Gravity is caused by heat in a vacuum

[ME]

A continuation from this place: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 428#149428

Gravity is caused by heat in a vacuum.
You can levitate by storing heat in a vacuum but you're only being propelled against Earth's gravity by creating your own gravitation.
You are assuming that you can't create gravity this way because it has never been observed by you.
Instead you assume what you do observe is all that there is and that because you see large masses have gravity that it's because of the mass itself.
But actually other things can happen within the mass such as material behavior or heat or unusual momentum.
It is actually heat though that I think causes gravity when stored in a vacuum.

The energy from gravity comes from the stored energy on the Earth that it has received from the sun and other chemical reactions.
The sun is not a fusion bomb, it's a potentially low oxygen chemical reaction that is throwing out radiation (not heat energy) and it's likely being fed a stream of fuel that is attracted to the gravitational pull of the sun by the fuel being cold and not storing heat.

A stream of cool fuel likely ends up on the sun and burns for a long period of time in a chemical reaction that would not be very common on Earth.
I believe that is why Mercury's orbit is off by just a little because it's being shoved around by loose fuel that has not yet fallen into the sun. You should not assume something that could be dangerous is safe until you know for absolute certainty that it is safe.
This is a bigger deal than a new drug. It's a bigger deal than a new car. It's a bigger deal than a new type of projector for video or something.

The research and development that should go into actually taking gravity from the Earth should be very complete before it's used.
Say for example AB Hammer finds over unity, the mass use of it should be halted for decades or even a millennium and AB Hammer should accept a consolation prize, so that we know that using such a device does not have unintended consequences on its large scale use by many people.

I mean, don't be goated into thinking it's necessary because of greed or environmental benefits. Every new product can be dangerous, so can't you see the magnitude of how much harm it could do if it were actually dangerous?

[ME]

A possible related studie:

Is the Sun's Warmth Gravitationally Attractive?

Summary:

Experiments show that the gravitational mass of a test mass will increase when heat conducts upwards through it.
A ~489 gm copper hemisphere was placed above a 1000 W heat element and below and two ice-filled copper containers.
After 400 seconds of heating, the gravitational mass of the hemisphere had increased by 9.6 % or 47gm.

If the sun's warmth decreases earth's dayside surface gravity by as little as 0.08 %, the produced pressure imbalance at its center will be enough to account for its centripetal acceleration towards the sun.

This calculation suggests that bound systems such as stars, planets, galaxies and clusters have residing in them powerful "threedimensional lever" that can be activated by the slight warmth of a outside source of heat.
Since with all these objects heat conducts from their centers outwards, an experimentally backed means becomes available to explain why they are bound that does not depend on the putative dark matter or the mysterious attractive power of mass.

Observations indicate that the cosmic star formation rate declines at z ˜ 1 . They also indicate that at zt=0.61-0.21+3.68(1s) that cosmic acceleration commences.
If the former causes the latter, an experimentally backed way becomes available to account for cosmic acceleration that does not involve vast amounts of energy coming out of the vacuum.

source: http://vixra.org/abs/0907.0018

[Not_Joe_Mamma_Lindgard]

you tell em, honey.

[agor95]

@ME

Thank you for this information.

It has contributed to answering the question on my mind.

[John doe]

What facts or evidence is there to support this hypothesis?

[ME]

If you ask me: none.
I just thought it deserved its own topic.
Perhaps it sparks an idea somewhere.

[preoccupied]

You should have been able to learn about this in the early 90's when I did. Stop acting like things are new to you. Just because I can't source a reference right now doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I was hit on the head not you. Stop acting like you're the impaired.

[ME]

Perhaps you misunderstand my intentions here:

I thought your message was drowning in the wrong topic.
You have at least some partial information, perhaps you could recreate the rest. A proven way to improve and repair your 'noodle' is to keep it busy.
Thus: name some hint and someone tries to find the source for you or adds something to the info. I thought that was the original intended reason for this discussion board: and here it is.
In case that's not happening, the current information still has it's own space.

I have no idea where your idea originated, must have missed it in the 90's.
And I don't necessarily have to agree with such idea to find it interesting in some way; perhaps I'll learn something else.

First I thought you talked about the Casimir effect or some Aether-theory (there are plenty variants).
I found this match which was close: Le Sage's theory of gravitation: a kinetic theory of gravity originally proposed by Nicolas Fatio de Duillier in 1690 and later by Georges-Louis Le Sage in 1748.
I thought the earlier article matched your description better.

You're welcome.

[agor95]

@ME

Thank you for your clarification.

I have been playing with the conjecture that gravity a phenomena of dynamic electro' and magnetic interactions.

Merry Christmas `