# General Relativity Proves HV Lifters' Create Significant Space-Time Curvature

Discussion in 'Alien Hub' started by Dejan Corovic, Mar 11, 2020.

Messages:
3,571
Actually I'm speaking about some sort of technology that could alter the magnetosphere of a planet,
It's something I've been speculating for a while now, I surmise some sort of technology must be possible to allow a planet like mars to possess an artificial magnetosphere. But There are spacetime issues that would clearly occur if such technology were possible.

My assumption is, Your idea could theoretically achieve this on a massive scale.

Consider, Electrically charged antenna placed on the surface of the object. This could possibly generate an artificial magnetosphere. I'm on a different page, I'm working on a way to contain an atmosphere on Mars, sorry to interrupt,

Last edited: Mar 22, 2020
2. ### spacecase0earth human

Messages:
909
as I have said many times,
make the math easier.
we know what space and time are as separate things.
don't bind them in some unexplainable way...
model it all at a changeable time field
then the math goes from thing that a super computer needs to figure out to something that every school kid clearly sees

and yes, go look at gravity numbers,
not the ones calibrated by standard weights,
but go look at the raw data of force on a mass to the core of the earth,
it changes all the time (at least if you are looking accurately enough)

• Like x 2
• Agree x 1
3. ### Dejan CorovicNoble

Messages:
678
I am no expert, so this is just my philosophical musing, but space and time are the same thing.

Lets say you want to know the time. Absolutely every way that tells you the time actually tells you where in space you are. For example, a wrist watch has a dial with two hands that move along and tell you the time. But the dial itself is nothing but a line bent into a circle and being a line (or even a circle, if you insist) thus an spatial element. So unavoidably, when using a wrist watch you tell the time by a spatial position of hands. Obviously, spatial position of hands is measurement of space not the time.

Exactly the same with atomic clocks. One counts number of oscillations of, lets say cesium atoms, and the number of oscillations is a position of cesium atom in space, not in a time.

Or lets say a day of the year. We simply measure a distance Earth traveled from the Winter equinox (or was it solistice ) and than you say which month, week and day you are at.

In each one of the above examples time appears as a simple integral of space, not as entity in it's own right. And than on the top of it, GR is completely right when it introduces gravity as a measurement of how fast or slow space-time flows.

So space and time are not separate things, but one and the same thing. Actually neither time nor space can exist without one another. Actually, it should be an everyday colloquial thing to ask "What is a space-time now?" than just "What is the time?"

• Awesome x 1

Messages:
3,571
This is awesome guys, I would have replied to all of this earlier, But for some reason, I never get notifications anymore. I had no idea this thread had replies, It makes it seem like I'm ignoring people, But I had no idea anyone had replied, I'm sorry

Or, It could be one of those times, When I had a lot of notifications and somehow missed this. Either way, This is a very nice thread, And I'm sorry I'm late to reply.

5. ### spacecase0earth human

Messages:
909
they are not the same.
but they are close.

imagine the flow of time as a changeable variable.
in space time runs faster than time runs on earth.
gravity is going to be the effect of time not running the same speed from one place to another.
it is that change rate in the flow of time that causes what we see as gravity.
matter spends more "time" on the side where time is flowing slower...
so it ends up moving to the slower time field.

at first look this idea may seem to be just like the space-time bending that most people thing is going on only from another point of view.
but what I am saying makes sense when you go look at the dense star clusters in space, now you see how they can be there and not collapse and form a black hole as they should with the space-time bending.

6. ### Dejan CorovicNoble

Messages:
678
OK, if space and time are not one and the same, than give one single example where time is measured without a reference to space. Just one single example would be enough. Good luck and feel free to invite @Thomas R. Morrison to help you

• Awesome x 1
7. ### spacecase0earth human

Messages:
909
I think there is a logic flaw in there.
let us take someone that has figured out that magnetism is made of electricity,
it is right there in the math...
so now they want to get rid of magnetism and call it all electricity...
they are separate things even if one causes the other.
would be like calling everything on paper a straight line even though you are looking at a circle.
if you want to set your definitions that way, then I guess ok...
it is just not that helpful when trying to figure out complex topics.

• Like x 1

Messages:
1,029
Er..."static electricity" is static charge, and "magnetism" is just moving charge. When you apply special relativity to electric charge you get magnetism - they're the exact same thing that only appear differently in different reference frames.

Similarly, spacetime is a single unified 4D manifold. The notion that space is somehow independent of time was abolished over a century ago.

It's true that the rate of time is different within a gravitational field, but it's also true that spatial scale changes within a gravitational field as well, because they're unified. The deflection of starlight around a gravitating body for example proves that space and time are both equally modulated by the presence of mass-energy-stress, because they're two aspects of one thing: spacetime.

• Like x 1
• Thanks x 1
9. ### Dejan CorovicNoble

Messages:
678
I am just thinking loudly. Same as "magnetism" is moving "static charge", than "inertial mass" is moving "mass"? Thus, we have static quantities, but when they are moving, or should we say changing through the time, we get "magnetism" or "inertial mass". And that's why the equations for magnetism are so similar to equations for inertia.

I am just guessing, but from the above, a moving mass would create a doughnut/toroidal shaped field similar to magnetic field? Is that right?

• Like x 1

Messages:
1,029
I'm a little lost regarding your analogy between magnetism and inertial mass (the first being a vector field and the latter being a scalar quantity).

The correct analogy is between "electric charge" and "mass charge," because in the weak field limit the equations take the exact same form (except the sign of the interaction is flipped). So, just as a rotating electrical charge is seen to have a magnetic field aligned with the axis of rotation, a rotating mass charge is seen to have a gravitomagnetic field aligned with the axis of rotation: Gravitoelectromagnetism - Wikipedia

There are some very interesting features of this very real physical analogy, most notably in an area known as gravitoelectric induction, which I think you'd find to be quite fascinating and fruitful to study.

I probably don't have to point this out, but this startling analogy between electricity and gravity means that there's an entire technology of gravitoelectomagnetism that we can only theoretically model today, but which will become an entirely new form of applied technology someday in the future.

• Like x 2
• Thanks x 1

Messages:
3,571
Keep in mind, Math or not, I say in fairness. This is a non founded kind of far-out theory. It's a fun thread, But the Op Subject literally scoffs at the empirical, I speak Friendly of this subject because you guys are my friends, it's that simple, but little of this is empirically proven, So, Truly it's not actually science. I mean, I say that with a heart full of love though.

Do they say significant curvature in space-time? Define significant? some would call any property change significant, Significant to the point of practicality would be the kind of curvature in space-time that can be practically applied technologically. This, Isn't it. That's all I'm saying, It's a neat science thing Yes. It does nothing to solve antigravity.

Don't take these words as scorn, I only see the futility in this, There are a lot of brilliant minds here, Why waste them on what can never be anything more than a parlor trick? Wiser minds are better spent on other subjects.

The kind of energy required for the density of a given object to cause great curvature in space-time, Isn't possible with ordinary materials, They would fry and burst into flame before they produced a significant change in space-time, We need materials that we don't have to make this work, materials that not only don't exist, That may never exist.

Last edited: Mar 27, 2020
• Like x 1

Messages:
1,029
Honestly I share your sentiment - if David Waite's work is correct, then it should be a fairly simple matter to detect the gravitational field of an electric field by prevailing upon the unfathomable sensitivity of one of the existing LIGO facilities, at which time his prediction will either be proven correct and he'll win a Nobel Prize, or it will be proven incorrect.

But I do take exception to the last part of Shadowprophet's post; there may be ways to manifest gravitational effects without the need for neutronium-scale mass-energy densities. I'm looking into one hopeful possibility, and there are special circumstances where this also holds true for Jack Wisdom's "swimming in spacetime" model. There may be no readily obvious ways to produce significant gravitational effects with existing technology, but there may be clever ways to surmount this obstacle, and Dr. Wisdom's concept points to that class of solutions (which is only in its infancy, imo).

I should also mention that there is a peer-reviewed proposal for producing a very modest and yet detectable gravitational in the lab using a pair of very large superconductive magnets. Gravitational field experimentation in the lab is closer than we think.

• Awesome x 1
13. ### Dejan CorovicNoble

Messages:
678
Just for the record, I neither did scoff at empirical nor this theory was particularly outlandish. As I referenced in the post #5 of this thread, this same solution of GR equation for Electric and Magnetic field was produced back in 1947-48 by Papapetrou, A. (1948) and Majumdar, S D (1947). There are references on Wikipedia.

This GR solution is not questioning GR, but confirming it. All it is saying is, when all the maths was done, like in the post #18, that one needs E-field of 114 GV to make HV lifters real. That's not outlandish, it's just not practically feasible and it does confirm that HV lifters are pushed by ion wind, not by GR effect. For AWG40 wire one needs voltage of around 40 MV. Maximum voltage ever achieved, as far as I know, was 12 MV, so this is 4 times more. Since GR was measured with accuracy of 4 decimal places, it's pretty sure that if one somehow produced voltage of 40 MV object would loose it's weight because of generated space-time curvature.

• Like x 1

Messages:
3,571
I would never call you out Scientifically, That is not my way, You are my friend. I apologize if you are offended. My own hubris is the enemy here. I only meant to say, I don't see this as a practical method of antigravity, I mean no offense to you, Ever brother.

• Like x 1

Messages:
1,029
A fourth of the requisite field is still plenty close enough - within an order of magnitude - to detect the predicted effect with a laser interferometer. If it's that easy to produce the first detectable technologically generated gravitational field on Earth, then why hasn't this been done yet?

I also have a huge problem regarding the directional acceleration field - it's one thing to produce a gravitational field, it's a whole other ball of wax to produce a propulsion field. How does he think that can happen without enormous negative stress-energy densities? Why doesn't this require negative mass? The energy of an electrical field is always positive, so it makes no sense to me that one could produce a device that accelerates in a preferred direction without the negative mass-stress-energy component, which electrical charge doesn't provide.

But I'd still be impressed if one could produce a detectable spacetime curvature in this manner. If it's so simple as producing a 12 MV charge on a thin wire, then I want to see it proven experimentally.

16. ### Dejan CorovicNoble

Messages:
678
Yeah, there is a bit of confusion here. He never suggested that this would produce propulsion field. What he said is that 114 GV/m would produce enough space-time curvature to produce acceleration equivalent to 1g. But in a sense that object would loose mass and will just sit there without moving. The way I understand this experiment, if object was sitting on a scale, than at E-field of 114 GV/m scale would just show weight of zero. There wold be no directional acceleration.

Messages:
1,029
Ok that doesn't make sense. An object can't lose mass if its gravitational field has increased; it would get heavier not lighter. The only way to counteract the gravitational acceleration imposed by the Earth is A.) if the object acquires a net negative mass or B.) if the object generates a vector gravitational field produced by the interaction of a positive gravitational field with a negative gravitational field (i.e., a propulsion field).

• Like x 1
18. ### Dejan CorovicNoble

Messages:
678
ok, so my interpretation was wrong. But 114 GV/m would than double the weight of the object. Is that right? That would still make a man made GR effect.