Spacestation-artificial-Moon experiment Chapt16.15 EM-gravity #1312New Physics #1515 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Alright, the experiment is simple. If Newtonian gravity or General
Relativity were true, then humanity is able to design a "moon for the
Spacestation that orbits the vessel". If EM-gravity is true, then the
Spacestation lacks the sufficient magnetic monopoles (mass) to have a
moon.

Now the "Spacestation moon" can be small like a bowling ball and given
a speed which either Newtonian gravity or General Relativity gives.
But according to EM-gravity all such moon attempts will fail.

--

Approximately 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google
newsgroups author search starting May 2012. They call it indexing; I
call it censor discrimination. Whatever the case, what is needed now
is for science newsgroups like sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.bio,
sci.geo.geology, sci.med, sci.paleontology, sci.astro,
sci.physics.electromag to
be hosted by a University the same as what
Drexel
University hosts sci.math as the Math Forum. Science needs to
be in education
not in the hands of corporations chasing after the
next dollar bill. Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent,
simple and fair author- archiving of AP sci.math posts since May 2012
as seen here :

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

International Space Station ISS is a perfect platform to test whether
Newtonian gravity and General Relativity are fake physics and to see
if gravity is EM-gravity. I was reading the purpose or mission of ISS
in Wikipedia and it says up-front that the mission is science
research. Well, what better science question than to find out if
General Relativity is a fake theory and that gravity is EM-gravity.

Some data of ISS:

4.5x10^5 kg mass

perigee 402km
apogee 424km

orbital decay 2km/month

average speed 7.7km/sec

So here again, we have to ask how can Newtonian gravity or General
Relativity ever be true when the Earth itself is moving in Space at
29km/sec and how can this ISS orbit Earth in 7.7km/sec.

So we see immediately the trouble with Newtonian gravity and General
Relativity is that they require one of the masses to be assumed at
rest, when in reality it is in motion. In EM-gravity, both can be in
motion, and what keeps the slower moving object gravitationally bound
to the faster moving object is the force of electricity and magnetism
of magnetic monopoles bending the Space around Earth and this bent
space is actually spinning on an axis and the spinning motion forces
the ISS to orbit at such a slow speed of 7.7km/sec.

Now what I would like for ISS to perform is when the next rendezvous
takes place that the rocket emit a bowling ball sized "moon, an
artificial moon" (what the mass is, I do not yet know). Once emitted
it should orbit the ISS according to Newtonian gravity or General
Relativity. According to those theories, a artificial moon is viable
for ISS. But according to EM-gravity, the mass has to be large enough
of the size of asteroid Ida in order to have a orbiting moon. Ida has
a mass of 10^16kg while ISS has a mere 4.5x10^5 kg. And that small
mass is insufficient to create a EM-gravity cell that spins on its
axis and drags along any moon.

Of course on Earth we cannot execute such an experiment but on the
ISS, it is ripe and prime for just this type of experiment.


--

Approximately 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google
newsgroups author search starting May 2012. They call it indexing; I
call it censor discrimination. Whatever the case, what is needed now
is for science newsgroups like sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.bio,
sci.geo.geology, sci.med, sci.paleontology, sci.astro,
sci.physics.electromag to
be hosted by a University the same as what
Drexel
University hosts sci.math as the Math Forum. Science needs to
be in education
not in the hands of corporations chasing after the
next dollar bill. Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent,
simple and fair author- archiving of AP sci.math posts since May 2012
as seen here :

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 22:02:00 -0700 (PDT), Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:

International Space Station ISS is a perfect platform to test whether
Newtonian gravity and General Relativity are fake physics and to see
if gravity is EM-gravity. I was reading the purpose or mission of ISS
in Wikipedia and it says up-front that the mission is science
research. Well, what better science question than to find out if
General Relativity is a fake theory and that gravity is EM-gravity.

Some data of ISS:

4.5x10^5 kg mass

perigee 402km
apogee 424km

orbital decay 2km/month

average speed 7.7km/sec

So here again, we have to ask how can Newtonian gravity or General
Relativity ever be true when the Earth itself is moving in Space at
29km/sec and how can this ISS orbit Earth in 7.7km/sec.

So we see immediately the trouble with Newtonian gravity and General
Relativity is that they require one of the masses to be assumed at
rest, when in reality it is in motion.


The dishwasher is at rest in the kitchen frame,
the dishes move, in reality from the table to the washing machine.

You are stuck in your past experience, Archie Pooh.

w.








In EM-gravity, both can be in
motion, and what keeps the slower moving object gravitationally bound
to the faster moving object is the force of electricity and magnetism
of magnetic monopoles bending the Space around Earth and this bent
space is actually spinning on an axis and the spinning motion forces
the ISS to orbit at such a slow speed of 7.7km/sec.

Now what I would like for ISS to perform is when the next rendezvous
takes place that the rocket emit a bowling ball sized "moon, an
artificial moon" (what the mass is, I do not yet know). Once emitted
it should orbit the ISS according to Newtonian gravity or General
Relativity. According to those theories, a artificial moon is viable
for ISS. But according to EM-gravity, the mass has to be large enough
of the size of asteroid Ida in order to have a orbiting moon. Ida has
a mass of 10^16kg while ISS has a mere 4.5x10^5 kg. And that small
mass is insufficient to create a EM-gravity cell that spins on its
axis and drags along any moon.

Of course on Earth we cannot execute such an experiment but on the
ISS, it is ripe and prime for just this type of experiment.

On Apr 24, 12:02Â*am, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
(snipped)
International Space Station ISS is a perfect platform to test whether
Newtonian gravity and General Relativity are fake physics and to see
if gravity is EM-gravity. I was reading the purpose or mission of ISS
in Wikipedia and it says up-front that the mission is science
research. Well, what better science question than to find out if
General Relativity is a fake theory and that gravity is EM-gravity.

Some data of ISS:

4.5x10^5 kg mass

perigee 402km
apogee 424km

orbital decay 2km/month

average speed 7.7km/sec

Alright, if Newtonian gravity or General Relativity were true, when
the astronauts were space walking to fix the Hubble telescope or
spacewalking on ISS, they would have been held to those objects
without a tether rope. If EM-gravity is true, then both Hubble
telescope and ISS have insufficient mass to form a gravity cell and
hence, no gravitational attraction and a tether rope is vital.

Now we can ask directly the astronauts who have space walked near ISS.
Ask them whether their sensation was a pull of the ISS upon them or
whether the mass of ISS was as if "it was nonexistent and not there to
pull on them"? I bet every astronaut who has spacewalked would say it
felt as if they were alone in space.

In EM-gravity, the tether rope is essential, because the moment a
spacewalking astronaut is a arms distance off the ISS, he would float
away and lost in Space.

I was looking at debris for the ISS and found one site showing a
reflecting body near the ISS. I am guessing it was a fragment of the
solar cell plate and the reason why it was reflective. So here again,
if Newtonian gravity or General Relativity were true, we would see
things, small debris objects sticking to the ISS as caught up in the
attraction by the ISS mass. But if EM-gravity is true, there is no
sticking to ISS no matter how small a mass particle and that there is
only linear momentum of objects in the vicinity of ISS.

So now, the experiment I want ISS to perform involves a small mass
such as a baseball or softball or bowling ball type of mass that has a
monitoring device so that we can track it or follow its motion and to
be thrown out by a spacewalker or by a rendezvous rocket with ISS. We
want to see if a Artificial Moon can be created for ISS because the
Newtonian gravity and General Relativity say that a Artificial Moon is
possible that orbits the ISS. However, EM-gravity says objects require
a minimum mass such as asteroid Ida of 10^16kg in order to form a
magnetic monopole gravity cell which has spin rotation of Ida and
which creates a bent Space around Ida that it can pull along a moon of
Dactyl. The ISS has only a 4.5x10^5kg mass and thus forms no gravity
cell. So that a astronaut spacewalking ISS without a tether would be
lost in Space.

Now probably, inside the ISS this can be tested by a remake of the
Cavendish gravity experiment, but it would not be as convincing of an
experiment as to trying to form an artificial moon for the ISS.

As I said previously, if Newtonian gravity or General Relativity were
true, then some space debris would cling to the ISS or to Hubble
reflectors inside the tube of Hubble space telescope and quickly cloud
the images seen because of debris clinging. We see no evidence of
this, and thus we realize that Newtonian gravity and General
Relativity are fake theories.

--

Approximately 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google
newsgroups author search starting May 2012. They call it indexing; I
call it censor discrimination. Whatever the case, what is needed now
is for science newsgroups like sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.bio,
sci.geo.geology, sci.med, sci.paleontology, sci.astro,
sci.physics.electromag to
be hosted by a University the same as what
Drexel
University hosts sci.math as the Math Forum. Science needs to
be in education
not in the hands of corporations chasing after the
next dollar bill. Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent,
simple and fair author- archiving of AP sci.math posts since May 2012
as seen here :

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Now of course NASA when they conduct this experiment to try to obtain
a "artificial moon" orbiting the Space Station, ISS, they will compute
the optimum mass of the moon versus the ISS and what orbital speed and
how to track it at all times.

But for my purpose, I need just a rough idea of the parameters of the
artificial moon, for it is my prediction that according to EM-gravity
the moon will fail upon shortly after start. Of course, Newtonian
gravity and General Relativity predict a success in creating a
artificial moon, but that only shows how flawed both those theories
are. Neither one of those theories explains the "slingshot effect" or
the "gravity assist", however there is no gravity involved in the
calculations because it is rendered under elastic collision theory,
not Newtonian gravity nor General Relativity.

In the Slingshot Effect, what is truly happening is the rocket enters
the EM-gravity cell of a new planet and is thus bolstered in speed
through the bent Space.

The ISS is not enough mass to bend Space and form a gravity cell so
the artificial moon cannot take hold.

So now I need just a ratio analysis to offer a mass for the
experiment.

In Ida and Dactyl it was a mass ratio of 10^16kg to 10^11kg and Ida
was moving with a linear velocity of
35km/sec while Dactyl was 10meters/sec.

So now the ISS is about 4.5x10^5kg with a speed of
7.7km/sec

So if I do cross ratio analysis, I end up with the conclusion of a
Artificial Moon to be less than 1 kg and to be given a initial speed
of 10 meters/sec ( a slow pitch from the ISS) although the cross ratio
allows a slower speed, but that a 10meters/sec is better. Now the
faster the speed is, the closer in it is supposed to orbit ISS, much
like Mercury is closer to the Sun and is the fastest moving planet.

So, for the first time in science history, we are asking of the NASA
science program to really pry and probe our foundational beliefs of
physics, NASA's most important experimental challenge to date. See if
Newtonian gravity and General Relativity are true theories or, as I
suspect, fake theories.

I say fake, and continue to say fake because the speeds of
gravitational bound masses defy commonsense. The commonsense that a
meager force of gravity, 10^40 weaker than EM force, yet expecting
every one to believe that a Sun moving at 220km/sec in Space can allow
Earth to circle around the Sun, yet Earth moving at only 29km/sec in
Space. Commonsense tells us that we can believe it if Earth moved at
220km/sec and the Sun moved at 2km/sec, then we can say, "yes that is
likely a true force."

So, is NASA up to the challenge, or will they go on and assume
Newtonian gravity and General Relativity and then a major accident
happens in space because they never bothered to question if gravity is
EM-gravity. That is, find out the truth the hard way.
--

Approximately 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google
newsgroups author search starting May 2012. They call it indexing; I
call it censor discrimination. Whatever the case, what is needed now
is for science newsgroups like sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.bio,
sci.geo.geology, sci.med, sci.paleontology, sci.astro,
sci.physics.electromag to
be hosted by a University the same as what
Drexel
University hosts sci.math as the Math Forum. Science needs to
be in education
not in the hands of corporations chasing after the
next dollar bill. Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent,
simple and fair author- archiving of AP sci.math posts since May 2012
as seen here :

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

--- quoting from this website ---
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/que...php?number=679

Yes, in theory, moons can have moons. The region of space around a
satellite there a sub-satellite can exist is called the Hill sphere.
Outside the Hill sphere, a sub-satellite would be lost from its orbit
about the satellite.

--- end quoting ---

Another reason that NASA should make this experiment top priority, in
that most scientists accept the Newtonian gravity with its General
Relativity generalization. If you read the Cornell University website
there is no reason the ISS cannot have a artificial moon. But if you
take gravity to be all from the Maxwell Equations and that gravity is
a phenomenon of electricity and magnetism, then it is impossible for
any object to stay in any kind of orbit around ISS.

As soon as the object is given its trajectory, it will not circle the
ISS but rather move off in a linear momentum. So NASA should make this
the top priority experiment on ISS for if they continue to do
astronomy under the fakery of Newtonian gravity and General Relativity
will only spell disaster on space missions.

--
Approximately 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google
newsgroups author search starting May 2012. They call it indexing; I
call it censor discrimination. Whatever the case, what is needed now
is for science newsgroups like sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.bio,
sci.geo.geology, sci.med, sci.paleontology, sci.astro,
sci.physics.electromag to
be hosted by a University the same as what
Drexel
University hosts sci.math as the Math Forum. Science needs to
be in education
not in the hands of corporations chasing after the
next dollar bill.

Besides, Drexel's Math Forum can demand only legal names of
subscribers which hugely prevents search engine bombing and hate spew.
Drexel has done a excellent, simple and fair author- archiving of AP
sci.math posts since May 2012
as seen here :

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

On Apr 25, 2:03Â*am, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
Now of course NASA when they conduct this experiment to try to obtain
a "artificial moon" orbiting the Space Station, ISS, they will compute
the optimum mass of the moon versus the ISS and what orbital speed and
how to track it at all times.

But for my purpose, I need just a rough idea of the parameters of the
artificial moon, for it is my prediction that according to EM-gravity
the moon will fail upon shortly after start. Of course, Newtonian
gravity and General Relativity predict a success in creating a
artificial moon, but that only shows how flawed both those theories
are. Neither one of those theories explains the "slingshot effect" or
the "gravity assist", however there is no gravity involved in the
calculations because it is rendered under elastic collision theory,
not Newtonian gravity nor General Relativity.

In the Slingshot Effect, what is truly happening is the rocket enters
the EM-gravity cell of a new planet and is thus bolstered in speed
through the bent Space.

The ISS is not enough mass to bend Space and form a gravity cell so
the artificial moon cannot take hold.

So now I need just a ratio analysis to offer a mass for the
experiment.

In Ida and Dactyl it was a mass ratio of 10^16kg to 10^11kg and Ida
was moving with a linear velocity of
35km/sec while Dactyl was 10meters/sec.


Sorry that is a typing error and should read 25km/sec not 35km/sec and
I changed it on the original with a sic sign.

Now I been researching into the moons of Saturn to see if any of them
have their own moons of the ice particles in the Ring structure. Now
according to Cornell University website:

--- quoting from this website ---
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/que...php?number=679
Yes, in theory, moons can have moons. The region of space around a
satellite there a sub-satellite can exist is called the Hill sphere.
Outside the Hill sphere, a sub-satellite would be lost from its orbit
about the satellite.
--- end quoting ---

Such a moon of Saturn with a submoon circling the moon should exist
because there are plenty of particles of various sizes to orbit around
the moon and meet the Hill Sphere requirement that Cornell.edu talks
about.

But when we look for a "moon of a moon" we never find one. So this is
added pressure for the need to conduct the ISS Experiment of
artificial moon. For it looks as though EM-gravity is the true physics
because of all the opportunities of a "natural moon to another moon"
yet never a single such example exists. This is only increasing
support of the idea that a moon of a moon is impossible in EM-gravity
because the EM-gravity cell lacks sufficient magnetic monopoles to
create the spin of the cell which carries the moon around in a
orbiting closed loop.


So now the ISS is about 4.5x10^5kg with a speed of
7.7km/sec

So if I do cross ratio analysis, I end up with the conclusion of a
Artificial Moon to be less than 1 kg and to be given a initial speed
of 10 meters/sec ( a slow pitch from the ISS) although the cross ratio
allows a slower speed, but that a 10meters/sec is better. Now the
faster the speed is, the closer in it is supposed to orbit ISS, much
like Mercury is closer to the Sun and is the fastest moving planet.

So, for the first time in science history, we are asking of the NASA
science program to really pry and probe our foundational beliefs of
physics, NASA's most important experimental challenge to date. See if
Newtonian gravity and General Relativity are true theories or, as I
suspect, fake theories.

I say fake, and continue to say fake because the speeds of
gravitational bound masses defy commonsense. The commonsense that a
meager force of gravity, 10^40 weaker than EM force, yet expecting
every one to believe that a Sun moving at 220km/sec in Space can allow
Earth to circle around the Sun, yet Earth moving at only 29km/sec in
Space. Commonsense tells us that we can believe it if Earth moved at
220km/sec and the Sun moved at 2km/sec, then we can say, "yes that is
likely a true force."

So, is NASA up to the challenge, or will they go on and assume
Newtonian gravity and General Relativity and then a major accident
happens in space because they never bothered to question if gravity is
EM-gravity. That is, find out the truth the hard way.
--

Approximately 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google
newsgroups author search starting May 2012. They call it indexing; I
call it censor discrimination. Whatever the case, what is needed now
is for science newsgroups like sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.bio,
sci.geo.geology, sci.med, sci.paleontology, sci.astro,
sci.physics.electromag to
be hosted by a University the same as what
Drexel
University hosts sci.math as the Math Forum. Science needs to
be in education
not in the hands of corporations chasing after the
next dollar bill. Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent,
simple and fair author- archiving of AP sci.math posts since May 2012
as seen here :

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Now I see two ways of injecting the artificial moon of a easily
trackable bowling ball of 1kg or less and given a orbital speed of
anywhere from 10meters/sec to say 100meters/sec. But it has to be
easily trackable. And the two possible injection modes would be a
spacewalk by an astronaut with a sort of gun to fire off the moon. Or,
have the rendezvous rocket fire off the moon before it docks on the
Space Station.

So what will Newtonian gravity and General Relativity predict what
will happen? Well both will predict that theoretically ISS can form a
artificial moon orbiting ISS. However, EM-gravity requires a gravity
cell that bends space of magnetic monopoles and this space is spinning
in order for two objects to be gravitationally bound together. And ISS
has insufficient mass of 4.5x10^5kg to have any artificial moon. So EM-
gravity predicts that any moon attempt will have the object move away
in a straight line linear momentum. EM-gravity would predict that if
the astronauts were not tethered, they would be lost in space. EM-
gravity predicts that as the astronauts repaired the Hubble telescope
and if any of those loosened nuts had escaped, they would not circle
the Hubble but move away in a straight line linear momentum.

So this experiment directly challenges General Relativity and exposes
that theory for the fraud and fakery it is. It is an easy exposure and
appeals to anyone's everyday commonsense. If you are moving in a
vehicle going 220km/sec and another vehicle is moving alongside at 29
km/sec (sun and earth), then there is no way that the 29 vehicle is
going to be bound and circle around the 220 vehicle. When Newton
formulated Newtonian gravity, he was not aware that the Sun was moving
faster than any of the planets, nor was Maxwell aware of that fact.
For if either man had known those facts, they would have altered
Newtonian gravity.

So, here is the most important experiment that ISS has ever done or
will ever do, since we must set straight the force of gravity.

Ask any of the astronauts that spacewalked. Ask them if they felt any
sort of pull or tug by the vessel and whether the tether line was
critical to their survival.

Actually, another test would be to simply place a trackable device
outside on the ISS. If Newtonian gravity or General Relativity were
true, it would be like placing a device on the ground of Earth and it
would not fly off into space in a straight line but rather be pulled
to the surface of Earth, and pulled to the
surface of ISS. But EM-gravity would say the object would fly off in a
straight line away from the ISS.

--

Approximately 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google
newsgroups author search starting May 2012. They call it indexing; I
call it censor discrimination. Whatever the case, what is needed now
is for science newsgroups like sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.bio,
sci.geo.geology, sci.med, sci.paleontology, sci.astro,
sci.physics.electromag to
be hosted by a University the same as what
Drexel
University hosts sci.math as the Math Forum. Science needs to
be in education
not in the hands of corporations chasing after the
next dollar bill. 
Besides, Drexel's Math Forum can demand only legal
names of subscribers which hugely prevents search engine bombing and
hate spew. 
Drexel has done a excellent, simple and fair author-
archiving of AP
sci.math posts since May 2012
as seen here :

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies