Spin Gravity...Ether of Magnetism

Zarkovian Science

- SPIN GRAVITY -

Assumptions

1. Motion is linear or curved, and is time linked.

2. Matter is based upon the hydrogen magnetic vortex and it's nuclear additions.

3. All physical forces on an object are due to direct contact with another object ie there are no "forces at a distance". There is no pull only PUSH.

4. The universe is full of particles ie there are no empty spaces (because nearby particles will immediately be pushed into any spaces by the application of magnetic tension).

5. Because of 3. and 4., the only kind of perpetual motion possible in the Universe is a vortex. In order for a particle to move, it has to push on another particle, which pushs another, etc. Unless that push goes around in a closed loop, it will eventually dissipate.

6. Energy is manifest as an ether of magnetism, which can not be screened, and is efficient over large distances. The source of this energy is the neutron.

6a. Electric forces are produced when an object moves in this ether of magnetism. Positive charges and negative charges are pushed to each other, but similar charges are pushed apart. Electric forces keep the atoms together (" bind " the electrons to the nucleus). At large distances electric forces are usually not so important because of a screening effect. For example, a positive charge has negative charges pushed to its neighborhood so that they screen off the field from positive charges.

7. Nuclear forces keep the nucleons (protons and neutrons) together in the atomic nucleus. They are the dominating forces in the nucleus, but of no importance at large distances from it. This force is a consequence of neutron to proton interlocking vortices.


SPIN GRAVITY theory PREDICTIONS:

1) Planetary/moon systems are only stable when they orbit with their axies paralell or radial to the spinning axis and in the equatorial plane.

2) Planets are not formed by condensing nebulaes, but by material that is thrown out from a sun.
Earth-like planets and moons are similarly "born" by electrical expulsion of part of the positively charged cores. This ejected material is 'pushed' away from the Sun by solar pressure. Kepler's laws are kept, in particular, that which predicts planets close in orbit faster than those farther out, so we should see a progression in planet ages; that is, the closest planet (Mercury) should be younger than further out planets, such as Earth. The outermost planets should be the oldest. Venus would be near incandescently hot, and Jupiter should emit radio noise. When a planet/moon is ejected from the belly of a larger planetary/solar object, it is basically semisolid, and because of surface tension quickly deforms into a sphere which can be shaped by spin to become an elipseoid.

3) Planetary Moons should also be created by the same process as above, with the same general effects.

4) Moons and planets should be ejected out of astronomical bodies at periodic times throughout astronomical history. Comets can be ejected in this manner.

5) The orbits of planets are not closed and stable, but migrate outwards with time, in a spiral, pushed out by solar electrical pressure. Every year, the moon is moving away a meter from the Earth and the Earth, is moving away a few meters from the Sun.

6) The actual rotational speed of a planet could be dependant upon it's core composition, and behave like a dynamo armature driven by the Sun's rotation. Our core rotates slightly faster than the crust.

7) Planetary orbits are stabilized against vortex chaos by exchange of electric charge through their plasma tails (Venus is still doing so strongly, judging by its "cometary" magnetotail, and it has the most circular orbit of any planet)

8) A planetary atmosphere is a 'satellite' of the planet held in place by spin-gravity and magnetism. At a specific point from the centre of spin, any mass will behave as a satellite, examples are clouds, ice crystals, moons etc.

9) The atmospheres of planets created by geology, are modified if LIFE is present thus creating an Earth like environment. Zarkov predicts LIFE on Venus would create a new "Earth". Atmospheres are also moderated by a reduction in stellar pressure as the planet spirals out from the sun centre.

10) This model would predict that as the Earth spirals away from the Sun, most of the Earth's water would be lost to space because of the consequent decrease in solar pressure, and the Earth would end up a dry, dessicated planet like Mars. It would have reduced atmospheric pressure but still retain some portion of its atmosphere. Life though would become extinct and the oxygen content of the atmosphere would fall to low levels.

11) The two forces which produce gravity are the combined effect of the spin force and the electromagnetic force induced by the ether
.
12) Spin is the fundamental driving source of gravity in all astronomical systems. The ubiquity of spinning objects in the universe (from particles to galaxies) supports this idea.

13) Spin gravity lines of force are spiral in shape, due to the resultant being precessional from the interactions of the electric and magnetic fields and are directed towards the centre of spin.

14) ...

15) The rate of degradation of a spinning field system is proportional to the resultant, spin gravity.

16) The strength of spin gravity is dependant upon field strength (due to magnetic permeability of immediate space) and spin and is not dependant upon matter..

17) All objects in a spinning field have at least 2 forces acting, one is a push out (centrifugal force) [spin gravity], the other a push in (centripetal force)[magnetic force] and the reactive electric field induced in a perpendicular plane to the magnetic field.7

18) Spin gravity has no aberration as it is always directed toward the centre of spin.

19) Spin gravity waves travel through all things.

20) Bodies with no rotation should have no spin gravity, only magnetic and electrostatic bonding.

21) Spin gravity predicts a flatening of the poles because centrifugal force would throw out the equitorial regions.

22) Spin gravity predicts there is a greater push down force at the poles than at the equator, and the furthur away an object is from the centre of spin, the less the force pushing in is, because the force pushing out becomes greater. At sea level at the equator, g = 9.79 m/s2. At sea level at the poles, g = 9.83m/s2. LAPAZ Altitude 4084.9 m Latitude -16.5 g = 9.77334220. ATICO Altitude 15.08 m Latitude -16.2 g = 9.7844720. Centrifugal force at the equator is -0.03g

23) Spin gravity accounts for the observed shapes and dynamics of galaxies without recourse to invisible dark matter and central black holes.

24) The ether of magnetism permeates all space. Objects in this field are permeable to this field, and it is the degree of permeability that defines the magnetic properties of an object. Vortices in the ether are responsible for some kinds of astronomical phenomena.

25) Materials highly permeable to the ether are termed magnetic, and the source of magnetic energy is drawn from the ether. Electromagnetism is matter electrically modified to be more permeable to the ether.

26) The magnetic properties of all matter generate a surrounding field, which can be viewed as a tensor well.

27) Internal electrostatic and magnetic forces prevent stars from collapsing.

28) Moving objects in a magnetic field induce electricity. Many phemonena in space and on Earth can be attributed to this effect. The extra, small (10%), longrange, non-gravitational force exerted between massive objects can be attributed to electric fields. Electrical effects are powerful at short range, and set up filamentous dipoles. The estimated efficiency of the Crab Nebula neutron star powerhouse in converting rotational energy to energy in high energy particles is 98%.

29) Spin in the ether induces the electric force that explains the powerful electric jets seen issuing along the spin axis from the cores of active galaxies. The electric voltage generated by the Crab Nebula neutron star is 10 quadrillion volts.

30) Cosmological redshifts and blueshifts are not due to an expanding universe, but are due to an interaction of the light pasing through the spinning spheres of electromagnetic fields en route to Earth.

31) Electromagnetic tension is created by the magnetic force between parallel current filaments that are part of the huge electric currents flowing inside a galaxy. The lines of force possess tensile elastic strength and react against longitudinal stretch, and radial compressive force.

32) The Chandler wobble is the nutational force produced as a resultant from the Earth's axial rotation and the precession of the Eath's axis in orbit.

33) Black holes are not suported by spin gravity.

34) The speed of light is constrained by wave mechanics, and is specifically constant for various materials.

35) Space is made up of spinning spherical electromagnetic fields, a condensing field like the Earth's field, creates a spherical density system, while an expanding field, as exhibited by a star system is a spherical pressure system. The magnetic field is a force over and above the generated fields due to movement and should affect the velocity of satellites moving in it's system

36) Spin Gravity is the precessional dipolar resultant of the spinning magnetic field and the reacting electric field created. The spinning magnetic field resultant creates one pole of the dipole of the spin gravity vorticle wave, while the reactant of the spinning electric field is the other pole. The waves spiral as a double helix, and are directed towards the centre of spin.

***************************************************************

NEWTONIAN and RELATIVITY, necessary assumptions for gravity :-

Force at a distance, or attractive pull, is possible.

Inertial objects move in the first instant because of force at a distance.

The speed of gravity has to be instaneous or at least orders of magnitude above the speed of light to prevent complicating angular momentum consequences, when applying calculations.

Gravitational lines of force are not precessional.

Equitorial planet/moon allignments have to invoke spin.

Neither theory explains how Suns maintain their shape.

There is no explanation in conventional gravitational systems that explain how a system with more than two orbiting bodies is stable.

To maintain the integritity of both Newtonian and Relativity theories, dark matter or dark energy has to be invoked, when there is absolutly no evidence for either of these two concepts in reality.

To maintain the integritity of both Newtonian and Relativity theories, gravity waves (gravitons) have to be invoked, when there is absolutly no evidence for these concepts in reality.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Welcome to SciForums Zarkov.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thank you Boris2, I had joined a long time ago, just thought I would drop in and see what's happening!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you wish to view spin gravity lines of force go to this link

www.dromo.com/fusionanomaly/teslacoildoubleheliximage.html

 

2. Matter is based upon the hydrogen magnetic vortex and it's nuclear additions.

What is a hydrogen magnetic vortex ? Please explain.

3. All physical forces on an object are due to direct contact with another object ie there are no "forces at a distance". There is no pull only PUSH.

Does this imply there is no such thing as gravity ?

4. The universe is full of particles ie there are no empty spaces (because nearby particles will immediately be pushed into any spaces by the application of magnetic tension).

From where does magnetic tension propagate ? What is the source ?

In order for a particle to move, it has to push on another particle, which pushs another, etc. Unless that push goes around in a closed loop, it will eventually dissipate

Again, no such thing as gravity ?

6. Energy is manifest as an ether of magnetism, which can not be screened, and is efficient over large distances.

Nope. Didn't get that one at all.

The source of this energy is the neutron.

And the source of the neutrons is.... ?

Positive charges and negative charges are pushed to each other, but similar charges are pushed apart.

Are positive and negative charges not attracted to one another ?

For example, a positive charge has negative charges pushed to its neighborhood so that they screen off the field from positive charges.

Again, does not a postive charge attract a negative charge ?

7. Nuclear forces keep the nucleons (protons and neutrons) together in the atomic nucleus.

Is it not 'binding energy' which stablizes protons and neutrons ?

This force is a consequence of neutron to proton interlocking vortices.

What are interlocking vortices ? Please explain.

Without delving further into Zarkovian Science, I believe there is much you need to explain. Most, if not all, your theories run against observations of current, accepted theories. Your use of scientific terminology is misplaced. Your claims have no substance to identify any conclusions. There are no references. In fact, there is no structure whatsoever other than confusing unsubstantiated claims.

What so you, Professor Zarkov ?

 

I have postulated spin gravity, and this is a rough draught of an approach to a GUT like theory. Some of this is based upon experimant and the extensions of spin gravity are conjecture drawn from many sources. I will try and answer your questions.

What is a hydrogen magnetic vortex ? Please explain.
A magnet vortex is just my way of describing matter, as a Kelvian construct.

Does this imply there is no such thing as gravity ?
Yes no forces act via attraction. Magnetic forces in a magnet push objects towards them via magnetic tension produced by unaturally spread lines of force.
The source of the Ether is the neutron. (this last point does need more thought, but is not fatal)

Now the Ether of magnetism, an interesting concept.....is it a new force, the mother force, or is it our well known magnetic field. I will leave this question to you. Again this is not a fatal problem.

Yes I take your other criticisms and agree, if a better set of words can be suggested, I would be pleased at a suggestion.

And yes it is a new theory, and one should not compare it to accepted theories.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

One must always compare to accepted theories. It is how we understand the world around us. We may not throw out accepted theory because it doesn't suit us. It either fits and explains further, or it doesn't fit and is therefore of no use. That is methodical science, my friend.

Welcome to sciforums, Zarkov.

 

Hi Wet 1, there a a few theories in my head I would like to discuss. I have thrown them out, so I hope I can present my point of view, without upsetting the status quo

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Zarkov ...

Considering that the Sciforums 'status quo' ranges from one end
of the spectrum to the other: Bebelina to Crisp, Xev to tony1, and
Cris to tiassa (to name a few); I doubt very much that you could
upset anything around here.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Welcome, and take care.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Thanks Chagur, I have a long history of inadvertantly finding people who think I am insulting their pet theories!

I have had such a kind welcome

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

zarkov

Some of this is based upon experimant and the extensions of spin gravity are conjecture drawn from many sources.

Please provide the experiments and the many sources. Your conjecture means little without.

A magnet vortex is just my way of describing matter, as a Kelvian construct.

Why not just describe matter as matter. There is no need to re-invent terms because they will mean nothing to anyone but yourself. BTW - what is a "Kelvian construct?"

Does this imply there is no such thing as gravity ?
Yes no forces act via attraction. Magnetic forces in a magnet push objects towards them via magnetic tension produced by unaturally spread lines of force.

How do you account for the effects of gravity where no magnetic forces exist ? How do you account for a positive charge attracting a negative charge ? How do you account for a positive charge repelling a positive charge ? How do you account for what is theorized as a black hole ? A neutron star ?

The source of the Ether is the neutron.

I asked what the source of the neutrons was. Is the Ether the source ? How does it provide neutrons ? How do the neutrons provide energy ?

Now the Ether of magnetism, an interesting concept.....is it a new force, the mother force, or is it our well known magnetic field. I will leave this question to you.

It is a concept within your imagination and has nothing to do with observations.

Yes I take your other criticisms and agree, if a better set of words can be suggested, I would be pleased at a suggestion

You may want to consider taking a physics course. At the very least, try a search on physics terms. It would to your advantage if you actually learned what it is you're attempting to debunk.

And yes it is a new theory, and one should not compare it to accepted theories.

What is one to compare ? You're attempting to create your own brand of physics with little or no understanding of physics.

I have a long history of inadvertantly finding people who think I am insulting their pet theories

No one is under the impression you're insulting anything except their intelligence. Most of what you've proposed is complete nonsense and cannot be taken seriously. You don't even understand the very basic terminologies. That alone speaks volumes towards your lack of credibility.

 

Hi Q, I didn't want to get mixed into a storm about assumptions.

There is no way a force can act via PULL, attraction!!
If you can not see this point then realise even a rope is pushing and magnets and electric charges move because lines of force tension.

The ether is curious and I am still not sure if it is a new force or ?

When it travels in matter it induced magnetism, just as the electric field creates an electric current in many metals or static charges in other materials.

The premise for spin gravity is that degrading spin in a field creates a resultant towards the centre of spin.

What I need is some maths, so if there is any math gurus out there that can suggest a start in analysing degrading spin in an ether field and calculating the resultant force, I would like to hear from you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Zarkov

There is no way a force can act via PULL, attraction!!

In General Relativity, gravity is not considered a 'force.' Gravity is considered a distortion in the curvature of spacetime. Although a worn out interpretation and not very good an explanation, a bowling ball on a rubber sheet analysis is often used to describe this distortion.

The ether is curious and I am still not sure if it is a new force or ?

How would you describe your version of the Ether ?

When it travels in matter it induced magnetism, just as the electric field creates an electric current in many metals or static charges in other materials.

Matter does not induce magnetism. Although, the Earth has much metal in the form of liquid which convects inside the Earth creating a magnetic field. However, much of the matter in the universe is metal free, therefore there is no way to create a magnetic field.

The premise for spin gravity is that degrading spin in a field creates a resultant towards the centre of spin.

What I need is some maths, so if there is any math gurus out there that can suggest a start in analysing degrading spin in an ether field and calculating the resultant force, I would like to hear from you

Here is the problem. Physics requires a good understanding of mathematics in order to have a good understanding of the physics. If you were able to understand the current theoretical mathematical models, you most likely would retract your theories.

 

I would like to point out that nothing Zarkov has proposed is a theory. It is at best a hypothesis, although I hesitate to use even that term because hypothesis indicates an educated guess.

 

First even the rubber sheet analogy still needs something to move the object when it is on the rubber sheet.

Second, everything is magnetic to some degree. Magnetism pervaides all space and objects in it, some objects focus (eg ferromagnetic) it better than others.

There is a lot of physics in the spin gravity suggestion and it does present a cohesive new approach to this whole question, and of course it is quite educational discussing the points, though I admit each one has it's controversies.

But this theory explains why the space craft moving through our solar system experience a strange acceleration towards the Sun. It can give a lot of theoretical support for the Podkletnov experiments., and in one flick of the finger explains many of the unexplained problems with all previous theories of gravitation, such as movement, no force at a distance etc.

It fits Keplers laws and explaines the discrepencies being found today with the supposed state of the Universe, such as a need for dark energy and dark matter.

Black holes are becomming more and more like spin gravity galaxies .

I do believe it deserves a constructive critique!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

zarkov

Second, everything is magnetic to some degree. Magnetism pervaides all space and objects in it, some objects focus (eg ferromagnetic) it better than others.

Not true. Our own moon has no magnetic field. Other planets and moons in the Solar System also have no magnetic fields. Magnetism must have a source therefore, all space cannot have magnetic permeation.

There is a lot of physics in the spin gravity suggestion and it does present a cohesive new approach to this whole question, and of course it is quite educational discussing the points, though I admit each one has it's controversies.

There is little physics in your theories, most is nonsense not based on known terminologies or observations. Each is seriously flawed and has yet to warrant controversy.

I do believe it deserves a constructive critique!

Very well, I would invite others to do so however, for one to provide constructive criticism, one must be able to understand the theories presented with terminologies all are able to relate. Publish your theory for peer review if you believe your theories have merit. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This guy sounds very much like a Nelson clone....:bugeye:

 

Nah, not a Nelson clone but a bog standard kook. Writes a load of non-interconnected statements interspersed with vaquely scientifically words and claims it is proof of some major unknown in Physics.

E.G.

Which translates as red shift is due to EM passing through spinning spheres of EM.

These spinning spheres of EM are entirely in the mind of the poster. But it sounds good.

Keep taking the Lithium.

 

Hey guys I don't mind you bagging me, it always happens, but if you know physics why don't you give real reasons why I am incorrect.

You can't compare theories directly, you must go back to basic observations, and go through the check list observation by observation for each theory and determine which one stacks up.

I bet my theory stacks up with all the known

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The other two are but poor conceptions!

 

zarkov

Hey guys I don't mind you bagging me, it always happens, but if you know physics why don't you give real reasons why I am incorrect.

Very well.

Reason number one; incorrect and/or unknown terminologies.

Reason number two; cannot proceed with further analysis due to reason number one.