
    • View Profile
... under my theroy it would also make everything circular and recycling at all levels

Oh dear not another theory of "everything" :¬(

Quote from: ka9q.net/crackpots
Some warning signs of crackpot ...
6. Claims discovery of new physical theories, or comprehensive "theories of everything"
http://www.ka9q.net/crackpots/


If you want to separate your theory from the one in this thread started by MOON TRUTH, ( I know I would ),
you should start your own thread in the   nutter "New Theories" section of the forum.
« Last Edit: 22/11/2013 02:55:29 by RD »

*

Offline Kryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 641
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
Probably unfair to insinuate that someone is a crackpot just because they have a new theory. I'd only consider them a crackpot if they continually insist that their theory is correct despite existing evidence to the contrary.
----
Jesus is coming soon. Be prepared for him.

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8185
    • View Profile
Probably unfair to insinuate that someone is a crackpot just because they have a new theory...

If it's a new "theory of everything" then it's definitely going to be crackpottery.

*

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 103
    • View Profile
ok i just tryed to up load a video of me drawin this and it wont let me, so ok. and just to let u know i dont care how u think of me ,but all good............ok u have the electromagnetic spectrum. now my theory u making a circuit from nuclear center(gamma)to the magnitic field(0 hz) now that shouldnt do anything but with out getting in to the mechanics of what going on under the iron. my theory when at the ends (0 hz and high gamma) once the 2 bodys have a connection(iron ,nickel sitting on ? and nuclear) between the ends of the electromagnetic spectrum ,the guard bands areas cross round to connect, the 2 ends(beamforming). making the electromagnetic spectrum become circler, connecter by a circuit with gravity in the middle earthing all outward forces back . now this still wont work with out one missing peace witch is inbetween the nuclear center and the iron .but even with out it .the electic charge made around the nickel,iron with gold ,are been pulled to the nuclear center ,with its own magnetic field pulling inwards fueled by gamma radiation increasing proton pull (thats with out the missing mass ?) so what do u get just out of the spectrum.at one end u got a straight line out left and right plus forward(been beamform past 0) and the other end u have dead still (maybe be seen as a gravatron).so u got in the circuit area straight line going forward thought anything connected to a dead still spot all ankering back by a inwards pulling magnetic force fueled by gamma radiation.its the energy of the out force magnetic field been pulled back. so my theory is gravirty is a earthing circuit
« Last Edit: 22/11/2013 13:47:05 by Missynmax83 »

*

Offline Kryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 641
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
I am having a very hard time following what you are saying. When you say nuclear center, are you talking about an atomic nucleus? Gravity is hardly unique to iron, nickel and gold. The Sun has plenty of gravity and is almost entirely hydrogen and helium.
----
Jesus is coming soon. Be prepared for him.

*

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 103
    • View Profile
When I'm talking about the center I'm just about the reaction going on my point is  both ends work together (circuit) so  with a more energy going out it's going to need a big pipe coming back.iron,nickel and gold r mainly the mechinics of one end .now with the hydrogen goes with what I'm saying and even explains why black holes r so stronge.ok 1 of the best antennas we can make is mu-metal witch a mainly a no key antenna but with 1 differents .its made by use hydrogen as a treatment making it 20 x better.so the sun center may be seen as have more mass .witch it does but really it's the fact that black hole and sun conlected most of the matter with the largest % available to conlect .but really it gave suns and black hole a much better out circuit of energy for the incircuit to grow stronger
« Last Edit: 23/11/2013 01:36:39 by Missynmax83 »

*

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 103
    • View Profile
Think of the electromagnetic spectrum as a loop antenna starting from 1end and finishing at the other and connected bya circuit .the other end seem to do nothing but really nothing works with out it

*

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 103
    • View Profile
I could tell u all the missing mineral to make it all work with much streight and fits in to place but that's in my video I send to the uni .but I want to talk about the theory

*

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 103
    • View Profile
With this theory nothing changes .its just add .like newton laws still r the same but add the fact if u interfere with the out circuit it's will change the in circuit.and bending space isn't just on one side but on all sides ,witch give time a distance to fall and making it what it should be .a bubble in 3d space.... Also add to the earth magnetic field having so much afect on earths gravity even know it's going the wrong way
« Last Edit: 23/11/2013 02:19:55 by Missynmax83 »

*

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 103
    • View Profile
This is circuit gravity

*

Offline Kryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 641
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
I'm still having trouble following you. Are you talking about how gravity arises naturally or how to build a device that can generate artificial gravity? What does a black hole have to do with the Sun? Your theory needs to take into consideration the fact that the type of substance that an object is made of has no connection to the strength of its gravity other than the mass contribution of the that substance.

-The equation for calculating the surface gravity of a planet goes like this: g = GM/r2, where "g" is the acceleration due to gravity, "G" is the gravitational constant, "M" is the mass of the planet and "r" is the radius of the planet. As you can see, there is nothing in the equation that specifies what the planet is made of. Your theory needs to explain this equation. Otherwise, it needs to explain what is wrong with this equation and replace it with a better one.
-Neutron stars are made entirely out of a super-compressed mixture of neutrons, protons and electrons. No elements have an individual chemical identity within the star. They have some of the strongest gravity in the Universe.
-Black holes are not made of any known kind of matter. It does not even contain atomic nuclei. Black holes have only a handful of properties, such as electric charge, spin, mass, temperature, entropy and velocity.
----
Jesus is coming soon. Be prepared for him.

*

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 103
    • View Profile
Ok I hate wright and the video would be so much easyer .ok it's for both man made and natural .what it's made out of mean it has a high energy out put meaning it's going to have to have a high input .same as circuit princapal . With that in mined that it going to conlect more of the mass around it .the hotter the mass gets the more movment the nickel had to the generate stronger magnetic fields to power the circuit now balanced with the extra energy made by the extra presser atoms

*

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 103
    • View Profile
Look at the magnetic field = the gravity streight .that why when a black hole does let mass out its out the poles .so to me a black hole is a better stronger sun and where we stop seeing it is at the strongest point of it magnetic field = it's circuit streight beating the electromagnetic spectrum out wards force.... Now in forming stages a stronger gravity will pull more matter to it mean most time it will have a denser mass that's should = gravity streight
« Last Edit: 23/11/2013 03:47:31 by Missynmax83 »

*

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 103
    • View Profile
This is the part where I need someone helping me do the fine point and open to testing ...
« Last Edit: 23/11/2013 03:53:08 by Missynmax83 »

*

Offline Kryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 641
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
(1) There is no relationship between the magnetic field strength of an object and its gravity. Scientists have generated magnetic fields far in excess of the magnetic field strength of the Earth itself. Yet those same experiments have no obvious effect on gravity. Even MRI machines generate fields stronger than the Sun's. The surface gravity of Venus, for example, is very close to that of Earth (~90% as strong). However, Venus has a much weaker magnetic field than Earth. In fact, the planet Mercury has a stronger magnetic field than Venus does, but is smaller and has notably less surface gravity.

(2) Black holes do not let mass out of their poles. What you are referring to are jets of hot gases that never actually made it inside of the black hole in the first place. Black holes only produce these jets when they have an accretion disk of in-falling matter. An isolated black hole does nothing of the sort.
----
Jesus is coming soon. Be prepared for him.

*

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 103
    • View Profile
It's not the magnetic field it's self .think of a electric circuit leaking a magnetic field around it

*

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 103
    • View Profile
Like I sed this is the point I need someone helping me with the fine point.so with that the gas at the poles show me a weaker gravity affect at the pole for the gas to settle there

*

Offline Kryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 641
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
What is it that is conducting the electricity, then? How is the electricity generated? Why don't power plants and power lines generate gravitational fields?

The jets of gas that fire out near a black hole's poles do not do so because the gravity is weaker there. Anywhere at a black hole's event horizon, be it at the poles or the equator, the gravity will be strong enough to pull in anything that crosses that boundary.
----
Jesus is coming soon. Be prepared for him.

*

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 103
    • View Profile
Coz we r talking about a wireless circuit

*

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 103
    • View Profile
Of the electromagnetic spectrum

*

Offline Kryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 641
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
And how exactly does that work? If by electromagnetic spectrum you mean electromagnetic radiation, then you need to describe how you can have any kind of circuit with that. Electromagnetic radiation likes to travel in straight lines.

If a circuit of some sort is required to generate a gravitational field, then everything that is attracted to a gravitational field must also have a circuit. After all, gravity must interact with gravity. Individual neutron particles are attracted to gravitational fields. How does a circuit originate in a subatomic particle?
----
Jesus is coming soon. Be prepared for him.

*

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 103
    • View Profile
It does like all electromagnetic spectrum forces it does have affects on matter .think of the electromagnetic spectrum as sub bands between -and + circuit gravity .if u look at the electromagnetic spectrum it's start with waves and finishes with waves but it should start with a straight wave pasting thought everything easyie and finishes with no wave pasting thought everything with grate diffelty and we don't c this every day coz it's right under ow noses

*

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 103
    • View Profile
I know u r going ask me question ,and that's good but this theory is from the ground up basses on bacis . Going on the simple reason is most likely right reason

*

Offline Kryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 641
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
Quote
I know u r going ask me question ,and that's good but this theory is from the ground up basses on bacis . Going on the simple reason is most likely right reason

Except when it goes against what is known. The electromagnetic spectrum has nothing directly to do with circuits, and what exactly is a "straight wave"?
----
Jesus is coming soon. Be prepared for him.

*

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 103
    • View Profile
Tesla showed  that wireless can run on a circuit by sending power wireless only needing to be earth out :I do know that's different .... Streight lines means if the radio wave kept going past 0 hz it's should go straight for with no bends for waving left and right and up and down......, my name is Michael blanck just to let u know
« Last Edit: 23/11/2013 06:08:28 by Missynmax83 »