Re: Human gravity

Steve ( dev@icx.net )
Fri, 18 Sep 1998 14:57:33 -0400

Matthew,

I really appreciate your sence of humor!

I thought that this old set of posts, (with a few words added here andthere), on the:
newman-l@emachine.com
email list, might shed a little light on this, and several othersubjects.

More of my comments following, these:

To: Newman-l <newman-l@emachine.com>
Subject: Re: Does a magnetic field have weight?(in a gravity field)
References: <97081418454014624@emachine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 7798

Newman-l wrote:
>
> From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule)
> Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 15:40:29 -0600
> Subject: Does a magnetic field have weight?(in a gravity=20field)
>
> >BIG question here !
> >   Does anyone know if there has ever been any test toprove that a magnetic
> >field has weight ? What I mean is, energy has mass, or so I'veheard, the sun
> >sends so many tons of energy to the earth every day. We all knowmass has
> >energy stored in it. Einstein said we could think of matter asfrozen energy.
> >
> >   But what I wonder is, when a large magnetic fieldis around a coil, does
> >that field have any weight? It doesn't have mass in the usualway of
> >thinking, because it's in the form of energy. But I wonder ifeven though
> >it's in an energy state does it have any weight, no matter howsmall. For
> >that matter does it have mass?
> >Comments please,
> >Butch
>
> This seems an interesting question.
>
> It may be that our technology has not progressed to the pointwhere
> "sub-atomic" scales would be sensitive enough to detect"weight"
> differences in the order of magnitude of which you arespeaking.  Perhaps
> someone on the list might have updated information in thisrespect.
>
> I would think it an interesting experiment to take asolenoid/battery
> (unconnected) system and weigh it in toto on such a"sub-atomic" scale.
> Then repeat the above, but this time connect the solenoid &battery to
> generate a strong (electro)magnetic field and RE-WEIGH the(connected)
> system to determine if there is ANY difference in weight from thefirst
> test.  I would be curious about the results of such atest.
>

> Of course, by *crude* analogy, one might consider the=20following
> hypothetical thought experiment:
>
> Consider a water sprinkler, a 20 gallon container of water, and acomplete,
> integrated, self-contained, self-powered pump system.
>
> Place all of the above (non-operational) on a large scale.
>
> For present purposes, assume the above weighs 100 lbs.
>
> Then connect the system in toto and operate the water sprinkler withthe
> condition that as the water is shot in streams into the air, ALLSUCH
> STREAMS (and EVERY drop of water) is PRECISELY recycled into thecontainer,
> then pump, and then IMMEDIATELY recycled back into the watersprinkler.
> The net effect is that there is a CONTINUAL STREAM of water runningfrom
> out of the holes in the water sprinkler and looping immediately backinto
> the container.
>
> [Forget, for the moment, the rather difficult logistics of achievingthe above! ]
>
> What would be the weight differences between the two -- operationaland
> non-operational -- systems?
>
> Would the "operational" system be slightly less than 100lbs.?  Would the
> weight difference be in the "water" [atoms of H20]"balancing in the air"
> above the system?  And what about the continual "forwardpressure" of such
> "atoms" on one another as they "loop" throughthe air back into the 20
> gallon container?   How would this affect the over-all"measured weight" of
> the operational system?
>
> I can foresee some possible questions regarding "energyconsumption" of the
> pump system which could affect measurements. [For purposes of theabove
> thought experiment, I would ask that these considerations be setaside for
> the moment --- assume that this aspect of the system is=20TOTALLY
> self-contained.]
>
> The crux of my question is the aspect of the "water atoms"LOOPING through
> the air back into the container.  Would their"upward" trajectory be
> considered as "subtracting" from the total weight of thesystem -- while
> their "downward" trajectory be considered as"adding" to the total weight
> of the system..... or, would the fact that aCONTINUALLY-COUPLED-STREAM of
> such "water atoms" exerting pressure on one another asthey loop back into
> the water container affect (in this manner) the total weight of thesystem
> and thereby discount any "upward" or "downward"trajectory-related weight
> effects?
>
> Just questions.....> Evan
To Butch and Evan,

I would like to =91weigh-in=92, on the subject, of whether-or-not amagnetic
field has 'weight'; and, also give a little input to Evan's example
problem.

As I see it, (and I readily admit, that this may be bunk, but itseemeth
right to me): Much like the fact, that 'time' has no real meaningapart
from matter; 'weight' too, has little meaning apart from 'visible'mass.
So, I would speculate, that there would be no actual 'weight', untilthe
'energy', physically makes the transition to 'matter'. As to the'tons'
of energy coming from the sun, I would have to speculate there too,that
the person who wrote that, was talking about the solar wind, and hewas
just not making the subtle; (but really big) distinction between, energy,and energized matter, which is primarily what the solar wind is.

The simple answer to your question is 'probably', "No". If youweigh a
piece of steel, then magnetize it, then weigh it again, it willweigh
the same. So, No the magnetic field 'in-and-of-itself' weighsnothing.
If we are to believe what we are told about what makes up a=20magnetic
field, the little magnetic particles, (gyroscopic particles?)  arethere
to begin with; and, the 'magnetic field' is just the result ofgetting
all of these individual particles to line up. So, if you couldremove
all those particles, would the thing weigh the same? Would it evenstill
exist?

There are several other considerations to be applied, when attemptingto
'weigh' a device which is producing a magnetic field. Weight/gravity,is
a pretty slippery concept to try and tie down. This may be anotherone
of those things, where the very act of trying to observe something,
changes the very aspects, which you are trying to gauge. If you didthis
experiment 'in space', apart from the earth's gravitational field,in
simulated/centrifugal gravity, and far away from 'anything ferrous',you
'might' get a reading, which means something.

So much for that.

Evan, As to the water works problem, maybe it's just the way my=20mind
works; but, I see physical problems in the "testing method" forthis
problem too. Not knowing exactly how you had this problem configuredin
'your' mind; but, 'if' you envisioned having the water shot straightup,
or even at some angle, other than 90 degrees, then the force of the
water shooting 'up', would give false '+' weight readings, on a
mechanical scale. I am thinking of all the film footage I have=20seen,
where firemen are levitated by the force of the water coming fromtheir
water hose! Think of that force being applied back into the scale!
(If I had read Evan's post a bit more closely, I would not haveincluded
this paragraph. SB)

As far as what this experiment might actually reveal, givenan objective
method of testing, I haven't a clue!

Here is my own 'thing to ponder' along these same lines. I read inan
National Geographic article, about two years ago, that with new
'ultra-sensitive' testing equipment, Galileo=92s experiment with=20small
masses and large masses falling at the same velocity, has beenproven
false!

Not only that; but, the smaller mass actually falls faster!

That's right! In a vacuum, a feather actually falls 'faster', than=20a
lead weight! Not by much I will grant you; but, across enough distance,it could eventually be seen visually. My question then is; how does thisknowledge alter your view of the universe? I am still digesting thislittle bit of knowledge! It has certainly brought me to a place, where Iam considering things, which I never even thought about before!

In order for the larger mass to slow down, relative to the smaller mass,it must be encountering =91something=92, in the Eather. What is that=91something=92? Perhaps the very subspace grid, upon which God hung theuniverse?

Stephen Brummitt
___________________________________________________________________

I think, perhaps that is enough for now. I have more to add later on'gravity'; but, I am either going to have to dig around and find it, ortry to dredge it from my memory. Time is the factor I fight most withdaily! Who said time does not exist!

Stephen Brummitt
dev@icx.net
_________________________________________________________________
At 11:02 PM 9/18/98 +1200, you wrote:
>Just had a thought as to another way of redusing the apparent"weight" of an
>object.=A0 Be warned, this theory has more holes in itthan...than...ah...than
>something full of a lot of holes!!!
>
>(I don't think the excuse of being too tierd is going to pull me outof this
>one!)
>
>I am going to use the theory of "we are made up of lots ofdifferent
>frequencies of aether", and "aether is constantly flowinginto our bodies in
>a vortex motion to keep our bodies at a constant "weight."=A0Now I assume
>that the angle of decent of the little aether units is relativelyconstant
>depending on health and vitality.=A0 However, I was wondering if youwould get
>a weight difference by altering the angle of decent of the vortex,but still
>having the same number of aether units reaching the point of entry.=A0Would
>this act cause a difference in the forces against our bodies?
>
>Could it be that not only the intake of aether can alter the weightof a
>body, but also the angle of the decent of the vortex?...or
>speed?...momentum?...eh?
>
>Hey, what about altering the input frequencies to select units ofaether
>more infaze or out of faze of the earth's input frequencies so thatthey
>have more/less effect on the body?
>
>I think I need to get out more!
>
>Matthew "The man that sanity forgot" Redmond.
> -------------------------------------------------------------


=20