1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Laws of gravitational attraction

Does my theory of gravity have merit

Poll closed Mar 2, 2004.
  1. You may post new threads

    1 vote(s)
  2. You may post replies

    2 vote(s)
  3. You may post attachments

    0 vote(s)
  4. Smilies are ON

    1 vote(s)
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Dec 3, 2003 #1
    The Big Picture

    Gravity, Tornados and the Evolution of Matter

    An idea proposed by John Kanelous

    Years ago I saw a video on TV that was taken by a cameraman in a helicopter who had flown, what appeared to be, way too close to a tornado. I saw palm trees being plucked vertically (not blown over), roots and all, out of the ground and then sailed upward rotating around the tornado as they rose to a thousand feet or more. This event always puzzled me. Why did the palm trees not blow over before they were blown upward by the wind?
    A few years later I was fortunate enough to view a spectacular waterspout in the inland waters in Clearwater, Florida. I was only about 1/2 mile away from it and I got to study it for about 15 minutes before it dissipated into thin air. I was amazed at its structure. It literally looked like a thick gray rope hanging down from the clouds.

    I knew after seeing this tornado that tornados are not totally wind events, but a gravitational phenomena. The high winds, I believe, are caused by the rotation of gravity. The lifting effect of tornados is caused by a reversed gravitational field that surrounds a tornado wherever it touches down.

    How could that be possible?

    It could only be possible if our known theory of gravitational attraction is incorrect. That there is no attraction between masses. That the earth revolves around the sun, and the moon revolves around the earth for reasons other than they are attracted to one another. How could that be? The laws of gravitational attraction between heavenly bodies is indisputable! But the truth is, that these laws are actually mathematical models that describe the movement of planets, moons and stars. In my opinion there is another explanation as to what makes them appear to be attracted to one another. My theory, or more accurately my explanation of this phenomena makes more sense to me, and explains a lot of other mysteries in our universe.

    John Kanelous' idea on Gravity, Tornados and the Evolution of Matter:

    1. Our universe is a nearly solid force field, I call this “primary force.” Space is not a vacuum - it is an expanding force field. To visualize this, think of our universe as a balloon being blown up, with the air inside it as primary force, and all the heavenly bodies located on the skin of the balloon.

    2. Primary force was created when a “big bang” of electronless nuclei of matter exploded releasing its energy.

    3. In the beginning of our universe there was no mass, only energy accelerating outward from the center.

    4. In this pressure cooker of energy hydrogen atoms were formed and are still forming.

    5. These atoms then evolved to all the other elements by absorbing primary energy - the more energy absorbed the larger the atoms grew. Heavy elements such as Uranium are much, much older than these original atoms. At some time, a long, long time ago, Uranium existed as Hydrogen.

    6. Nuclei of atoms absorb primary energy causing a low energy pressure surrounding the nuclei. Primary force which is under pressure from the original "Big Bang" rushes in to fill the pressure void causing an acceleration in the force field surrounding the atom.

    7. Primary force accelerates into the nuclei of atoms, accelerating to nearly the speed of light as it bombards the nuclei. Some of the energy is deflected and become electrons.

    8. Atoms (mass) that are in the direct line of this accelerating primary force are pushed toward one another. To the observer they would seem to be attracted to one another, and would follow the laws of gravitational attraction. But in reality they are being pushed toward one another by the acceleration of primary force.

    9. Gravity is the acceleration of primary force. Gravity can also be simulated by accelerating mass through primary force. This can either be done in a straight line or by rotation.

    10. Light and other electromagnetic energy is the stimulation of primary force.

    11. Tornados are caused by the focusing and twisting of gravity by “lenses” created from electrically charged rotating clouds.

    12. The focused twisting gravity touches down, but cannot be totally absorbed in this form, and is primarily reflected off the (mass) earths surface causing gravity to reverse its direction, thus having the ability to pluck just about anything off the earths surface.

    Comments, questions, ideas, and rebuttals are welcome: kanelous@earthlink.net

    Other topics on my web site:

    The Rotation of Galaxies
    Tornado Diagram
    How primary force controls the movement of planets
    Why space is not warped
    Black Holes
    Anti-Gravity Prototype

    My Web Site;
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 3, 2003 #2
    Humm, thats a partiallity of truth to say that, as there is this device that is called a "Cavendish Balance", it too agrees (and demonstrates!) with the idea of matter attracting matter....NOT "a 'mathamatical' model".
  4. Dec 10, 2003 #3

    If matter attracted matter, then where does the energy come from to sustain electrons?

    And how is matter formed, if not from a conversion from energy?
  5. Dec 11, 2003 #4
    Re: Gravity

    To your first question, too disjointed a question, matter attracting matter and somehow you want a connection to electrons valence shell energy (levels?)

    .......as for the second question, Yes.

    EDIT corrected this; (leves?) to this; (levels?)
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2003
  6. Dec 11, 2003 #5


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: Gravity

    Gravity is not the only fundamental force of nature.
  7. Dec 11, 2003 #6
    If gravity is not the attraction between masses, but the result of an acceleration of force - then that would account for the energy required to sustain electron flow, and would also account for the creation and evolution of mass resulting from a conversion of energy. (energy in the form of acceleration of force)
  8. Dec 18, 2003 #7
    Perhaps you are, understandibly, confused here.
    The atomic structure, which includes the electrons "whizzing" around the nucleus, is not infinite in either motion or construct.
    Reduce the temperature of a given atom to zero-degree's Kelvin. Theorectically possible but experimentally unchievable. Yet, under that condition all motion stops. Under those conditions the atom cannot sustain itself and, simply, falls apart.
    What does this tell us? Thermal energy is required for atomic existance.
  9. Dec 18, 2003 #8


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Your theories are pretty amusing, of course there exist virtual mountains of experimental data which tell us of a universe much different from that which you describe.

    Don't let that interfere with your imagination. Dream on.
  10. Dec 18, 2003 #9
    Response to Pallidin,


    Perhaps the acceleration of Primary Force is a source of thermal energy. If so, although theoretically possible to reach absolute zero – in reallity it may never happen.

    I hadn't considered your idea in relation to my theory on gravity. I'll have to give it some thought.

    Thanks for your input.

  11. Dec 18, 2003 #10
    Reply to Integral,

    I am a dreamer, inventor and somewhat of a crackpot.

    I plan to dream on.

    Thanks for your response.

  12. Dec 21, 2003 #11
    I find your theory interesting and I will visit your website to see if that is all of it so far or just the jist.
    Integral doesn't deserve thanking for his response, it was entirly not constructive. If there are virtual mountains, pop his bubble and name a pebble. One cannot completly dismiss a theory that hasn't been entirly formed.

    I have been to your site now and I still like your theory, it is very similar to a pet theory of mine. (I also like that you dislike the Democrats :))
    1. I do not think it should be called "primary force", that is misleading, as it is not a force, it is more like a fundamental energy of some sort.
    2. I do not see why there has to be electronless matter, as you mention several times in those and linked pages. I do not see why electrons would cease to exist under the conditions you specify.
    9. I do not like the phrasing of "gravity is the acceleration of primary force" as it too is misleading. I think what you mean is better stated as 'gravity is the acceleration on mass caused by an asymetry of fundamental energy flux induced by the presence of another mass'. Now I don't want to seem pompous by changing your terms and phrasing like this, I just want to make sure there is no confusion about what you mean. If what I have restated is wrong, then it shows that it is confusing, as this is what I think you are saying.
    This seems to give an explaination for the existence of inertia.
    10. This needs to be greatly elaborated on. I don't think that if the primay force does exist that light would be a stimulation of it, I'd see light as being a character that the primary force acts on, just like mass. You also need to explain why, if the speed of light is constant from all possible frames in your theory, space still doesn't warp. That would be a big hurtle, because there is no escaping the experimental evidence that EM forces on charged particles are proportional to the velocity, not the acceleration, of them.
    I do note though, that because in your theory the primary force flows inward on all matter, that this would ivalidate the Michaelson-Morley experiment, which to my knowledge has never been conducted vertically nor has been theoretically proved to be a waste of time to do so.
    11. This too needs to be greatly elaborated on. Are you saying that spinning charges particles have weird gravitational effects? You'd think someone'd have noticed that. Then again, I don't think it was that long ago that they realised that dust devils can do some weird EM stuff because of the triboelectrical properties of the quartz in most sand.

    I completely disagree with your theory of galaxy and blackhole formation, I think current theory has that well explained, except of course it has no good explaination for how gravity works.
    Unfortunatly, I find your tornado diagram laughable. Not that I could draw much better, but because the lensing effect you show would greatly strength gravity at point 3 and weaken it between there and beyond the edge of C's influence. Though vortexes led you to this theory, I don't think that this theory needs to say anything about the formation and effects of tornados. As I see it, this theory and other similar ones would only have an impact on the understanding of how gravity works, and possibly on energy generation if there was some very subtle effect that this theory predicts and is then tested ans shown to exist that allows for perpetual motion, but that is a big if.
    I think you are at a stage to start doing math to see exactly what this theory predicts and doing experiments.
    P.S. Your poll doesn't make any sense.
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2003
  13. Dec 22, 2003 #12
    Reply to Jonathan,

    You have given me a lot to think about.

    Thank you for your thought ful input. I would be interested to hear your pet theory on the subject.

    Let me respond point by point to your edit.

    1. You make a good point here, but the reason I used the word 'Primary Force' rather than energy is to allow one to think of this in a new way. Energy is so tied up to other concepts like kenetic, potential and thermal that I needed a way to isolate the thought process.

    2. Under my theory electron flow is the result of the acceleration of energy into the nucleus. Between universes there is no energy field and therefore no acceleration of energy to maintain electron flow.

    9. The heart of my theory is the acceleration of energy induced by the presence of mass. The energy, or field of force, originated from the Big Bang, and is expanding sperically with the stars and galaxies on its perimeter.

    Mass in our universe was converted from energy. Eventually, as the energy field weakens and dissipates from expansion, it will die and will lose its ability to sustain electron flow. Stars and galaxies will collapse into electronless masses hurtling through space between universes. When they enter other live universes they may be observed by other intelligent life as Black Holes.

    10. I don't believe that space is warped. But, as an energy field that accelerates toward mass it can bend light creating the impression that space is warped.

    Although experimental evidence appears to be contradictory, experiments cannot create the massive flow of energy existing near heavenly bodies, nor is this flow necessarily electromagnetic. I don't think gravity is electromagnetic, but is more likely a transformation of primary energy.

    11. The tornado thing. You may be right. It does sound a little incredible, but it could be the key to the whole thing. One of these days I plan to experiment with my anti-gravity machine. Who knows, maybe the damn thing might work.

    Note: I am not a mathemetician or scientist. I will leave the details and proofs to others a lot more qualified than I. My only goal is to stimulate ideas in others.
  14. Dec 26, 2003 #13
    Well, my pet theory is so similar to yours that if you made the changes I suggested they would be pretty much the same.
    I can only think of two things you could do with this theory at this point. One is to research the Michelson-Morley experiment and recreate it exactly only in the vertical position. The other is to do some math and determine what the density of the PF stuff is, and see if you can do anything with that. What I do know is that the strength of gravity in this theory would depend on the shape of the bodies and if the body is spherical, then it will be proportional to the square of the radius, not mass. But because the densities of the planets varies so widly, I think this alone would prove the theory wrong. I think that because if this theory is true then Newton's law would only hold if G was different for each planet depending on it's density. But we know that Newton's law holds well, so I doubt these theories because of it. Unless of course I'm confused and by some strange coincidence all the planets in our solar system have the same density.
  15. Dec 26, 2003 #14
    Reply to Jonathan,

    Thanks for your help.

    I just read the Michelson-Morley Experiment, and your idea to conduct this experiment in a vertical mode is a brilliant observation.

    I need to study this, but at first glance I think this could prove, or disprove, my theory that gravity is the acceleration of Primary Force (the ether wind).

    Do have any other ideas on how I could mathematically define the density of PF? If my theory is correct, then PF would be less dense between masses. In effect the mass would tend to block the flow of accelerating PF, and the imbalace of PF would keep planets and moon in orbit.

    On Newton's G – I don't think a planets density has much to do with my theory other than the volume of PF flow it would generate. I accept all of Newton's mathematical models, and believe my theory is consistant with with his observations. Our only difference is what is making it all happen. I don't believe there is an attraction between mass, but only an apparent attraction due to the effects of accelerating PF.

    John Kanelous
  16. Dec 27, 2003 #15
  17. Dec 28, 2003 #16
    Knowledge is a great inhibitor especially when it is true.
  18. Dec 28, 2003 #17
  19. Dec 29, 2003 #18
    is it possible? that is my first question....
    can gravitational indexing of planets be a consumate of rotation, molton core, atmosphere and proximity to a star? is gravity the same for planitary bodies that are stranded far from stars of other planets? say....all by its lonesome and far far away from anything including dark energy or dark matter...is gravity a subjective issue....if it is perhaps gravity is an issue of excitation....
    like...a tree falling the forrest that nobody hears...can gravitational issues be between one mass and nothing else...
    ORRRRRRRR....can a traveling astral body pass outside of the imagined limits of the cosmos...or will it hit the rim of nothingness and be pulled back by inertal forces to skimm its horizan...does the outer rim between true nothingness and our imagine limited cosmos have an event?
    jeff savage
  20. Dec 29, 2003 #19
    Reply to Parsons,

    If your knowledge was that the earth was flat, then it limited your ability to be creative. If you were taught by people who knew that the sun revolved around the earth then it inhibited your imagination. If scientists believe there is only one universe, then you could look pretty ignorant suggesting there are an infinite number of universes.

    Knowledge that is factual is liberating, as you suggest, but we must be cognizant that a lot of what we know, particularly with respect to gravity, may be untrue.

    John Kanelous
  21. Dec 30, 2003 #20
    From what has been taught to me, possibly, then again, has it crossed your mind that perhaps someone knows the "more true" answer to it? possibly me?...
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Similar Discussions: Laws of gravitational attraction
  1. Gravitational attraction (Replies: 19)

  2. Laws of attraction (Replies: 3)