Gravity and Spin

[greggvizza]

Mikado

I purposely left out all the physics terms in my description so that there would not be any terminology generated confusion. Just looking at it in simple terms, a person is being pushed to the floor by a force that exists with no expenditure of energy.

I guess we could call it Centrifugal, so then we can say that it is non-existent and since it is non-existent then it would be obvious that no energy input would be required. (just joking)

I think it might be better to just look at the physical facts without the terminology, if just for a breath of clarity, then we can try to apply proper terminology to the observation.

GV

[kevin.b]

If I could offer a hint about spin?

If you stop thinking about the mass spinning , and look at the stuff of space circulaing in all directions at once.

don't be like the sheep and just follow all the other sheep, think.
Then imagine how form is held by stuff moving in all directions at once, but a net resistance is created by mass as it turns the spin around as stuff t passes through mass, thus becoming attractive to the incoming stuff, hence a downward net push, but a push exists in all directions, if you want to go with any flow, pick the direction.
And go with the flow, as flow has.
kevin

[natecull]

Then are you saying that all the satellites, the space station, shuttles, whatever are three dimensional objects orbiting in a two dimensional reference? I was under the impression that the orbits are constantly changing unless of course we are talking geosynchronous. I am not all that knowledgable as you seem so could you clarify this?

Yes, orbits do shift over time and aren't necessarily just 2D, so I presume that means that there are multiple planes (?) to an orbit, stacked up a bit like frequencies or overtones in three dimensions; maybe you can precess an orbit as fast as it rotates, but usually it seems to go slower; it seems like most of the angular momentum of spin goes mostly into one plane. I'm rambling here since I've not done any actual maths or physics on orbital models, just summarising what little I've gleaned from a vague interest in spaceflight.

How does one have a spherical orbit? A sphere is globular and an orbit would be circular or elipsoid but spherical I just don't see. Could you explain this also?

Well, you can't really, is my point, least not in three dimensions. So the fact that, eg, gravity 'bends spacetime' equally in all directions and produces an inwards pseudoforce, while rotation tends to 'bend spacetime' only in one plane at a time, and produces an outwards pseudoforce... that was what made me wonder if a '4D rotation', if such a thing existed, would be at all similar to the 'curvature of spacetime cause by gravity' under relativity. Or not.

Mind you, if such things as 'gravitic isotopes' really do exist as Townsend Brown believed, then gravity is *not* inertia - or perhaps if it is, it's mediated somehow through the atomic structure of material in a way different from mass. Thing is, the weird books I've read that seem to like Townsend Brown's theories also seem to like the ideas both that 'gravity is inertia' and 'gravity is spin'.

[natecull]

If I could offer a hint about spin?

If you stop thinking about the mass spinning , and look at the stuff of space circulaing in all directions at once.

Hmm. When I read that I get a mental image of a sphere with a lot of little circles all over it, normal to its surface; each 'particle' I guess being a loop of spin. And then the whole lot spinning, but slower.

(The smaller the system, the faster the spin/vibration? Spin is just a spatialised image of a vibration mode, after all. Loops in software are how you get persistent entities. If something persists in a flow system - a vortex in a river, say - it has to rotate, re-create itself. Like how dynamic refresh works on a CRT computer monitor or the old dynamic RAM. The illusion of persistence created from rapid recreation. The whole image made anew every instant.)

How much energy must be stored in all that spin? If you stopped all those little vortexes, unwound them, would you get something like antimatter annihilation; 'matter' (loops) into 'radiation' (straight lines or waves)?

[greggvizza]

How much energy must be stored in all that spin?

The way that I looked at it was just the opposite. What quantity of external energy inflow would be required to MAINTAIN all of that spin?

Could this inflow be gravity?

GV

[Bulwark]

Then are you saying that all the satellites, the space station, shuttles, whatever are three dimensional objects orbiting in a two dimensional reference? I was under the impression that the orbits are constantly changing unless of course we are talking geosynchronous. I am not all that knowledgable as you seem so could you clarify this?

Yes, orbits do shift over time and aren't necessarily just 2D, so I presume that means that there are multiple planes (?) to an orbit, stacked up a bit like frequencies or overtones in three dimensions; maybe you can precess an orbit as fast as it rotates, but usually it seems to go slower; it seems like most of the angular momentum of spin goes mostly into one plane. I'm rambling here since I've not done any actual maths or physics on orbital models, just summarising what little I've gleaned from a vague interest in spaceflight..

You mention "angular momemtum of spin". Are you implying that the object orbitting is likewise spinning on it's axis? Also you mention "precess" are you referrencing precession? If you are then from my limited understanding aren't you confusing an object orbitting versus one that is spinning as for example a spinning top?

How does one have a spherical orbit? A sphere is globular and an orbit would be circular or elipsoid but spherical I just don't see. Could you explain this also?

Well, you can't really, is my point, least not in three dimensions. So the fact that, eg, gravity 'bends spacetime' equally in all directions and produces an inwards pseudoforce, while rotation tends to 'bend spacetime' only in one plane at a time, and produces an outwards pseudoforce... that was what made me wonder if a '4D rotation', if such a thing existed, would be at all similar to the 'curvature of spacetime cause by gravity' under relativity. Or not..

Here is what you said originally:

2) You can only spin or orbit in a two-dimensional plane. Centripetal/centrifugal force is therefore a two-dimensional force. Gravity, however, is three-dimensional. It's like orbiting at the same speed in an infinite number of directions at once - or at least in all three dimensions. And not in a tumble, but a smooth sort of spherical orbit. What's up with that?.

I asked how you can have a spherical orbit and to me, it appears you are back pedalling for some reason and then you also mention "psuedoforce". Are you implying that centripetal action is a psuedoforce? My conclusion is that if have one psuedo force inward and one psuedo force outward that there are no forces at all. I'm going out and buying some velcro to put on my floor and my shoes if that is the case. You have me confused.

Mind you, if such things as 'gravitic isotopes' really do exist as Townsend Brown believed, then gravity is *not* inertia - or perhaps if it is, it's mediated somehow through the atomic structure of material in a way different from mass. Thing is, the weird books I've read that seem to like Townsend Brown's theories also seem to like the ideas both that 'gravity is inertia' and 'gravity is spin'.

Here is what wiki says about inertia:

Physics. a. the property of matter by which it retains its state of rest or its velocity along a straight line so long as it is not acted upon by an external force.
b. an analogous property of a force: electric inertia.

How is that related to gravity and I have been on this forum for over a year and I have read Paul's book and no where have I seen a reference that Dr. Brown ever referred to gravity as inertia. Could you supply a link or reference to such?

Just looking for a little clarity.

Thanks,

Bulwark

[AM]

The smaller the system, the faster the spin/vibration? Spin is just a spatialised image of a vibration mode, after all. Loops in software are how you get persistent entities. If something persists in a flow system - a vortex in a river, say - it has to rotate, re-create itself. Like how dynamic refresh works on a CRT computer monitor or the old dynamic RAM. The illusion of persistence created from rapid recreation. The whole image made anew every instant

You know what your words remind me of, Mr. Cull? The Carr-story.

And he said, "No, no, it's simple. Your brain is there to operate your body. You're in a vessel here. It's an illusionary vessel that people don't realize because we're creating it in microseconds. From one second to the other these shutters are opening and shutting, creating all this reality you see around you, but it doesn't really exist. It's all spirit. It's all energy, but we're creating it." And he was blowing us away. But he said, "Your brain has a capacity limit. It goes to a certain point of its responsibility and unless it's in touch with the Mind, unless it consents to be in touch with the Mind...

[greggvizza]

An electron cloud could possibly be a 3d orbit, being at all points around the nucleus simultaneously. That is until some intruder decides he wants to observe it, then it pretends that it is in one location. Sort of like the cows in the Far Side cartoon, they are all standing on two feet and discussing physics when the lookout cow yells “CAR” all the cows drop to all fours and start mooing, until the car passes, then they all jump back on two feet and resume their physics discussion.

The planet orbiting the sun model of an atom has been determined to be incorrect, it was just invented as an early mental aid for understanding the atom.

GV

[Mikado14]

You mention "angular momemtum of spin". Are you implying that the object orbitting is likewise spinning on it's axis? Also you mention "precess" are you referrencing precession? If you are then from my limited understanding aren't you confusing an object orbitting versus one that is spinning as for example a spinning top??

If an object is in orbit and that very same object is spinning on it's axis, a whole new ballgame is created.

Mind you, if such things as 'gravitic isotopes' really do exist as Townsend Brown believed, then gravity is *not* inertia - or perhaps if it is, it's mediated somehow through the atomic structure of material in a way different from mass. Thing is, the weird books I've read that seem to like Townsend Brown's theories also seem to like the ideas both that 'gravity is inertia' and 'gravity is spin'.

Here is what wiki says about inertia:

Physics. a. the property of matter by which it retains its state of rest or its velocity along a straight line so long as it is not acted upon by an external force.
b. an analogous property of a force: electric inertia.

How is that related to gravity and I have been on this forum for over a year and I have read Paul's book and no where have I seen a reference that Dr. Brown ever referred to gravity as inertia. Could you supply a link or reference to such?

Currently, gravity is not matter, therefore, gravity cannot have inertia.

Mikado

[AM]

When speaking of spin and gravity Walther Gerlach immediately comes to mind.

What is even more interesting is the fact that Gerlach also studied atmospheric phenomena (including the ball lightning).

Please consider the following article and lecture:

a.) Walther Gerlach: Über die Beobachtung eines Kugelblitzes (Die Naturwissenschaften 15 -1927)

trans.: Walther Gerlach: Regarding the observation of a ball lightning

b.) Walther Gerlach: Über einige optische Erscheinungen in unserer Atmosphäre (Vortrag im Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Verein München am 10. 5. 1932).

trans.: Walther Gerlach: On some optical appearances in our atmosphere (a lecture given at the Munich Society of Mathematics and Natural Sciences on May 10th 1932)

This was one of Gerlach's favourite lectures, where he also practically demonstrated the creation of fata morganas, the lunar corona and several other halo-phenomena.

The following questions I am asking as a complete layman, because this is not my field of expertise and much waffling may come out of it.

1.) What happens if you are able to create a stable ball lightning, which is perfectly under your control and then rotate it?

2.) What would be a possible link between a ball lightning and the spin of the particles that constitute it?

3.) Is it possible to give all particles that constitute a ball lightning the same spin? If so, what happens then? On the other hand the spin of a particle supposedly cannot be changed - the direction though can be altered.

Therefore let me rephrase the question. What happens if all the particles constituting a ball lightning can be given the same spin direction?

Last, but not least the following words of Mr. Trickfox come to mind:

I think the secret lies in our ability to spin the plasma "German style".

AM

P. S. According to alternative theories Walther Gerlach presided over the Rhine-Valley experiments, which were closely connected to Foo-Fighters.

[AM]

Could Dr. Brown's preliminary patent application from August 15th, 1978 "Method and Apparatus for Producing Ions" have played a crucial role in rotating the ball lightning?

The applicant's prior patents Nos. 2,949,550 and 3,518,462 describe method and means for producing a flow of air without moving parts. They may be termed "motorless" fans which are "noiseless." This is highly desirable where a circulation of air in a room is desired. Ion generators (for the production of negative ions alleged to be beneficial to health) do not tend to circulate in the manner of an air flow but migrate outward from the generator largely in the form of a localized ion "cloud." Hence, ion generators in the existing art are seriously limited as to their effective range. The purpose of the present invention is to combine air circulation with ion emission so as to improve range. To accomplish this, the present patent application proposes the addition of an electrostatically charged grid (ionizing electrode) to the motorless fan (as described above) to inject ions into the (effluent) air stream. The present invention, therefore, is an extension of the aforementioned patents in combination with a (downstream) ion-emitting grid. As such it performs a new and useful function - that of emitting ions into a rapidly-moving airstream.

What if you included the principles on which Dr. Brown's "plasma-dynamic loudespeaker" was built?

How would the ion- and electron-spins tie in to all of the above?

AM

[twigsnapper]

AM and Trickfox

What a joy to see the meeting of your minds!

Trickfox: "I think the secret lies in our ability to spin the plasma "German style".

AM:
P. S. According to alternative theories Walther Gerlach presided over the Rhine-Valley experiments, which were closely connected to Foo-Fighters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And AM ... someone somewhere has answers finally to your questions. And you will find that they will find their way to you once the proper question has been put out there. And it will happen in the "oddest" of ways. My Best. Twigsnapper

[AM]

And AM ... someone somewhere has answers finally to your questions. And you will find that they will find their way to you once the proper question has been put out there. And it will happen in the "oddest" of ways. My Best.

Mr. Twigsnapper, when you start writting like this, I put on my apron (pun intended) and start baking home-made cookies, just in case some gentlemen with healthy blue complexions and big antennas on their head come knocking at my door

Jokes aside, I will keep my eyes and ears open, Mr. Twigsnapper. Let us see what time will bring along or better to say weave along.

Only Time Will Tell

By Jimmy Buffett

...Only time will tell if I am right or I am wrong
Only time will tell is there a message in this song
Will it ever make sense will it ever ring a bell
Only time will tell...

AM

[kevin.b]

AM,
I consider that our arms and hands, feet and legs are antennas.
We may be the aliens.
If you stand back and view the world as a total impartial observer, it's the humans that are different.
Think of the world view from a trees perspective, what must they think of humans?
We declare ourselves superior, advanced, what?
How would you like to be planted in a garden of a house made from all your parents arms and legs and bodies?
All chopped up and nailed together, with a little tree sitting in a chair made from the bones and skin of your mother , watching the TV?

Kevin

[natecull]

You mention "angular momemtum of spin". Are you implying that the object orbitting is likewise spinning on it's axis? Also you mention "precess" are you referrencing precession? If you are then from my limited understanding aren't you confusing an object orbitting versus one that is spinning as for example a spinning top?

For the purpose of talking about the total amount of angular momentum in a system, I'm not really distinguishing at all between orbit and spin; they're both just types of rotation as I understand it. And both orbits and spins precess, I believe.

How does one have a spherical orbit? A sphere is globular and an orbit would be circular or elipsoid but spherical I just don't see. Could you explain this also?

Well, you can't really, is my point, least not in three dimensions. So the fact that, eg, gravity 'bends spacetime' equally in all directions and produces an inwards pseudoforce, while rotation tends to 'bend spacetime' only in one plane at a time, and produces an outwards pseudoforce... that was what made me wonder if a '4D rotation', if such a thing existed, would be at all similar to the 'curvature of spacetime cause by gravity' under relativity. Or not..

Here is what you said originally:

2) You can only spin or orbit in a two-dimensional plane. Centripetal/centrifugal force is therefore a two-dimensional force. Gravity, however, is three-dimensional. It's like orbiting at the same speed in an infinite number of directions at once - or at least in all three dimensions. And not in a tumble, but a smooth sort of spherical orbit. What's up with that?.

I asked how you can have a spherical orbit and to me, it appears you are back pedalling for some reason

Blarg. I'm not 'backpedalling', I'm just tossing ideas around. Yes, as I said, you can't generally have a spherical orbit (or spin, at this point I'm not distinguishing between them; one system's orbit is the next outermost system's spin) in three dimensions, as I understand it. (Though you could maybe apply precession to an orbit and get a sort of vaguely fuzzily-spherical trajectory or 'orbital shell', which might be similar).

What I'm really talking about when I say 'spherical orbit' is something that doesn't appear to exist in our 3D world, which was sort of initially my point: why does gravity *not* seem to act like 'artificial gravity' due to rotation, since Einstein considered gravity to be the same thing as acceleration? And then wondering if any physical arrangement of forces can generate anything like the effect of gravity that we see.

and then you also mention "psuedoforce". Are you implying that centripetal action is a psuedoforce?

I dunno; centripetal acceleration is usually considered the 'real' force in a centripetal/centrifugal system, but if it's the result of gravity, and gravity itself is somehow related to curvature, then who knows, maybe? I haven't thought that far down the stack of turtles.

How is that related to gravity and I have been on this forum for over a year and I have read Paul's book and no where have I seen a reference that Dr. Brown ever referred to gravity as inertia.

It's Einstein who believed they are the same. Some of the alternative-gravity materials I've read seem to remain reasonably approving of Relativity's gravity-inertia link, while also asserting a surprising gravity-spin link.

Look, this stuff is complicated, and if it's not clear, it's because I don't understand it myself.