what are the major effects on body in zero gravity?

[Nokton]

Originally Posted by sunofsky

Nokton, infact I was waiting for your reply very eagerly, and finally I got it, I understand what you quote. do you think that the less surface tension on any object to compel that object gravityless ! or in consideration of gravity the surface tension is not playing any role to grab the material properly.

Sunil, hope all is well with you. To reply to you, Albert never understood
gravity, and as far as I know, no one does, as yet.
Your concept of surface tension is interesting.
Would refer you to the current issue of New Scientist, and the article
on a new thinking of Black Holes. Going out on a limb now old friend.
But your surface tension theory is much close to the 'event horizon'
theory, hope you understand where I am going with this Sunil.
My sincere regards to you and your family, thanx for your contact.
Take care,
Nokton

[sunofsky]

oh, thanks nokton for the reply. Quote: "Albert never understood gravity, and as far as I know, no one does, as yet".

I am very appreciate your thinking angles and vision towards a topic, interesting one.

Again thanks for your sincere wishes

sunil

[Nokton]

Sunil,
Please bear with me. Albert spent most of his life trying to
understand gravity. He tried to explain it in relativity theory because
he thought he saw a link. But never did satisfy his mind on this.
Sunil, you will understand that for every positive there is a negative,
matter, antimatter et al. Propose to you dear friend, anti gravity is a real
and genuine concept, the implementation and understanding of it, is another
matter, but I think it is to do with electrical field generation of a kind we not
understand yet, we will,
Nokton

[Buldric]

Originally Posted by Nokton

Sunil,
Please bear with me. Albert spent most of his life trying to
understand gravity. He tried to explain it in relativity theory because
he thought he saw a link. But never did satisfy his mind on this.
Sunil, you will understand that for every positive there is a negative,
matter, antimatter et al. Propose to you dear friend, anti gravity is a real
and genuine concept, the implementation and understanding of it, is another
matter, but I think it is to do with electrical field generation of a kind we not
understand yet, we will,
Nokton

The theory of electric field generation in relation to gravity is an interesting one, and yet, we know of objects which have no detectable fields whatsoever, yet exhert a force of gravity, (aka. our own natural satalite).
I understand that this force may be "unknown", or possibly "unexplored", and yet for all other concepts there has been some way to observe these effects in certain ways. We know that the spinning molten outer core of the earth creates a strong magnetic field which protects us from the radation of space. This field has always been observable through "magic needles", and "magic rocks", which we now call "compases", and "rare earth magnets". Of course it is possible that effects given from this field are here! And yet we just dont know what were looking at. But the moon, as far as we know, is fairly inert, and yet it still exherts a gravitational force, with an equivilent ratio to earths gravitational force in accordance with mass, which has a durastically different chemical makup, and moreso chemical states.

I am more drawn to the theory that it may be due to a form of surface tension, or event horizon. We know these things exist, and we know the power they hold. Issac Newton came up with a theory of mechanical bonds somewhat akin to this, saying that objects were held together by "suction". His example being that if you have 2 slates of marble, and place them next to eachother, they stick to eachother, and are hard to seperate, however, if you apply enough force at the fissure line, you can seperate the two slates. This akin to that every object on earth is made up of an infinite number of these infinately small "marble slates" which have a strong binding force, but if you hit them hard enough, the object will break apart. Though I am quite sure he had no knowledge of what an event horizon was, there are a few similarities to the newer theory.

I like to believe however, that I am never close minded, and in this, if you have any published journals, or anything of the such on your energy field theory, I would love to read them. Please leave any links you know of that may be viewed as credible.

Clear Skies,
Buldric.

[Nokton]

Originally Posted by Buldric

The theory of electric field generation in relation to gravity is an interesting one, and yet, we know of objects which have no detectable fields whatsoever, yet exhert a force of gravity, (aka. our own natural satalite).
I understand that this force may be "unknown", or possibly "unexplored", and yet for all other concepts there has been some way to observe these effects in certain ways. We know that the spinning molten outer core of the earth creates a strong magnetic field which protects us from the radation of space. This field has always been observable through "magic needles", and "magic rocks", which we now call "compases", and "rare earth magnets". Of course it is possible that effects given from this field are here! And yet we just dont know what were looking at. But the moon, as far as we know, is fairly inert, and yet it still exherts a gravitational force, with an equivilent ratio to earths gravitational force in accordance with mass, which has a durastically different chemical makup, and moreso chemical states.

I am more drawn to the theory that it may be due to a form of surface tension, or event horizon. We know these things exist, and we know the power they hold. Issac Newton came up with a theory of mechanical bonds somewhat akin to this, saying that objects were held together by "suction". His example being that if you have 2 slates of marble, and place them next to eachother, they stick to eachother, and are hard to seperate, however, if you apply enough force at the fissure line, you can seperate the two slates. This akin to that every object on earth is made up of an infinite number of these infinately small "marble slates" which have a strong binding force, but if you hit them hard enough, the object will break apart. Though I am quite sure he had no knowledge of what an event horizon was, there are a few similarities to the newer theory.

I like to believe however, that I am never close minded, and in this, if you have any published journals, or anything of the such on your energy field theory, I would love to read them. Please leave any links you know of that may be viewed as credible.

Clear Skies,
Buldric.

Hi Buldric,
Thankyou for your considered response, appreciate.
For what it's worth Buldric, watched a docu on anti-gravity.
A copper coil had a high current applied, it levitated.
Prefer your assessment as unexplored, and if I may correct you,
it is the earths inner core, composed mainly of iron, that is responsible
for the magnetic field we are blessed with.
Buldric, what defies our intellect and understanding now, is no barrier
to what we will understand. One has only to read recent history, and
know that. Our only difficulty is having an open mind, you have.
Am pleased.
Thankyou for your contact.
Nokton.

[Buldric]

Originally Posted by Nokton

Hi Buldric,
Thankyou for your considered response, appreciate.
For what it's worth Buldric, watched a docu on anti-gravity.
A copper coil had a high current applied, it levitated.
Prefer your assessment as unexplored, and if I may correct you,
it is the earths inner core, composed mainly of iron, that is responsible
for the magnetic field we are blessed with.
Buldric, what defies our intellect and understanding now, is no barrier
to what we will understand. One has only to read recent history, and
know that. Our only difficulty is having an open mind, you have.
Am pleased.
Thankyou for your contact.
Nokton.

I listed it as the molten outer core as the magnetic field is actually caused be the interaction between the two states of metals, the solid core alone would not produce a magnetic field. I listed it as the liquid outer core to contrast the fact that our moon does not have a liquid core enabeling this ability of having a magnetic sphere.

As for a coil producing antigravity, I dont beleive that to be true antigravity. Though it is true the object is "levitating" it is only doing so because of a constant applied force against gravity. It has not eliminated, or negated gravity in any way. It's the same as saying that holding an object in your hand is anti-gravity. Which is true to an extent, but only unto that extent. All it is is a different way of applying energy to an object to counteract the force of gravity. Whether it be held in your hand, balanced on a needle, held by a gyroscope, or levitated within an electro magnetic coil, it is still the same effect, and not yet true antigravity.

I'ts more than possible that there is a LOT more to this theory than magnetic levitation, as it may have only been a visual demonstration of some type. If you would be able to remember the company which produced the documentry, or the channel company which hosted it, it would be very much appreciated.

Clear Skies,
Buldric.