# Gravitational Expulsion Of Plasma - Antigravity?

#### GatheringKnowledge

The 'curvature' described by GR is intrinsic curvature.

The curvature described by the rubber sheet is extrinsic curvature and does not follow the GR eqautions

Thanks! Problem is, that instead of helping, you just proved, that science doesn't have any way to visualise spacetime curvature. Of course, that rubber sheet is not the best representation of spacetime, as it has it's own properties, like resistance or thickness of the fabric. Not to mention, that in microgravity rubber sheet analogy won't work at all...

But it looks, that it's a lucky day for science, as just by coincidence, I might have just the right solution. I find it guite funny, that I'm the first one, who figured out, that another way to visualise spacetime curvature of a solid object, is to use the surface tension of a liquid.

Some time ago I've sent a question on the "ask a physicist" site about the cheerios effect, as a way to visualize gravity - and the answer was, that cheerios effect includes expulsive force, while according to science, gravity is causing only the attraction od matter. However, thanks to that publication about the expulsion of plasma, this model of gravity seems to be proper...

#### studiot

I see what you say, but I just don't agree with it.
I , and apparantly others, have explained my basis for disagreement.

On the other hand you just ignore what I have said, whether you agree or disagree.

That exchange is no basis for a discussion so there is no point my continuing.

#### neila9876

1. This thread is an interesting topic.
2. Yes, mondern physics can not explain this phenomenon.
3. People can say that "gravitational expulsion of a boat", but it can't surely be "antigravity".
4. When "science" (exactly "the authentic hole") can not explain something, people often doubt if it's that kind of thing tricking...

#### Attachments

• 32.1 KB Views: 0

#### GatheringKnowledge

I see what you say, but I just don't agree with it.
I , and apparantly others, have explained my basis for disagreement.

On the other hand you just ignore what I have said, whether you agree or disagree.

That exchange is no basis for a discussion so there is no point my continuing.
I absolutely respect your right to disagree - without disagreements, there wouldn't be nothing to discuss. Sadly, in a discussion about science, we should make sure, that our arguments and counter-arguments can be supported by something, what is valuable in science. In this particular discussion, my arguments are supported by an actual scientific publication, which seems to be fully consistent with observed results of practical experiments. Of course, you have full right to disagree with the result of an experiments, even if it is approved by science - but until you won't counter any of my statements with something, what is approved by science and seems to contradict my claims - your disagreement will have no weight for me. On the other hand, it's good to know, that I'm speaking with someone, who doesn't have any problems with rejecting those parts of modern science, which he doesn't like as much, as other parts.

Sorry for questioning your superiority, but for now you seem to be the only one here, with enough self-confidence, to make a final judgement. I'm sure, that someone, who always KNOW the right answer, can't have any doubts, that his own opinion is obviously the most valid one. Call me stupid, but I still prefer to put my trust in opinions, presented by people, who have proper credentials, to speak about given subject. I might be wrong, but I don't think than some unknown guy from an internet forum has enough credibility, to call a professional scientific research, as "rubbish" and consider such opinion as a definitive and absolute truth... If you really know so much about this subject, that just like this, you can deny the credibility of 2 professional physicists, who performed all the necessary experiments, to be sure, that their results can be published in a scientific journal - then why didn't you give me any answer, when I asked you about possible behavior of the plasma ball in microwave, if we would use somekind of a flame, that could still burn, even with a vacuum in the owen's inside? Will the ball of plasma remain a ball in a vacuum, or it will be dispersed over the entire volume of a vacuum? Why won't you prove me, how much right you always are, by knowing the right answer to my question?

Sorry, but I have to inform you, that from all the ppl on this forum, who I spoke with until now, you're on the very last place of my private list when it comes to authority & credibility of opinion. Don't take it personally, but when I saw for the first time your proposition of lectures in the thread about magnetosphere, I thought that you have to be somekind of a bot... Seriously... How can it be, that I can appreciate opinions of people like benit 13, Woody or neila9876, - even if I disagree with them? Well, it's because their arguments are based on science, while your opinions seem to be based mostly on a subjective and emotional impression. How it comes, that people, who seem to know this subject better from you, prefer to avoid making any definitive statements, until they won't see, what are the cards, that are being played in this game? What makes you think, that you can speak freely in the name of people, who are obviously smarter than you? What if it turns out, that in this case, I'm the one, who is right and just in couple years, all physicists, who publically called my ideas, as rubbish, will be considered as a living symbols of shame? Didn't you think about asking other people, if they rally agree with each of your claims?

Last edited:

#### GatheringKnowledge

1. This thread is an interesting topic.
2. Yes, mondern physics can not explain this phenomenon.
3. People can say that "gravitational expulsion of a boat", but it can't surely be "antigravity".
4. When "science" (exactly "the authentic hole") can not explain something, people often doubt if it's that kind of thing tricking...
1. Thanks a lot! I appreciate every opinion, which based on facts instead and not on subjective impressions.

2. True

3. There's an important difference between the expulsion of plasma and buoyancy of a boat - without a medium with proper density, mass of floating objects will gain a "normal" weight in a gravitational field, while mass of plasma will gain "negative weight" even in a "vacuum"

4. I think, that the main problem is, that scientists don't like to think about the possibility of being wrong - for example, everyone accepts the existence of dark matter and no one won't ask: "but what if it doesn't exist...?"

#### GatheringKnowledge

I'm wondering about the results of a simple experiment. Most most of you know probably about the experiment, which shows if it's possible to change the weight of a container, using the lift of a drone, that is placed inside the container.

In this particular case, the overall weight of container doesn't change, since the "missing" mass of a hovering drone is equalized with the force of downward oriented thrust - so in the end, weight of container doesn't change, no matter if the drone is hovering inside, or if it is standing still at the bottom... Makes sense...

But what, if instead of a drone, we would use some helium-filled baloon(s), as the source of upward lift inside a container? What will happen with the total weight of that container, if we'll put inside couple helium-filled baloons?

Does it matter, what is the density of medium outside of that container? If on the surface of Earth, weight of container would be decreased by the helium baloons, then what would happen with that weight, if there wouldn't be no atmosphere on Earth (with a "normal" density of air inside the container)?

To be honest - I don't know the right answer to any of the questions above - as for now I can only guess, but first, I would like to hear your opinions...

Last edited:

#### benit13

In this particular case, the overall weight of container doesn't change, since the "missing" mass of a hovering drone is equalized with the force of downward oriented thrust - so in the end, weight of container doesn't change, no matter if the drone is hovering inside, or if it is standing still at the bottom... Makes sense...
Yep, assuming that the force caused by moving air pushing down onto the scales is negligible.

But what, if instead of a drone, we would use some helium-filled baloon(s), as the source of upward lift inside a container? What will happen with the total weight of that container, if we'll put inside couple helium-filled baloons?
Because the density of the balloon + helium system (which we will just call the balloon!) is lower than the surrounding fluid., there will be a buoyancy force upwards that exceeds the weight of the balloon. The magnitude of this resultant force is equal to the difference of the buoyancy force and balloon's weight. Since this is non-zero, the balloon will accelerate upwards due to Newton's second law until it hits the ceiling of the box. Then the balloon's buoyancy force will push up on the ceiling of the box (a collision problem). Then what happens depends on the weight of the box relative to the resultant force of the balloon (equal to the buoyancy force - weight of the balloon). Any of the following could happen:

1. If the weight of the box exceeds the resultant force, it will bestow an impulse to the balloon and it will 'bounce'. An instantaneous change in the scales reading can be measured during the bounce. This motion problem will be the same as a bouncing ball, but in the upwards direction instead of the downwards direction. After some time, the balloon will eventually be at rest on the ceiling of the box, just like a ball stops bouncing. Then the measured weight of the box will be the weight of the box minus the the difference between the buoyancy force and weight of the balloon.
2. If the weight of the box is equal to the resultant force, no bouncing will occur, then the balloon will immediate be stop at the surface of the box. The measured weight of the box will be zero.
3. If the weight of the box is less than the resultant force, the balloon will push the box off the scales and into the air. The motion of the box and balloon can be calculated by considering a standard two-body collision problem (with conservation of momentum)
4. If the weight of the box is much, much less than the buoyancy force, the balloon will carry the box with it.

With some assumptions, it's possible to calculate this situation just using Newton's laws.

Does it matter, what is the density of medium outside of that container?
Yes. It's because the buoyancy force is equal to the weight of the displaced fluid. For a fixed volume of fluid displaced, a higher density fluid will mean an increased weight of displaced fluid and therefore an increased buoyancy force.

If on the surface of Earth, weight of container would be decreased by the helium baloons, then what would happen with that weight, if there wouldn't be no atmosphere on Earth (with a "normal" density of air inside the container)?
If there was no atmosphere, the balloon would not rise at all because the buoyancy force would be zero. It will be zero because no fluid is displaced by the object. Another way of thinking about it is that there is no fluid to push on the object.

If you're curious, the real origin of buoyancy is the fact that fluids are subject to gravity. Packets of fluids are constantly trying to push past each other to get to the Earth's surface, but the rest of the fluid (gas or liquid) will resist it because of pressure. The consequence of this is a distribution. For liquids, which can be considered incompressible, all of the fluid will reach the lowest state possible and fill any containers that are available (oceans, lakes, puddles, boxes, buckets, etc.). For gases, they are both compressible and generally lower density, so the distribution is much greater (giving rise to atmosphere). Additional influences, such as thermal influences or other substances, affect the distribution as well, giving rise to stratified layers with different properties.

Objects fully immersed in a fluid will experience the fluid constant pushing onto the surfaces of the object; a pressure. Because of gravity, the pressure pushing down on the top of an object is different to the pressure pushing up at the bottom of the object, which results in a net pressure difference. Another name for a pressure difference, acting on a surface area, is a force. This is the buoyancy force.

If there is no gravity (e.g. a meteor travelling through a dust cloud), no buoyancy occurs because the pressure is equal on all sides and the object will only experience fluid resistance as it moves through the fluid.
If there is no fluid (e.g. a satellite in a high Earth orbit), there is zero or negligible pressure, so there is no buoyancy or fluid resistance.

Last edited:
studiot

#### GatheringKnowledge

For those, who think that the modern day theories of physics, give us some actual understanding of the observable Universe: I can bet, that if I would ask: "what was in yopur opinion, the greatest achievement of theoretical physics?", 90% of physicists would say, that without a doubt, it's the General Relativity, while rest would say, that it's Special Relativity. And I have good news for the majority, which choosed the GRT: those, who choosed SRT are much deeper in the s***hole. It doesn't mean however, that GRT pushed you into a hole, which is completely s***less. Allow me to show you, how big is the hole in our understanding of gravity, with couple practical examples of gravity-driven processes...

I'm sure, that those of you, who keep a complete trust in the authority of people, who create and shape the mainstream science, will now tell me, that this is clearly just some utter BS, as there's nothing in those movies, what could be even remotely related to gravity. Well, it might surprise some of you, but in fact modern science uses exactly the same laws, to describe gravitational fields of neutron stars - all, what differs those two scenarios (water sphere & netron star), is the scale and the ratio of mass/energy distribution to the object's volume. There's absolutely nothing about my claims, what wouldn't be consistent with mainstream science - and yet, I'm pretty sure, that some of you assumed without a second, thought, that my claims clearly have to be a complete BS...

It's pretty weird, but it seems that I'm the first one, who noticed, that while science keeps separating those two aspects of gravity into 2 independent models, there's nothing what wouldn't allow me to add 2 to 2 and get 4 in result. And once again, I will have to be the one, who points out something, what couldn't be more obvious - and still most of physicists won't be able to agree with the most obvious answer, until it won't be trendy enough, in the scientific society.

And now I need to ask all those, who still know how to use their personal brains: Did you ever try to think, about some of the things, that are beiing presented, as scientific facts? Don't you have any issues, with adding imaginary numbers to your equations, in order to get a number, which is consistent with observed process? Why isn't there anyone, who would think about fixing the theory, instead making changes in observable reality? What if all what you need, to explain the galaxy rotation curve, is to stop treating all objects with symmetrical shapes, like dimensionless points of concentrated mass... Why no one never tried, to see what will you get from the calculations, if you won't include the Shell Theorem, while describing gravitational fields of objects with symmetrical geometries? Someone told you, that there's no difference between the gravity of a beach ball and gravity of a lead marble, as long as both have the same mass and maintain symmetry - and just like this, you took it, as granted without a single thought about the implications...?

Why, just like before, it was me, who had to ask the most obvious question and look for the most obvious answer? I spent as much, as 5 minutes, to make my own conclusions as for the density of a source-object in regard to it's own gravitational field. While mainstream science tells us, that size of an object doesn't affect it's external spacetime curvature, it seems to me quite obvious, that distribution of matter DOES matter, no matter if it's an empty spherical shell, or if it's a cosmic anvil from the forge of gods. If mass = energy, and motion = energy, then it DOES matter, if I will get hit by a 10g bullet, or by a 10g styrofoam ball - and velocity doesn't matter too much in this case. It didn't took me long, to figure out, how to disprove the idea behind the shell theorem through both: thought and practical experiments. This is, what I came up with, to make a simple representation of the relation between volume of a source-object and it's gravitational field:
Mainstream science tells us that size of sphere won't affect the exterior curvature

And this is, how I see the possible relation: gravity well will be wider and more shallow, for a source-object with bigger radius, while for a compact object, gravity well will have a smaller radius but it's slopes will be much steeper...

All I did, was to include the difference between the energy, which is concentrated in a point-like source and energy, which is dispersed in a larger volume. 100g of water vapor =/= 100g of granite - how can you just like that, treat both like dimensionless points? Am I the only one, who has some issues with the idea, of completely ignoring the size of a source-object, while describing it's gravitational field?

I admit, that I can't be sure, if it will completely solve the problem of galaxy rotation curves, but I'm sure, that it will help A LOT...

Last edited:

#### GatheringKnowledge

Yep, assuming that the force caused by moving air pushing down onto the scales is negligible.

Because the density of the balloon + helium system (which we will just call the balloon!) is lower than the surrounding fluid., there will be a buoyancy force upwards that exceeds the weight of the balloon. The magnitude of this resultant force is equal to the difference of the buoyancy force and balloon's weight. Since this is non-zero, the balloon will accelerate upwards due to Newton's second law until it hits the ceiling of the box. Then the balloon's buoyancy force will push up on the ceiling of the box (a collision problem). Then what happens depends on the weight of the box relative to the resultant force of the balloon (equal to the buoyancy force - weight of the balloon). Any of the following could happen:

1. If the weight of the box exceeds the resultant force, it will bestow an impulse to the balloon and it will 'bounce'. An instantaneous change in the scales reading can be measured during the bounce. This motion problem will be the same as a bouncing ball, but in the upwards direction instead of the downwards direction. After some time, the balloon will eventually be at rest on the ceiling of the box, just like a ball stops bouncing. Then the measured weight of the box will be the weight of the box minus the the difference between the buoyancy force and weight of the balloon.
2. If the weight of the box is equal to the resultant force, no bouncing will occur, then the balloon will immediate be stop at the surface of the box. The measured weight of the box will be zero.
3. If the weight of the box is less than the resultant force, the balloon will push the box off the scales and into the air. The motion of the box and balloon can be calculated by considering a standard two-body collision problem (with conservation of momentum)
4. If the weight of the box is much, much less than the buoyancy force, the balloon will carry the box with it.

With some assumptions, it's possible to calculate this situation just using Newton's laws.

Yes. It's because the buoyancy force is equal to the weight of the displaced fluid. For a fixed volume of fluid displaced, a higher density fluid will mean an increased weight of displaced fluid and therefore an increased buoyancy force.

If there was no atmosphere, the balloon would not rise at all because the buoyancy force would be zero. It will be zero because no fluid is displaced by the object. Another way of thinking about it is that there is no fluid to push on the object.

If you're curious, the real origin of buoyancy is the fact that fluids are subject to gravity. Packets of fluids are constantly trying to push past each other to get to the Earth's surface, but the rest of the fluid (gas or liquid) will resist it because of pressure. The consequence of this is a distribution. For liquids, which can be considered incompressible, all of the fluid will reach the lowest state possible and fill any containers that are available (oceans, lakes, puddles, boxes, buckets, etc.). For gases, they are both compressible and generally lower density, so the distribution is much greater (giving rise to atmosphere). Additional influences, such as thermal influences or other substances, affect the distribution as well, giving rise to stratified layers with different properties.

Objects fully immersed in a fluid will experience the fluid constant pushing onto the surfaces of the object; a pressure. Because of gravity, the pressure pushing down on the top of an object is different to the pressure pushing up at the bottom of the object, which results in a net pressure difference. Another name for a pressure difference, acting on a surface area, is a force. This is the buoyancy force.

If there is no gravity (e.g. a meteor travelling through a dust cloud), no buoyancy occurs because the pressure is equal on all sides and the object will only experience fluid resistance as it moves through the fluid.
If there is no fluid (e.g. a satellite in a high Earth orbit), there is zero or negligible pressure, so there is no buoyancy or fluid resistance.
THANKS A LOT! This is exactly, what I think, would most likely happen...

I completely agree with everything, except this fragment
If there was no atmosphere, the balloon would not rise at all because the buoyancy force would be zero. It will be zero because no fluid is displaced by the object. Another way of thinking about it is that there is no fluid to push on the object.
Maybe I didn't explain it properly (english is not my native language), but I was thinking about such situation:
Will there be a decrease of weight because of baloons, that are floating in a gas, which is sealed inside a container, despite the lack of atosphere...?

#### benit13

For those, who think that the modern day theories of physics, give us some actual understanding of the observable Universe;
This is the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. Do you actually believe this? You probably type your forum posts with technology that wouldn't exist without the invention of modern physics theorems.

I can bet, that if I would ask: "what was in yopur opinion, the greatest achievement of theoretical physics?", 90% of physicists would say, that without a doubt, it's the General Relativity, while rest would say, that it's Special Relativity. And I have good news for the majority, which choosed the GRT: those, who choosed SRT are much deeper in the s***hole. It doesn't mean however, that GRT pushed you into a hole, which is completely s***less.
I don't understand GR in any great detail, but from my own work, it seems SR is just a particular aspect of GR. Whereas GR investigates gravity and motion, SR only looks at motion, but the mathematics of SR is much simpler to express.

Allow me to show you, how big is the hole in our understanding of gravity, with couple practical examples of gravity-driven processes...

I'm sure, that those of you, who keep a complete trust in the authority of people, who create and shape the mainstream science, will now tell me, that this is clearly just some utter BS, as there's nothing in those movies, what could be even remotely related to gravity.
Everyone trusts the authority of others because it is impossible for a single individual to become an expert in everything. When you get a plumber round to your house, do you want a trained plumber who knows what they are doing or some muppet off the street who's going to hit your pipes with a wrench? Think about it.

Well, it might surprise some of you, but in fact modern science uses exactly the same laws, to describe gravitational fields of neutron stars - all, what differs those two scenarios (water sphere & netron star), is the scale and the ratio of mass/energy distribution to the object's volume.
I don't think that would surprise anyone. Gravity is gravity, regardless of where.

There's absolutely nothing about my claims, what wouldn't be consistent with mainstream science - and yet, I'm pretty sure, that some of you assumed without a second, thought, that my claims clearly have to be a complete BS...
You keep talking about "mainstream science". So that's just science then? No one really cares who does it, it's the quality of the work. Typically, however, amateur physicists are not trained to conduct their studies properly and regularly do a crap job, which is why it's necessary to have the peer review process for journal paper submissions.

There's nothing about those bubble videos that screams "problems with gravity". It's just that the dynamics of the bubbles are dominated by fluid behaviour.

Is there any particular situation or phenomenon that you are trying to investigate? If so, it's much more fruitful for everyone here to just look at those phenomena head-on rather than just pontificating on the existing theories and how you don't like them or the people who worked on them. A bit like the buoyancy problem you posted earlier. We can be a lot more helpful then.

It's pretty weird, but it seems that I'm the first one, who noticed, that while science keeps separating those two aspects of gravity into 2 independent models, there's nothing what wouldn't allow me to add 2 to 2 and get 4 in result.
What do you mean? Who's separating gravity into two independent models?

You can model gravity in whatever way you choose, but if you actually want to use a good model (rather than some crappy one), then the best models of gravity are Newtonian gravity (because it's simple) and GR (because it's accurate). SR doesn't say anything about gravity, but provides a framework to understand the observable motion of objects travelling very fast. You can try to model it some other way, if you want, but is that a good decision to make to create a high quality theory? I doubt it.

You can make doubts about GR or Newtonian gravity if you like (casting doubt is cheap), but be aware that it also wastes a lot of people's time. It's well documented what the advantages and disadvantages of each gravity model are, so if you want us to actually help you out, then I would recommend following the scientific method and choose a particular phenomenon to investigate, acquire and read journal articles, perhaps try some mathematical modelling of your own, etc.

And once again, I will have to be the one, who points out something, what couldn't be more obvious - and still most of physicists won't be able to agree with the most obvious answer, until it won't be trendy enough, in the scientific society.
Oh please, spare us the drama. Whenever someone whinges on this forum about "waaaah, mainstream science is wrong but I'm right", it's almost always the case that the OP is just incorrect or misunderstands something. Speak only for myself, I often find that it's thankless work to reply on this forum, but I respond anyway because I'm interested in helping people learn physics and developing their research capabilities.

It's actually fine to be incorrect about things; it's the learning experience. You try to figure something out, you make a hypothesis, you test the hypothesis and if it fails you discard it. It's the scientific method. Most of the time amateur physicists have issues because it's a massive amount of work to read the existing literature, understand it, study it and develop from it. It's a massive time and money investment and to do it effectively and efficiently requires training. Many, many people with their pet theories simply don't put this work in and then they get surprised when trained scientists point out all of their problems. Unfortunately, it also takes a lot of time and effort to properly peer review other's work and someone shouldn't begrudge someone else for denying their time to address someone's pet theory. Another problem is that those who do make a massive time investment on a pet theory get very much attached to it and then never want to discard it, even in the face of clear, disproving evidence. (Most) professional scientists don't suffer from these problems because they are supervised by an experienced researcher and can guide them through the research process. It's not nailed down, but there's a lot of techniques, discipline and processes that can be conducted that make any scientific research feasible and high quality.

So-called "mainstream science" is just the product of the work of many career scientists. If you think it's wrong, then fine, do some high quality work and publish. No one's stopping you. If it passes peer review, then that's even better.

And now I need to ask all those, who still know how to use their personal brains: Did you ever try to think, about some of the things, that are beiing presented, as scientific facts?
Of course...

Don't you have any issues, with adding imaginary numbers to your equations, in order to get a number, which is consistent with observed process?
Yes, of course. In particular, there are examples in nuclear physics where I think use of complex numbers are is a problem. However, we also need to keep in mind that imaginary numbers are just a mathematical abstraction that allows for expressive power and that ultimately It's the results of those theories which are compared with observations, not the functions themselves. If a theory without complex numbers comes along that replicates the same observations, we can use Occam's razor to discard the theory that uses complex numbers, but until that time we have to work with what we have which works best.

Why isn't there anyone, who would think about fixing the theory, instead making changes in observable reality?
What are you talking about? The job of a scientist is to investigate natural phenomena and try and invent or change existing theories to match observations.

What if all what you need, to explain the galaxy rotation curve, is to stop treating all objects with symmetrical shapes, like dimensionless points of concentrated mass...
I had colleagues at Keele University that would model galaxy dynamics by considering them as distributed-mass systems. It doesn't solve the dark matter problem, but it does allow for some interesting models of galaxy dynamics, like what happens during galaxy collisions or internal structure.

Why no one never tried, to see what will you get from the calculations, if you won't include the Shell Theorem, while describing gravitational fields of objects with symmetrical geometries?
There's plenty of people working on the dark matter problem. If you can't find anything on mass distributions and the shell theorem, then it could be:

1. You haven't found the journal papers yet;
2. There's nothing to find

I suspect that in this case it's the second option because there's no way that the shape of an object of size ~$$\displaystyle 10^{10}$$ m has an impact on it's orbital motion due to an object over $$\displaystyle 10^{20}$$ scales.

The shell theorem is something that is taught in most galaxy dynamics courses, so you might find the details you're looking for in a standard text, like Binney and Tremaine.

Also, have you read any of the MOND papers (e.g. TEVES models)? There's plenty of hypotheses floating around that model gravity in a way that's neither Newtonian nor GR.

Last edited: