Gravity is Magnetism. I have researched this this topic for many years and have finally seen the light . I just feel bad for the little kids that are being taught the wrong thing in science class. How can we as a society, grow if we don't even know what we're really dealing with?
you have posted about this several times before.
your post was complete nonsense back then, and it is complete nonsense again.
why are you repeating this over and over?
why haven't you really left these forums, like you said you would?
why aren't you banned, for that matter?
your post was complete nonsense back then, and it is complete nonsense again.
why are you repeating this over and over?
why haven't you really left these forums, like you said you would?
why aren't you banned, for that matter?
lol u must have watched that one loony on the sci chan who is sure of the same thing. i better be careful.... the moon's mAgnet might erase the info on my credit cards 
QUOTE (KIENNE+Feb 14 2008, 01:23 PM)
Gravity is Magnetism. I have researched this this topic for many years and have finally seen the light .
And objects that respond to this magnetism must themselves also be magnetic, and this means KIENNE and apples are magnetic. Whenever he gets near an apple it flies through the air and whacks him in the head. And he tried to go on a cruise down near the equator but found he couldn't stand up - the Earth's magnetic field kept tipping him over and pointing him North like a compass needle. Worst vacation he ever had.
And objects that respond to this magnetism must themselves also be magnetic, and this means KIENNE and apples are magnetic. Whenever he gets near an apple it flies through the air and whacks him in the head. And he tried to go on a cruise down near the equator but found he couldn't stand up - the Earth's magnetic field kept tipping him over and pointing him North like a compass needle. Worst vacation he ever had.
QUOTE (KIENNE+Feb 15 2008, 02:23 AM)
I have researched this this topic for many years
Obviously by jumping out of trees and landing on your head
Obviously by jumping out of trees and landing on your head
QUOTE
KIENNE
Only half correct; gravity has a magnetic AND electric component... it is a Poynting energy vector resultant
BTW apples are magnetic, ......... diamagnetic
all substance/matter is magnetic and electric
that is why it is affected by "gravity"
Gravity obeys "Like attracts Like" and experiments with antimatter demonstrate that "Like attracts Unlike." However, both electricity and magnetism obey "Like repels Like" as well as "Like attracts Unlike." Therefore Gravity is dissimilar to electric and magnetic forces.
Gravity is sensitive only to the inertial mass of an object, while electric and magnetic forces are insensitive to this mass. Electric forces are sensitive to the electric charge on an object, while gravity is insensitive to this electric charge. Magnetic charges have not been observed in isolation (a 1970's claim of observation was retracted entirely), but can be approximated with long solenoids, and once again we see that magnetic forces are sensitive to magnetic charges (or the net motion of electric current) but gravity is insensitive to these. Therefore Gravity is dissimilar to electric and magnetic forces.
Apples have no magnetic charge, and apples fall under gravity regardless of their having a a negative, zero, or positive electric charge. Because of the complete unrelatedness of gravity and electric forces, Millikin was able to exactly measure the forces of individual electric charges.
A Faraday cage can completely shield an electric charge from external electric forces. No such gravity-shielding effect is seen, which shows that there is no electric component to the force of gravity.
I have not used any observation in my above analysis which was not well known to Maxwell. Since that time, we have a very good idea about what electric and magnetic forces actually are, and calculate them to 12 digits of precision. Likewise our understanding of how different gravity and electric and magnetic forces are has grown and we have confirmed predictions which are significantly different from those predicted by saying that gravity and electricity are very similar.
If Zarkov and Kienne think differently, they have the burden to support their idea with observations and logic. But to make unsupported claims about truth is not the work of science. To ignore evidence is not the work of science. To replace a quantitative, successful model with a non-quantitative, non-successful model is not progress.
To accept Zarkov and Kienne's claims is to ignore 300 years of progress and return to the time when people made up stories about how the sun rose and set because some god carried it on his back. Instead of finding out what is wrong with the patient, they prescribe a worthless panacea which doesn't even adhere to the first principle of physicians: Do no harm.
Gravity is sensitive only to the inertial mass of an object, while electric and magnetic forces are insensitive to this mass. Electric forces are sensitive to the electric charge on an object, while gravity is insensitive to this electric charge. Magnetic charges have not been observed in isolation (a 1970's claim of observation was retracted entirely), but can be approximated with long solenoids, and once again we see that magnetic forces are sensitive to magnetic charges (or the net motion of electric current) but gravity is insensitive to these. Therefore Gravity is dissimilar to electric and magnetic forces.
Apples have no magnetic charge, and apples fall under gravity regardless of their having a a negative, zero, or positive electric charge. Because of the complete unrelatedness of gravity and electric forces, Millikin was able to exactly measure the forces of individual electric charges.
A Faraday cage can completely shield an electric charge from external electric forces. No such gravity-shielding effect is seen, which shows that there is no electric component to the force of gravity.
I have not used any observation in my above analysis which was not well known to Maxwell. Since that time, we have a very good idea about what electric and magnetic forces actually are, and calculate them to 12 digits of precision. Likewise our understanding of how different gravity and electric and magnetic forces are has grown and we have confirmed predictions which are significantly different from those predicted by saying that gravity and electricity are very similar.
If Zarkov and Kienne think differently, they have the burden to support their idea with observations and logic. But to make unsupported claims about truth is not the work of science. To ignore evidence is not the work of science. To replace a quantitative, successful model with a non-quantitative, non-successful model is not progress.
To accept Zarkov and Kienne's claims is to ignore 300 years of progress and return to the time when people made up stories about how the sun rose and set because some god carried it on his back. Instead of finding out what is wrong with the patient, they prescribe a worthless panacea which doesn't even adhere to the first principle of physicians: Do no harm.
apples do have magnetons almost everything biological does , its just very miniscule ammounts thats why w/ an EXTREMELY strong electromagnet u can "levitate" them.
btw kienne yousa crazy
btw kienne yousa crazy
QUOTE (KIENNE+Feb 14 2008, 02:23 PM)
Gravity is Magnetism.
Why then do objects which we know to be magnetic have equal gravitational mass and inertial mass?
For instance, suppose you get a block of iron and put it on a scales and it says '1.000 kilograms'. If you then applied a force of 1 Newton to it, it would accelerate at 1m/s². If gravity was magnetism, then the scales shouldn't have read 1.000kg, they should have read something different because the magnetic properties of the iron should have made it heavier or lighter.
Why do charged particles not bend their paths of motion perpendicular to gravitational field lines, as they do to magnetic field lines? Set up two magnets, slightly seperated, and send a beam of electrons through. They will curve at right angles to the magnetic field (Flemings left and right hand rules). Send a beam of electrons perpendicular to the surface of a large planet/star/black hole and they will bend down towards the surface, trying to become parallel to the field lines.
Why is gravity always additive and never repulsive? Electromagnetism (and indeed, the other two forces as well) can be both attractive and repulsive.
As Rpenner asked, why do no Faraday cages for gravity exist?
By what observations or deductions do you justify this statement?
By what observations or deductions do you justify this statement?
rpenner
Apples have no magnetic charge, and apples fall under gravity regardless of their having a a negative, zero, or positive electric charge. Because of the complete unrelatedness of gravity and electric forces, Millikin was able to exactly measure the forces of individual electric charges.
Because electric charge is always associated with electrons, which are massive particles, their presence should be detectable gravitationally.
If gravity is attributed to radiation pressure exerted by gravitational/inertial radiation and a gravitational field is attributed to a shielding effect, where the passage of this radiation is bocked by massive bodies, then the planet upon which we reside, or any other massive body or particle could be considered a shield. Because mass as measured by weight on Earth (a gravitational effect) and inertial mass are almost totally identical, it can be assumed that the maximum shielding effect is attained by a body of mass equal to or less than that of Earth.
If gravity is attributed to radiation pressure exerted by gravitational/inertial radiation and a gravitational field is attributed to a shielding effect, where the passage of this radiation is bocked by massive bodies, then the planet upon which we reside, or any other massive body or particle could be considered a shield. Because mass as measured by weight on Earth (a gravitational effect) and inertial mass are almost totally identical, it can be assumed that the maximum shielding effect is attained by a body of mass equal to or less than that of Earth.
rpenner
I have not used any observation in my above analysis which was not well known to Maxwell. Since that time, we have a very good idea about what electric and magnetic forces actually are,
Do you mean quantatively, or conceptual?
Is this because of the associated magnetic field lines? If so.. how do black holes generate magnetic fields?
QC... I like the train analogy and the dissociation of curvature with gravity.
Jack
Why then do objects which we know to be magnetic have equal gravitational mass and inertial mass?
For instance, suppose you get a block of iron and put it on a scales and it says '1.000 kilograms'. If you then applied a force of 1 Newton to it, it would accelerate at 1m/s². If gravity was magnetism, then the scales shouldn't have read 1.000kg, they should have read something different because the magnetic properties of the iron should have made it heavier or lighter.
Why do charged particles not bend their paths of motion perpendicular to gravitational field lines, as they do to magnetic field lines? Set up two magnets, slightly seperated, and send a beam of electrons through. They will curve at right angles to the magnetic field (Flemings left and right hand rules). Send a beam of electrons perpendicular to the surface of a large planet/star/black hole and they will bend down towards the surface, trying to become parallel to the field lines.
Why is gravity always additive and never repulsive? Electromagnetism (and indeed, the other two forces as well) can be both attractive and repulsive.
As Rpenner asked, why do no Faraday cages for gravity exist?
QUOTE (KIENNE+Feb 14 2008, 02:23 PM)
I have researched this this topic for many years and have finally seen the light ..... How can we as a society, grow if we don't even know what we're really dealing with?
How can you expect to be taken seriously if years of research have led you to have no working model and an ignorance about things school children know?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Feb 17 2008, 04:20 PM)
Why is gravity always additive and never repulsive?
I definitely don't claim that gravity is magnetism, but I think there is a flaw in your question here.
Gravity could be both additive and repulsive, and you wouldn't necessarily be able to tell the difference between the two.
It could be repulsive on a very large scale, and you might mistake it for being additive on a small or medium scale.
Due to the nature of gravity and distance, most of our knowledge of gravity comes from either local observations, or guesswork about observations of distant objects.
One of Newton's laws says that for every force there is an equal and opposite force. For every action there is equal and opposite action.
Moreover, as the following example will show, it may not be possible to distinquish a push from a pull in some situations.
Consider a train with ideal engines. The train has one engine in the front and one engine in the rear with several cars between. Both engines are so perfect that there isn't even exhaust, so you cannot tell which engine is actually running or in gear. Now imagine this train is accelerating along a perfectly straight track. Which engine is causing this motion and acceleration?
Since you cannot see any exhaust and cannot see inside them, you cannot tell which engine is in gear and which is just in idle, and for that matter, they may both be in gear!
So we see, depending on scale and frame of reference, a push cannot be distinguished from a pull. If we could view gravity from another perspective, we might be able to prove definitively which is the case, but we do not even have the "engines" of my scenario in the current standard model of gravity. All we have is the train cars with one theoretical "pulling engine" which nobody has ever actually observed.
Next, curves in the track have no influence on the train in and of themselves. The curves do not accelerate the train unless the train is already moving. A train sitting on a curved track will not move no matter how curvy the track is, unless the engines, or some other force, are driving it. This shows how "space-time curvature" alone cannot explain gravitational motion. A curve can only change the vector of existing force or motion, like a skater on a half-pipe, not produce force or motion by itself.
So we see the issue of gravity is highly obfuscated by the fact that force and curvature are two different things, which are mistakenly identified as one and the same.
Next, the assumption of additive only, attractive only gravity is potentially flawed and based only on local observation, then this local observation is applied to all of the universe to produce the "standard model", even though "real" measurements are rarely taken at those distances, only assumptions and approximations based on other assumptions and approximations...
I definitely don't claim that gravity is magnetism, but I think there is a flaw in your question here.
Gravity could be both additive and repulsive, and you wouldn't necessarily be able to tell the difference between the two.
It could be repulsive on a very large scale, and you might mistake it for being additive on a small or medium scale.
Due to the nature of gravity and distance, most of our knowledge of gravity comes from either local observations, or guesswork about observations of distant objects.
One of Newton's laws says that for every force there is an equal and opposite force. For every action there is equal and opposite action.
Moreover, as the following example will show, it may not be possible to distinquish a push from a pull in some situations.
Consider a train with ideal engines. The train has one engine in the front and one engine in the rear with several cars between. Both engines are so perfect that there isn't even exhaust, so you cannot tell which engine is actually running or in gear. Now imagine this train is accelerating along a perfectly straight track. Which engine is causing this motion and acceleration?
Since you cannot see any exhaust and cannot see inside them, you cannot tell which engine is in gear and which is just in idle, and for that matter, they may both be in gear!
So we see, depending on scale and frame of reference, a push cannot be distinguished from a pull. If we could view gravity from another perspective, we might be able to prove definitively which is the case, but we do not even have the "engines" of my scenario in the current standard model of gravity. All we have is the train cars with one theoretical "pulling engine" which nobody has ever actually observed.
Next, curves in the track have no influence on the train in and of themselves. The curves do not accelerate the train unless the train is already moving. A train sitting on a curved track will not move no matter how curvy the track is, unless the engines, or some other force, are driving it. This shows how "space-time curvature" alone cannot explain gravitational motion. A curve can only change the vector of existing force or motion, like a skater on a half-pipe, not produce force or motion by itself.
So we see the issue of gravity is highly obfuscated by the fact that force and curvature are two different things, which are mistakenly identified as one and the same.
Next, the assumption of additive only, attractive only gravity is potentially flawed and based only on local observation, then this local observation is applied to all of the universe to produce the "standard model", even though "real" measurements are rarely taken at those distances, only assumptions and approximations based on other assumptions and approximations...
QUOTE
KIENNE
Gravity is Magnetism. I have researched this this topic for many years and have finally seen the light . I just feel bad for the little kids that are being taught the wrong thing in science class. How can we as a society, grow if we don't even know what we're really dealing with?
Gravity is Magnetism. I have researched this this topic for many years and have finally seen the light . I just feel bad for the little kids that are being taught the wrong thing in science class. How can we as a society, grow if we don't even know what we're really dealing with?
By what observations or deductions do you justify this statement?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| KIENNE Gravity is Magnetism. I have researched this this topic for many years and have finally seen the light . I just feel bad for the little kids that are being taught the wrong thing in science class. How can we as a society, grow if we don't even know what we're really dealing with? |
By what observations or deductions do you justify this statement?
rpenner
Apples have no magnetic charge, and apples fall under gravity regardless of their having a a negative, zero, or positive electric charge. Because of the complete unrelatedness of gravity and electric forces, Millikin was able to exactly measure the forces of individual electric charges.
Because electric charge is always associated with electrons, which are massive particles, their presence should be detectable gravitationally.
QUOTE
A Faraday cage can completely shield an electric charge from external electric forces. No such gravity-shielding effect is seen, which shows that there is no electric component to the force of gravity.
If gravity is attributed to radiation pressure exerted by gravitational/inertial radiation and a gravitational field is attributed to a shielding effect, where the passage of this radiation is bocked by massive bodies, then the planet upon which we reside, or any other massive body or particle could be considered a shield. Because mass as measured by weight on Earth (a gravitational effect) and inertial mass are almost totally identical, it can be assumed that the maximum shielding effect is attained by a body of mass equal to or less than that of Earth.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A Faraday cage can completely shield an electric charge from external electric forces. No such gravity-shielding effect is seen, which shows that there is no electric component to the force of gravity. |
If gravity is attributed to radiation pressure exerted by gravitational/inertial radiation and a gravitational field is attributed to a shielding effect, where the passage of this radiation is bocked by massive bodies, then the planet upon which we reside, or any other massive body or particle could be considered a shield. Because mass as measured by weight on Earth (a gravitational effect) and inertial mass are almost totally identical, it can be assumed that the maximum shielding effect is attained by a body of mass equal to or less than that of Earth.
rpenner
I have not used any observation in my above analysis which was not well known to Maxwell. Since that time, we have a very good idea about what electric and magnetic forces actually are,
Do you mean quantatively, or conceptual?
QUOTE
AlphaNumeric
Send a beam of electrons perpendicular to the surface of a large planet/star/black hole and they will bend down towards the surface, trying to become parallel to the field lines.
Send a beam of electrons perpendicular to the surface of a large planet/star/black hole and they will bend down towards the surface, trying to become parallel to the field lines.
Is this because of the associated magnetic field lines? If so.. how do black holes generate magnetic fields?
QC... I like the train analogy and the dissociation of curvature with gravity.
Jack
KIENNE,
I too have told this so many times that there is no such thing as gravity. The planets in the solar system are revolving because of the repulsive force from the both the Sun and the outer circle of 27 to 28 stars (probably that's why they are mentioned in the zodiac symbol because they affect the way the planets revolve).
These people are teaching physics blindly to billions of children around the world and compelling the kids to learn something non-existing. Shame on the physicists. They have become so selfish to not to loose their jobs because they have created more confusion by accepting gravity and creating more theories over that idea.
Earth's motion and its magnetic nature makes it to feel the existence of 'gravity' but in reality there is no such graviton nonsense.
I too have told this so many times that there is no such thing as gravity. The planets in the solar system are revolving because of the repulsive force from the both the Sun and the outer circle of 27 to 28 stars (probably that's why they are mentioned in the zodiac symbol because they affect the way the planets revolve).
These people are teaching physics blindly to billions of children around the world and compelling the kids to learn something non-existing. Shame on the physicists. They have become so selfish to not to loose their jobs because they have created more confusion by accepting gravity and creating more theories over that idea.
Earth's motion and its magnetic nature makes it to feel the existence of 'gravity' but in reality there is no such graviton nonsense.
KKris,
There are many arguments against your magnetism theory in this very discussion. Care to actually address them rather than wasting everybody's time commiserating with KIENNE?
There are many arguments against your magnetism theory in this very discussion. Care to actually address them rather than wasting everybody's time commiserating with KIENNE?
QUOTE (KKris+Feb 20 2008, 06:33 AM)
I too have told this so many times that there is no such thing as gravity.
... and you have been told so many times that you are an idiot.
... and you have been told so many times that you are an idiot.
QUOTE (KKris+Feb 19 2008, 12:33 PM)
I too have told this so many times that there is no such thing as gravity.
By people who don't know what they're talking about.
Complete BS.
Complete BS.
These people are teaching physics blindly to billions of children around the world and compelling the kids to learn something non-existing. Shame on the physicists. They have become so selfish to not to loose their jobs because they have created more confusion by accepting gravity and creating more theories over that idea.
Yes, and you're a prime example of what happens when people learn misinformation and accept it as fact. Shame on the meta-physicists.
If you stand on your head, you should go flying off into space, according to that bit of so-called "logic." So please, do us all a favor and stand on your head.
By people who don't know what they're talking about.
QUOTE
The planets in the solar system are revolving because of the repulsive force from the both the Sun and the outer circle of 27 to 28 stars (probably that's why they are mentioned in the zodiac symbol because they affect the way the planets revolve).
Complete BS.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The planets in the solar system are revolving because of the repulsive force from the both the Sun and the outer circle of 27 to 28 stars (probably that's why they are mentioned in the zodiac symbol because they affect the way the planets revolve). |
Complete BS.
These people are teaching physics blindly to billions of children around the world and compelling the kids to learn something non-existing. Shame on the physicists. They have become so selfish to not to loose their jobs because they have created more confusion by accepting gravity and creating more theories over that idea.
Yes, and you're a prime example of what happens when people learn misinformation and accept it as fact. Shame on the meta-physicists.
QUOTE
Earth's motion and its magnetic nature makes it to feel the existence of 'gravity' but in reality there is no such graviton nonsense.
If you stand on your head, you should go flying off into space, according to that bit of so-called "logic." So please, do us all a favor and stand on your head.
In this forum, people treat every other person like an idiot. Sometimes behave like uneducated by abusing and posting negative comments.
If there is an argument against any theory, trying to research into the argument is the best remedy not just pushing the old old old unexplained concepts into other peoples' minds because they have accepted it.
How many people in this forum support new ideas and theories here? 99.9% of all the new theories are only abused and discouraged. As soon as a person says this is my new theory they are ready to battle against that person without understanding that every person's perception of a same theory is different from others.
People can avoid reading a topic if they feel they would waste their time.
Only with open mind and respect for peers anything can be achieved successfully.
If there is an argument against any theory, trying to research into the argument is the best remedy not just pushing the old old old unexplained concepts into other peoples' minds because they have accepted it.
How many people in this forum support new ideas and theories here? 99.9% of all the new theories are only abused and discouraged. As soon as a person says this is my new theory they are ready to battle against that person without understanding that every person's perception of a same theory is different from others.
People can avoid reading a topic if they feel they would waste their time.
Only with open mind and respect for peers anything can be achieved successfully.
QUOTE (KKris+Feb 20 2008, 04:35 PM)
If there is an argument against any theory, trying to research into the argument is the best remedy not just pushing the old old old unexplained concepts into other peoples' minds because they have accepted it.
Existing theories aren't just random garbage, like all you and your fellow crank theories are. They are derived on observed behaviour and rigorously tested by verification.
How well tested is your stupid gravity is magnetism theory KKris? How about verification of your even dumber theory of the planet's orbits being due to repulsion by distant stars? The answer to these two questions is easily verifyable, it's not at all.
Don't just make stupid statements as a basis for a theory and expect to be treated with anything but contempt unless you also provide well reasoned derivations of how you arrived at your conclusions.
Theory that PROVES Newton was indeed WRONG
These Ph.Ds. are honoured by American Universities.
Oh, wow. The American Biographical Institute awarded Shaw "The Outstanding Man of the 20th Century" title in '99, then "The Man of The Millenium" in 2000. The American Biographical Institute, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Biographical_Institute , will be happy to sell you a title too.
Their list of "research papers" includes a huge list of newspapers,a few websites (some on expired domains), few if any legitimate research publications, and one Indian science congress.
These people are frauds.
LOL of course it does.
Just that this world does not understand that it still retains its ejection momentum, so it will precess until it stabolises.
LOL of course it does.
Just that this world does not understand that it still retains its ejection momentum, so it will precess until it stabolises.
relativity and the 1919 eclipse
LOL, Eddington fabricated the results..
The rest of the so called evidence are "flavoured interpretations" and have other real explanations.
newtonian gravity predicts 531 arcseconds per century
mercury precesses 574 arcseconds per century
mercury does not behave as newtonian gravity predicts
newtonian gravity predicts 531 arcseconds per century
mercury precesses 574 arcseconds per century
mercury does not behave as newtonian gravity predicts
Just that this world does not understand that it still retains its ejection momentum, so it will precess until it stabolises.
Existing theories aren't just random garbage, like all you and your fellow crank theories are. They are derived on observed behaviour and rigorously tested by verification.
How well tested is your stupid gravity is magnetism theory KKris? How about verification of your even dumber theory of the planet's orbits being due to repulsion by distant stars? The answer to these two questions is easily verifyable, it's not at all.
Don't just make stupid statements as a basis for a theory and expect to be treated with anything but contempt unless you also provide well reasoned derivations of how you arrived at your conclusions.
QUOTE (KKris+)
People can avoid reading a topic if they feel they would waste their time.
... and you appear to have applied this right through school.
Here is another Isaac Newton - newly named NOM 
You want a proven theory supporting my argument then click the website below and learn it for yourself:
Theory that PROVES Newton was indeed WRONG
These Ph.Ds. are honoured by American Universities.
You want a proven theory supporting my argument then click the website below and learn it for yourself:
Theory that PROVES Newton was indeed WRONG
These Ph.Ds. are honoured by American Universities.
QUOTE (KKris+Feb 21 2008, 05:55 AM)
These Ph.Ds. are honoured by American Universities.
I doubt that. I looked at their theories, what a loat of rubbish.
I doubt that. I looked at their theories, what a loat of rubbish.
I had not realized this topic was continued. Yes, gravity is magnetism. Period. end of story, you can talk until your blue in the face, but a facts will still remain. We are magnetic, all matter is magnetic due to magnetic induction. A graviton has NEVER , EVER been seen by anyone. Don't tell me we aren't teaching kids the wrong thing in school. We are. Anyone that doesn't have the common sense to put this together, is a *****. 1+1 =2 . that's the way it is. if you really want to get to the bottom of this debate, if you really want to take it step by step and truly explore this area. Bring it. I'm game. Just let me know. Kienneangela@yahoo.com, just let me know, and here I'll be. By the way, to whomever assumed in this post That I am a man, I'm a female.
Newton is one of the select group of scientists who got it right and it has stayed right right up until this day...something that can not be said for the fantasy Dr E's and Prof Hawk's... no observational science !!!!!
Newton's mechanical analysis of orbiting bodies was way ahead of its time.....
Newton never claimed to know the underlying mechanism
but gravity is not attraction, and it is not magnetism... it is electrodynamic, a magnetohydrodynamic force...or in more scientific terms gravity is the resultant of cosmic Poynting energy vectors whose spin is degrading.
Newton's mechanical analysis of orbiting bodies was way ahead of its time.....
Newton never claimed to know the underlying mechanism
but gravity is not attraction, and it is not magnetism... it is electrodynamic, a magnetohydrodynamic force...or in more scientific terms gravity is the resultant of cosmic Poynting energy vectors whose spin is degrading.
QUOTE (KIENNE+Apr 28 2008, 02:57 AM)
I had not realized this topic was continued. Yes, gravity is magnetism. Period. end of story, you can talk until your blue in the face, but a facts will still remain. We are magnetic, all matter is magnetic due to magnetic induction.
Admirable dedication to the scientific process I see.
Newtonian gravity explains the orbit of the planets almost perfectly. GR takes the ball and runs the rest of the way. There has never been an experiment that has contradicted a prediction of GR, and there have been many.
Use your theory to derive the orbit equation, or even better, the precession of perihelion of mercury then we'll talk some more. Until then, you aren't even wrong.
Admirable dedication to the scientific process I see.
Newtonian gravity explains the orbit of the planets almost perfectly. GR takes the ball and runs the rest of the way. There has never been an experiment that has contradicted a prediction of GR, and there have been many.
Use your theory to derive the orbit equation, or even better, the precession of perihelion of mercury then we'll talk some more. Until then, you aren't even wrong.
QUOTE (KKris+Feb 20 2008, 04:55 PM)
Theory that PROVES Newton was indeed WRONG
These Ph.Ds. are honoured by American Universities.
Oh, wow. The American Biographical Institute awarded Shaw "The Outstanding Man of the 20th Century" title in '99, then "The Man of The Millenium" in 2000. The American Biographical Institute, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Biographical_Institute , will be happy to sell you a title too.Their list of "research papers" includes a huge list of newspapers,a few websites (some on expired domains), few if any legitimate research publications, and one Indian science congress.
These people are frauds.
QUOTE
Zarkov Posted: Today at 6:47 AM Newton is one of the select group of scientists who got it right and it has stayed right right up until this day
mercury does not behave according to newton's equations ...QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Zarkov Posted: Today at 6:47 AM Newton is one of the select group of scientists who got it right and it has stayed right right up until this day |
mercury does not behave according to newton's equations ...
...something that can not be said for the fantasy Dr E's
...something that can not be said for the fantasy Dr E's
do you mean einstein ? surely not since there is lots of observation that fits einsteins theories eg one of my favorites relativity and the 1919 eclipse
who is this Dr E that has no observational science behind them ?
If the Planck scale is thus in the TeV range, the 14 TeV centre-of-mass energy of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) could allow it to become a black-hole factory with a production rate as high as about one per second.
who is this Dr E that has no observational science behind them ?
QUOTE
and Prof Hawk's... no observational science !!!!!
considering the area in which hawking works, it is not surprising that the technology required to investigate his theories is not routinely available, but there is hope, according to the cern courierIf the Planck scale is thus in the TeV range, the 14 TeV centre-of-mass energy of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) could allow it to become a black-hole factory with a production rate as high as about one per second.
QUOTE
mercury does not behave according to newton's equations ...
LOL of course it does.
Just that this world does not understand that it still retains its ejection momentum, so it will precess until it stabolises.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| mercury does not behave according to newton's equations ... |
LOL of course it does.
Just that this world does not understand that it still retains its ejection momentum, so it will precess until it stabolises.
relativity and the 1919 eclipse
LOL, Eddington fabricated the results..
The rest of the so called evidence are "flavoured interpretations" and have other real explanations.
QUOTE
Zarkov Posted: Today at 4:47 AM LOL of course it does.
newtonian gravity predicts 531 arcseconds per century
mercury precesses 574 arcseconds per century
mercury does not behave as newtonian gravity predicts
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Zarkov Posted: Today at 4:47 AM LOL of course it does. |
newtonian gravity predicts 531 arcseconds per century
mercury precesses 574 arcseconds per century
mercury does not behave as newtonian gravity predicts
Just that this world does not understand that it still retains its ejection momentum, so it will precess until it stabolises.
and newton could not predict this either, so you just proved that this statement
Oh I C
What is referred to as Newtonian "gravity" is definitely incorrect....... but Newton never claimed that the theory put forward.. that of "attraction" or force at a distance
was correct... that is modern man's stupidity. Newton knew this "popular expedience" was definitely incorrect.
Newton's cosmic (static) mechanics is entirely correct...[even for Mercury].... unfortunately for Newton he was not privy to electrodynamic theory.
Oh I C
What is referred to as Newtonian "gravity" is definitely incorrect....... but Newton never claimed that the theory put forward.. that of "attraction" or force at a distance
was correct... that is modern man's stupidity. Newton knew this "popular expedience" was definitely incorrect.
Newton's cosmic (static) mechanics is entirely correct...[even for Mercury].... unfortunately for Newton he was not privy to electrodynamic theory.
but the bending of light has been re-tested numerous times (with much less margin of error) and shown to be accurate and precise
oh yes light is bent by anisotropic cosmic field spin, there are no straight lines
so contrary to Dr E and his fantasies, light speed is not a constant.... and light loses energy as it is bent, or as it passes through various spin field gradients
yes that is the way of science.... but that does not make any explanation correct.
The "Electrodynamic Theory" obliquely referred to above does account for many extra observations... eg Pioneer anomaly... fly-by satellite anomalies, etc
and it reinforces that nothing is relative...spin always has a centre
so again Dr E's claims from his no observational science are totally absurd.
Cosmology has been a kids game for the last 100 odd years; what with Prof Hawk and Dr E... they made a mockery of science and derailed real study.
SHAME on the scientists of this world by allowing such charlatans to get away with "nice" LOL fantastic gobbledygook explanations
that actually have NO OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE at all.
Earthling scientists are easily led... and the establishment of science, the hallowed halls, has been commandeered by charlatans who actually punish real (dissenting) scientists.
PEER REVIEW..... LOL, classic censorship by the dictators. Really no different to the Pope's decrees way back in Galileo's days
if you believe that then your own posts are not true
of course, they are no truer that any other opinion.
They are true in that they match all observations... but that is all
If you are looking for truth then you will surely fail.
Science is an unfolding study of the absolute reality... truth is not the goal
understanding is... bit by bit
It is like throwing darts in the dark at the bullseye... you may get close, but where exactly the bullseye is, no scientist will ever know.
Scientists must live with this fact of reality.... only the unenlightened think truth can be found.
bias more likely
I suggest you read about the way many GREAT scientists have been treated in their lifetimes..... who was capable to judge them... but the masses did.. the elite did...
and who was proved to be more correct ???...
....only in time to be proved completely wrong.
LOL
Like Jesus and the parables... the truth may lie not in the words but
in the train of connected thoughts... internal mentalese thoughts...
and not in the linking of so many poor substitute words..... that makes an opinion either more correct or less correct.
As long as earthlings need to communicate in artificial languages.... confusion and poor interpretations must occur
Attempts to communicate in math without observation or evidence also leads to the same poor and confused intrepretations.
Technology is the proof of science.... BUT there is always a better mousetrap.
On subject
Newton to this day has been proved to be correct.... and no other opinion has even come close to the product of his genius.
Though I have failed to understand his "gravitational constant" G
I think it is incorrect
and its derivation as per Newton fails me.
IMO G is a dimensional constant... or more exactly a multiplication of dimensional constants with a magnetic constant.... this can be properly derived
but Newton's G is a mystery to me... its value is close but not correct.
QUOTE
Zarkov Posted: Yesterday at 8:47 PM Newton is one of the select group of scientists who got it right and it has stayed right right up until this day
is false LOL indeedQUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Zarkov Posted: Yesterday at 8:47 PM Newton is one of the select group of scientists who got it right and it has stayed right right up until this day |
is false LOL indeed
LOL, Eddington fabricated the results..
LOL, Eddington fabricated the results..
having a margin of error greater than the observed bending, does not make it an easy case for me to argue. but the bending of light has been re-tested numerous times (which much less margin of error) and shown to be accurate and precise http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000DDA....31.1403R
QUOTE
The rest of the so called evidence are "flavoured interpretations" and have other real explanations.
unless these explanations are able to account for extra phenomena and are capable of being experimentally verified, they are opinions ie they need to be verified
QUOTE
newtonian gravity predicts 531 arcseconds per century
mercury precesses 574 arcseconds per century
mercury does not behave as newtonian gravity predicts
mercury precesses 574 arcseconds per century
mercury does not behave as newtonian gravity predicts
Oh I C
What is referred to as Newtonian "gravity" is definitely incorrect....... but Newton never claimed that the theory put forward.. that of "attraction" or force at a distance
was correct... that is modern man's stupidity. Newton knew this "popular expedience" was definitely incorrect.
Newton's cosmic (static) mechanics is entirely correct...[even for Mercury].... unfortunately for Newton he was not privy to electrodynamic theory.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| newtonian gravity predicts 531 arcseconds per century mercury precesses 574 arcseconds per century mercury does not behave as newtonian gravity predicts |
Oh I C
What is referred to as Newtonian "gravity" is definitely incorrect....... but Newton never claimed that the theory put forward.. that of "attraction" or force at a distance
was correct... that is modern man's stupidity. Newton knew this "popular expedience" was definitely incorrect.
Newton's cosmic (static) mechanics is entirely correct...[even for Mercury].... unfortunately for Newton he was not privy to electrodynamic theory.
but the bending of light has been re-tested numerous times (with much less margin of error) and shown to be accurate and precise
oh yes light is bent by anisotropic cosmic field spin, there are no straight lines
so contrary to Dr E and his fantasies, light speed is not a constant.... and light loses energy as it is bent, or as it passes through various spin field gradients
QUOTE
unless these explanations are able to account for extra phenomena and are capable of being experimentally verified, they are opinions ie they need to be verified
yes that is the way of science.... but that does not make any explanation correct.
The "Electrodynamic Theory" obliquely referred to above does account for many extra observations... eg Pioneer anomaly... fly-by satellite anomalies, etc
and it reinforces that nothing is relative...spin always has a centre
so again Dr E's claims from his no observational science are totally absurd.
Cosmology has been a kids game for the last 100 odd years; what with Prof Hawk and Dr E... they made a mockery of science and derailed real study.
SHAME on the scientists of this world by allowing such charlatans to get away with "nice" LOL fantastic gobbledygook explanations
that actually have NO OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE at all.
Earthling scientists are easily led... and the establishment of science, the hallowed halls, has been commandeered by charlatans who actually punish real (dissenting) scientists.
PEER REVIEW..... LOL, classic censorship by the dictators. Really no different to the Pope's decrees way back in Galileo's days
QUOTE (KIENNE+Apr 28 2008, 02:57 AM)
I had not realized this topic was continued. Yes, gravity is magnetism. Period. end of story
Yes you are correct
Gravity is composed of two particles, they are the north and south magnetic monopole. these are the same two particles that create magnetism, however these two particles move differently to create gravity and magnetism. these magnetic monopoles also create all forms of energy from micro waves to light and gamma rays.
All things in nature can be explained, by using only magnetic monopoles. The only things that changes, is how these monopoles move.
I have united the fundamental forces by using these monopoles.
Lawrence
Yes you are correct
Gravity is composed of two particles, they are the north and south magnetic monopole. these are the same two particles that create magnetism, however these two particles move differently to create gravity and magnetism. these magnetic monopoles also create all forms of energy from micro waves to light and gamma rays.
All things in nature can be explained, by using only magnetic monopoles. The only things that changes, is how these monopoles move.
I have united the fundamental forces by using these monopoles.
Lawrence
QUOTE (KIENNE+Apr 28 2008, 02:57 AM)
I had not realized this topic was continued. Yes, gravity is magnetism. Period. end of story
Yes you are correct
Gravity is composed of two particles, they are the north and south magnetic monopole. these are the same two particles that create magnetism, however these two particles move differently to create gravity and magnetism. these magnetic monopoles also create all forms of energy from micro waves to light and gamma rays.
All things in nature can be explained, by using only magnetic monopoles. The only things that changes, is how these monopoles move.
I have united the fundamental forces by using these monopoles.
Lawrence
Yes you are correct
Gravity is composed of two particles, they are the north and south magnetic monopole. these are the same two particles that create magnetism, however these two particles move differently to create gravity and magnetism. these magnetic monopoles also create all forms of energy from micro waves to light and gamma rays.
All things in nature can be explained, by using only magnetic monopoles. The only things that changes, is how these monopoles move.
I have united the fundamental forces by using these monopoles.
Lawrence
QUOTE
Zarkov Posted on Apr 29 2008, 07:28 PM
yep, i understand now. you do not favour the procedure of validation, as this would only undermine your way of thinking and expose it as opinion
that was easy ...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Zarkov Posted on Apr 29 2008, 07:28 PM kjw Posted on Apr 29 2008, 05:41 PM unless these explanations are able to account for extra phenomena and are capable of being experimentally verified, they are opinions ie they need to be verified yes that is the way of science.... but that does not make any explanation correct. |
yep, i understand now. you do not favour the procedure of validation, as this would only undermine your way of thinking and expose it as opinion
that was easy ...
mmh. glad you are easily pleased
"Validation" LOL, by whom.... prevailing thought ?correct as per reference to all data or just vested interests
Like a law court, the guilty can go scott-free.
Sorry your criteria (I know it is well established)
but it is a power thing.... totally obscene for science
You must go into politics/law/religion.....or any such crap, kjw... science is not you field.
Any scientist worth their weight in HISTORY has snubbed peer review... they were stand alone.... and crucified for their stance.
LOL earthlings are really stupid. like REALLY
"Validation" LOL, by whom.... prevailing thought ?correct as per reference to all data or just vested interests
Like a law court, the guilty can go scott-free.
Sorry your criteria (I know it is well established)
but it is a power thing.... totally obscene for science
You must go into politics/law/religion.....or any such crap, kjw... science is not you field.
Any scientist worth their weight in HISTORY has snubbed peer review... they were stand alone.... and crucified for their stance.
LOL earthlings are really stupid. like REALLY
QUOTE
Zarkov Posted on Today at 6:43 AM Like a law court, the guilty can go scott-free.
you think science works by benefit of doubt ? this proves my point even more
Unfortunately earthlings are emotional creatures, and their best loved ideas are cherished dearly
even inducing total blindness
Great scientists see the whole picture of the day
others like the proverbial blind scientists examining the elephant, only "see their little bit"
and nothing more... so bias is always present...especially in peer review.
Since each scientist is a bit-scientist (has a specialty, an expert etc) they are really not qualified to pass judgment (on another's work) and must give the benefit of the doubt to another scientist that tries to show the way.... rather than crucify them because they dare to question the status quo.
Time can be the only judge... and that is predicated by extended observations and testing until a body of scientists are totally familiar with the new thoughts.
It is all opinion...nothing more... though it may be useful in some practical applications in technology
but NOTHING makes any opinion true... not even observations...
Now rather than debate the pros and cons of the scientific elite
the way forward is the presentation of *options* for discussion so that "faults" "inconsistencies" can be elucidated
in an effort to change the new (or any) proponent's theory...... discounting because one thinks the theory is incorrect is NOT SCIENCE since nothing is known to be absolutely true... NOTHING
so their is no absolute foundation any scientist can stand upon and say you are wrong !!!!!
All earthlings possess the same mental processor and if one of the bunch says such and such.. then that such and such (if it is observational based) should be respected and the claims investigated
BUT such an exercise will only sway opinions.... it can be neither right nor wrong.
No judge can intervene and give a verdict.
even inducing total blindness
Great scientists see the whole picture of the day
others like the proverbial blind scientists examining the elephant, only "see their little bit"
and nothing more... so bias is always present...especially in peer review.
Since each scientist is a bit-scientist (has a specialty, an expert etc) they are really not qualified to pass judgment (on another's work) and must give the benefit of the doubt to another scientist that tries to show the way.... rather than crucify them because they dare to question the status quo.
Time can be the only judge... and that is predicated by extended observations and testing until a body of scientists are totally familiar with the new thoughts.
It is all opinion...nothing more... though it may be useful in some practical applications in technology
but NOTHING makes any opinion true... not even observations...
Now rather than debate the pros and cons of the scientific elite
the way forward is the presentation of *options* for discussion so that "faults" "inconsistencies" can be elucidated
in an effort to change the new (or any) proponent's theory...... discounting because one thinks the theory is incorrect is NOT SCIENCE since nothing is known to be absolutely true... NOTHING
so their is no absolute foundation any scientist can stand upon and say you are wrong !!!!!
All earthlings possess the same mental processor and if one of the bunch says such and such.. then that such and such (if it is observational based) should be respected and the claims investigated
BUT such an exercise will only sway opinions.... it can be neither right nor wrong.
No judge can intervene and give a verdict.
QUOTE
Zarkov Posted: Today at 7:11 AM but NOTHING makes any opinion true... not even observations...
if you believe that then your own posts are not true
QUOTE
if you believe that then your own posts are not true
of course, they are no truer that any other opinion.
They are true in that they match all observations... but that is all
If you are looking for truth then you will surely fail.
Science is an unfolding study of the absolute reality... truth is not the goal
understanding is... bit by bit
It is like throwing darts in the dark at the bullseye... you may get close, but where exactly the bullseye is, no scientist will ever know.
Scientists must live with this fact of reality.... only the unenlightened think truth can be found.
QUOTE
Zarkov Posted: Today at 7:28 AM of course, they are no truer that any other opinion.
that is the problem with opinions. if my opinion is x and your opinion is y there is no way to resolve which is closer to the truth, unless you adopt a system of verification. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Zarkov Posted: Today at 7:28 AM of course, they are no truer that any other opinion. |
that is the problem with opinions. if my opinion is x and your opinion is y there is no way to resolve which is closer to the truth, unless you adopt a system of verification.
It is like throwing darts in the dark at the bullseye... you may get close, but where exactly the bullseye is, no scientist will ever know
It is like throwing darts in the dark at the bullseye... you may get close, but where exactly the bullseye is, no scientist will ever know
if you rely on opinion yes you will never know.
QUOTE
only the unenlightened think truth can be found.
again you agree that if truth can not be found, your own posts are not true
QUOTE
unless you adopt a system of verification.
bias more likely
I suggest you read about the way many GREAT scientists have been treated in their lifetimes..... who was capable to judge them... but the masses did.. the elite did...
and who was proved to be more correct ???...
....only in time to be proved completely wrong.
LOL
Like Jesus and the parables... the truth may lie not in the words but
in the train of connected thoughts... internal mentalese thoughts...
and not in the linking of so many poor substitute words..... that makes an opinion either more correct or less correct.
As long as earthlings need to communicate in artificial languages.... confusion and poor interpretations must occur
Attempts to communicate in math without observation or evidence also leads to the same poor and confused intrepretations.
Technology is the proof of science.... BUT there is always a better mousetrap.
On subject
Newton to this day has been proved to be correct.... and no other opinion has even come close to the product of his genius.
Though I have failed to understand his "gravitational constant" G
I think it is incorrect
and its derivation as per Newton fails me.
IMO G is a dimensional constant... or more exactly a multiplication of dimensional constants with a magnetic constant.... this can be properly derived
but Newton's G is a mystery to me... its value is close but not correct.
QUOTE
Zarkov Posted: Today at 8:03 AM I suggest you read about the way many GREAT scientists have been treated in their lifetimes..... who was capable to judge them... but the masses did.. the elite did...
and who was proved to be more correct ???...
without giving specifics your post can be interpreted as you are now proclaiming that the system verification works ie and who was proved to be more correct ???...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Zarkov Posted: Today at 8:03 AM I suggest you read about the way many GREAT scientists have been treated in their lifetimes..... who was capable to judge them... but the masses did.. the elite did... and who was proved to be more correct ???... |
without giving specifics your post can be interpreted as you are now proclaiming that the system verification works ie ....only in time to be proved completely wrong.
again LOL indeed, you are arguing with yourself
no, I do not acknowledge that opinion is verification... LOL, if so I should ask a one year old....
Your word "verification" implies knowing the truth... LOL, but that never will be in science because science is not bounded by time.
In science all opinion can be deemed correct... until further evidence comes to light
With new evidence, then interpretation (usually biased) comes into play... how clever can one be to incorporate that new evidence into their existing theory.... but that still does not make anything absolutely correct... neither the theory nor the new evidence nor the interpretation
absolute truth will always be elusive.... so no one can claim to be absolutely correct.... thus no one can judge another's interpretation..... all they can do is point out either factual or logical errors....
Ultimately all such mental gymnastics will be proved to be incorrect in time due to some future evidence base via repeatable observation.
Just because a brick drops to earth today really does not imply that a brick will drop to earth tomorrow....
In scientific discussions, all evidence is presented and all opinions are determined and all theories should then be scanned to see what jigsaw pieces fit those models, while always realising that many pieces to the puzzle remain hidden..some may be hidden forever.
Prediction is a useful tool to identify places where more pieces may be found.
Sometimes, what may appear like a discredited theory yesterday can become main stream tomorrow....
Only a fool is biased, only a fool knows the truth, and only a fool will claim someone is a fool for having such and such opinion.
A scientist will present further evidence, rather that attack with slander and other ill intent.
Are you a fool ?
From the information Newton was privy to, he did a fine job
today his analysis is primitive, but still correct at some level.
Neils Bohr, stated somewhere (these are not his words...he said it far more eliquently that I have here) that science is like children's blocks, at the lowest levels that theory must gel/mesh with upper level building blocks.
Newton's work underlies higher level theory in cosmic motion. An electrodynamic layer on top brings his work up to the modern day.
QUOTE
As long as earthlings need to communicate in artificial languages.... confusion and poor interpretations must occur
no, as long as communication is opinion based, confusion and poor interpretations occur. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As long as earthlings need to communicate in artificial languages.... confusion and poor interpretations must occur |
no, as long as communication is opinion based, confusion and poor interpretations occur.
Attempts to communicate in math without observation or evidence also leads to the same poor and confused intrepretations.
Attempts to communicate in math without observation or evidence also leads to the same poor and confused intrepretations.
again you are supporting the idea that observation or evidence has a superiority over opinion.
QUOTE
Newton to this day has been proved to be correct.... and no other opinion has even come close to the product of his genius.
no opinion ever will, that's my point. your point is that opinion should be equally regarded as verificationQUOTE
no opinion ever will, that's my point. your point is that opinion should be equally regarded as verification
no, I do not acknowledge that opinion is verification... LOL, if so I should ask a one year old....
Your word "verification" implies knowing the truth... LOL, but that never will be in science because science is not bounded by time.
In science all opinion can be deemed correct... until further evidence comes to light
With new evidence, then interpretation (usually biased) comes into play... how clever can one be to incorporate that new evidence into their existing theory.... but that still does not make anything absolutely correct... neither the theory nor the new evidence nor the interpretation
absolute truth will always be elusive.... so no one can claim to be absolutely correct.... thus no one can judge another's interpretation..... all they can do is point out either factual or logical errors....
Ultimately all such mental gymnastics will be proved to be incorrect in time due to some future evidence base via repeatable observation.
Just because a brick drops to earth today really does not imply that a brick will drop to earth tomorrow....
In scientific discussions, all evidence is presented and all opinions are determined and all theories should then be scanned to see what jigsaw pieces fit those models, while always realising that many pieces to the puzzle remain hidden..some may be hidden forever.
Prediction is a useful tool to identify places where more pieces may be found.
Sometimes, what may appear like a discredited theory yesterday can become main stream tomorrow....
Only a fool is biased, only a fool knows the truth, and only a fool will claim someone is a fool for having such and such opinion.
A scientist will present further evidence, rather that attack with slander and other ill intent.
Are you a fool ?
From the information Newton was privy to, he did a fine job
today his analysis is primitive, but still correct at some level.
Neils Bohr, stated somewhere (these are not his words...he said it far more eliquently that I have here) that science is like children's blocks, at the lowest levels that theory must gel/mesh with upper level building blocks.
Newton's work underlies higher level theory in cosmic motion. An electrodynamic layer on top brings his work up to the modern day.
QUOTE
Zarkov Posted on Today at 11:19 AM no, I do not acknowledge that opinion is verification...
i am not saying that you consider that opinion is verification. i am saying you appear to hold opinion in equal regard to verification. even though it is known why, where there is no air resistance, two objects will reach the ground at the same time if they are dropped simultaneously from the same height, you seem to think that any other opinion on why this is the case, must be equally considered as true. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Zarkov Posted on Today at 11:19 AM no, I do not acknowledge that opinion is verification... |
i am not saying that you consider that opinion is verification. i am saying you appear to hold opinion in equal regard to verification. even though it is known why, where there is no air resistance, two objects will reach the ground at the same time if they are dropped simultaneously from the same height, you seem to think that any other opinion on why this is the case, must be equally considered as true.
In science all opinion can be deemed correct... until further evidence comes to light
In science all opinion can be deemed correct... until further evidence comes to light
that is not true. it is not correct to say a higgs boson actually exists, until the existance is verified.
QUOTE
Just because a brick drops to earth today really does not imply that a brick will drop to earth tomorrow....
would you like to place a bet that a brick will not drop to the earth tomorrow ?QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Just because a brick drops to earth today really does not imply that a brick will drop to earth tomorrow.... |
would you like to place a bet that a brick will not drop to the earth tomorrow ?
Are you a fool ?
Are you a fool ?
place the bet and find out
LOL
QUOTE
kjw Posted on Today at 2:27 PM
yes it does. Gravity is not caused by mass attracting mass... it is caused by differential field spin.
From my calculations a large proportion of G is due to magnetic moments, ...thus the changes in G you describe.
G really has nothing whatsoever to do with gravity, it is a magnetism to spherical mass constant... and relies upon the number of neutrons in the spherical cosmic mass...
much to do with (4/3)^n X scaling constant involved in B (magnetic measure)
so the amount of mass/magnetic moment coupled with electric field spin induces a resultant towards the centre of spin = gravity.
G just allows a rough backward calculation to the quantity of mass creating the limits (size) of the spherical field that surrounds a cosmic mass.
yes it does. Gravity is not caused by mass attracting mass... it is caused by differential field spin.
From my calculations a large proportion of G is due to magnetic moments, ...thus the changes in G you describe.
G really has nothing whatsoever to do with gravity, it is a magnetism to spherical mass constant... and relies upon the number of neutrons in the spherical cosmic mass...
much to do with (4/3)^n X scaling constant involved in B (magnetic measure)
so the amount of mass/magnetic moment coupled with electric field spin induces a resultant towards the centre of spin = gravity.
G just allows a rough backward calculation to the quantity of mass creating the limits (size) of the spherical field that surrounds a cosmic mass.
Hey gringo you bad cerebro lika mucho retardo burro.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| kjw Posted on Today at 2:27 PMZarkov Posted on Today at 11:19 AM Just because a brick drops to earth today really does not imply that a brick will drop to earth tomorrow.... would you like to place a bet that a brick will not drop to the earth tomorrow ? |
QUOTE
Zarkov Posted on Today at 2:38 PM
why not place a bet ? if your opinion is of equal validity to verification, then you should be confident.
place the bet that a brick will not fall to the ground tomorrow.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE | ||
Zarkov Posted on Today at 2:38 PM kjw Posted on Today at 2:27 PM
LOL |
why not place a bet ? if your opinion is of equal validity to verification, then you should be confident.
place the bet that a brick will not fall to the ground tomorrow.
I wonder how the gravitational constant is assumed to be a constant when it varies from the equator to the poles. Can anybody explain why gravity differs in different parts of our globe? Doesn't it prove that gravitation is not an existing phenomenon but is generated by other forces!
QUOTE
Doesn't it prove that gravitation is not an existing phenomenon but is generated by other forces!
yes it does. Gravity is not caused by mass attracting mass... it is caused by differential field spin.
From my calculations a large proportion of G is due to magnetic moments, ...thus the changes in G you describe.
G really has nothing whatsoever to do with gravity, it is a magnetism to spherical mass constant... and relies upon the number of neutrons in the spherical cosmic mass...
much to do with (4/3)^n X scaling constant involved in B (magnetic measure)
so the amount of mass/magnetic moment coupled with electric field spin induces a resultant towards the centre of spin = gravity.
G just allows a rough backward calculation to the quantity of mass creating the limits (size) of the spherical field that surrounds a cosmic mass.
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 5 2008, 05:12 AM)
yes it does. Gravity is not caused by mass attracting mass... it is caused by differential field spin.
From my calculations a large proportion of G is due to magnetic moments, ...thus the changes in G you describe.
G really has nothing whatsoever to do with gravity, it is a magnetism to spherical mass constant... and relies upon the number of neutrons in the spherical cosmic mass...
much to do with (4/3)^n X scaling constant involved in B (magnetic measure)
so the amount of mass/magnetic moment coupled with electric field spin induces a resultant towards the centre of spin = gravity.
G just allows a rough backward calculation to the quantity of mass creating the limits (size) of the spherical field that surrounds a cosmic mass.
Hey gringo you bad cerebro lika mucho retardo burro.
Hey gringo
you no cerebro gringo
LOL
you no cerebro gringo
LOL
QUOTE
KKris Posted: Today at 2:30 PM I wonder how the gravitational constant is assumed to be a constant when it varies from the equator to the poles. Can anybody explain why gravity differs in different parts of our globe?
G is a constant, but the force of attraction is not constant. the force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between masses. the difference in gravity is due to the varying amounts of mass (which may include a height differnece) between your feet and the centre of the earth at various locations around the globe ie assuming identical density, part of the earths mantle in australia will have a different thickness to the mantle in indiaQUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| KKris Posted: Today at 2:30 PM I wonder how the gravitational constant is assumed to be a constant when it varies from the equator to the poles. Can anybody explain why gravity differs in different parts of our globe? |
G is a constant, but the force of attraction is not constant. the force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between masses. the difference in gravity is due to the varying amounts of mass (which may include a height differnece) between your feet and the centre of the earth at various locations around the globe ie assuming identical density, part of the earths mantle in australia will have a different thickness to the mantle in india
Doesn't it prove that gravitation is not an existing phenomenon but is generated by other forces
Doesn't it prove that gravitation is not an existing phenomenon but is generated by other forces
no
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 5 2008, 06:52 AM)
Hey gringo
you no cerebro gringo
LOL
you try insult Indio? Aha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, Indido speet in your feelthy peegish face Aha ha ha ha ha ha ha !
you no cerebro gringo
LOL
you try insult Indio? Aha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, Indido speet in your feelthy peegish face Aha ha ha ha ha ha ha !
Hey Indio, it's just that his name translates to Spanish as puñetero. He's jealous 'cause it sounds better that way. 
Hey! kjw,
for God sake you didn't say that gravity is created by earth's mantle
Why no?? Explain.
for God sake you didn't say that gravity is created by earth's mantle
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Doesn't it prove that gravitation is not an existing phenomenon but is generated by other forces no |
Why no?? Explain.
QUOTE
KKris Posted: Today at 1:07 AM Hey! kjw, for God sake you didn't say that gravity is created by earth's mantle
no. it is yet another case of members skimming the post and not reading the post correctly QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| KKris Posted: Today at 1:07 AM Hey! kjw, for God sake you didn't say that gravity is created by earth's mantle |
no. it is yet another case of members skimming the post and not reading the post correctly kjw Posted on Yesterday at 5:41 PM the difference in gravity is due to the varying amounts of mass (which may include a height difference) between your feet and the centre of the earth at various locations around the globe ie assuming identical density, part of the earths mantle in australia will have a different thickness to the mantle in india
Many scientific problems have been around for a long time
and there are usually MANY explanations for any particular phenomenon...
And even though the whole world cry out in unison that "such and such is the truth"
it never is and it never will be.
The established explanation is simply untenable if it is examine in the light of new evidence and new theories
It is not by chance that metals are "heavier" than non-metals.....
Weight gives a measure of "gravitation coupling", and metals are magnitudes more magnetic.
No magnetism is NOT gravity, but it is a player.
PS why are you still not willing to place that bet, you are so sure your opinion will win ?
QUOTE
KKris Posted on Today at 1:07 AM
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE | ||
KKris Posted on Today at 1:07 AM kjw Posted on Yesterday at 5:41 PM
Why no?? Explain. |
because the example you gave ie Can anybody explain why gravity differs in different parts of our globe? is adequately explained by the difference in mass under your feet. why would this be proof that gravitation is generated by other forces ?
QUOTE
is adequately explained by
Many scientific problems have been around for a long time
and there are usually MANY explanations for any particular phenomenon...
And even though the whole world cry out in unison that "such and such is the truth"
it never is and it never will be.
The established explanation is simply untenable if it is examine in the light of new evidence and new theories
It is not by chance that metals are "heavier" than non-metals.....
Weight gives a measure of "gravitation coupling", and metals are magnitudes more magnetic.
No magnetism is NOT gravity, but it is a player.
QUOTE
Zarkov Posted: Yesterday at 3:12 PM Gravity is not caused by mass attracting mass... it is caused by differential field spin.
From my calculations a large proportion of G is due to magnetic moments, ...thus the changes in G you describe.
i predict that under no circumstance will you show these calculations on this forum. you will however continue to claim you have such calculations. here is your chance, prove me wrong.From my calculations a large proportion of G is due to magnetic moments, ...thus the changes in G you describe.
PS why are you still not willing to place that bet, you are so sure your opinion will win ?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Zarkov Posted: Yesterday at 3:12 PM Gravity is not caused by mass attracting mass... it is caused by differential field spin. From my calculations a large proportion of G is due to magnetic moments, ...thus the changes in G you describe. |
i predict that under no circumstance will you show these calculations on this forum. you will however continue to claim you have such calculations. here is your chance, prove me wrong.
PS why are you still not willing to place that bet, you are so sure your opinion will win ?
kjw Posted on Today at 2:27 PM
PS why are you still not willing to place that bet, you are so sure your opinion will win ?
kjw Posted on Today at 2:27 PM
QUOTE
Zarkov Posted on Today at 11:19 AM Just because a brick drops to earth today really does not imply that a brick will drop to earth tomorrow....
would you like to place a bet that a brick will not drop to the earth tomorrow ?QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Zarkov Posted on Today at 11:19 AM Just because a brick drops to earth today really does not imply that a brick will drop to earth tomorrow.... |
would you like to place a bet that a brick will not drop to the earth tomorrow ?
Zarkov Posted on Today at 2:38 PM
Zarkov Posted on Today at 2:38 PM
QUOTE
kjw Posted on Today at 2:27 PM
LOL
correct
as for your thick brick !!!
If I told you the secret..... LOL.....NO!
But philosophically the brick may fall or not.... in all our observations it has fallen... so no point making a bet
But LOL, I could change that
Both the objects won't reach the ground at the same time. Do you know that the magnetic sphere will reach the ground later than that of the spherical brick?
Both objects will each the ground at the same time.
Just because one of the objects is magnetic, won't slow it down.
nice experiment... good conception
guys, thats what I'm saying throw away the articles from 15th and 16th century. Stop using old parts of the brain, think for yourselves and experiment newly to understand what is right.
guys, thats what I'm saying throw away the articles from 15th and 16th century. Stop using old parts of the brain, think for yourselves and experiment newly to understand what is right.
Let's just make a wild assumption that your stupid claims have some substance.
So [suspend reality]
NASA, falsely believing gravity actually exists, and is not magnetic, has based all its planetary probes on false physics.
So, none of NASA's probes would ever get even close to where they were indended. The further from the sun the more wrong they get. Slingshot gravity assist wouldn't work.
Many of the instruments NASA includes on satelites and probes wouldn't work.
[/suspend reality]
But NASA's probes do work. They are able to land a probe on a moon of Saturn.
N O M gave modern usage, so there is no need to repeat, so i choose a historical example
1705: halley accurately calculates an orbital period of approximately 76 years for the 1682 comet, using Newton's laws of motion.
so correct. Gravity is not an attraction like magnets.
Newton knew that but he had no knowledge of the true mechanism.
kjw, why does your physics formulae always gives only approximations not accurate answers?
There are so many factors that our minds cannot perceive/understand. So far the formulae formulated are all made up of variables only with very little understanding of space. There is still so much more to explore and understand or even just think about. Without those unrecognized variables/forces none of the equation is fully correct. Physicists always formulate theories only with limited understanding of space. They choose variables that fit their outcome. What about those vastly ignored forces?
Don't you know that certain laws in physics fail in quantum level? If the laws were formulated correctly they wouldn't fail at any level of the space matters.
Could you reference? I would like to see an article or something where they have created substantially enough antimatter to test that theory.
Could you reference? I would like to see an article or something where they have created substantially enough antimatter to test that theory.
The planets are attracted to the Sun by gravity and repelled by their magnetic field,
You are correct about the gravity but wrong about the magnetics.
The planets orbiting the sun is accurately represented by spinning a weight on the end of a string. As you spin the weight around, you are imparting velocity to the weight. Now one of the laws of motion states that a body in motion will continue to stay in motion and will do so in a straight line until a force acts upon the body to change this.
Well space has very very little friction and so it has very very little force to slow a moving body. A body as large as planets would have no problem continuing to move for millions/billions of years. Now if these planets have motion (like the weight at the end of the string) what force is acting upon them to constantly change their direction? The force is a pull that is gravity and is represented by the string.
So it is the planet's velocity (momentum) that prevents it from getting pulled into the sun while it is the sun's gravity that prevents the planet from traveling in a straight path away from the sun.
How come Lawrence? Do you know that a strong magnet turns around a weak magnet (if it has the repelling sides facing it) and attracts the small one to it. Take two magnets and experiment it for yourself. If you say that gravity of Sun attracts the planets then now there are two attraction forces: one the Sun's gravity and another is the Sun's magnetic attraction.
Hey! Lawrence come on, this topic doesn't ask you to define a magnet.
You are correct about the gravity but wrong about the magnetics.
The planets orbiting the sun is accurately represented by spinning a weight on the end of a string. As you spin the weight around, you are imparting velocity to the weight. Now one of the laws of motion states that a body in motion will continue to stay in motion and will do so in a straight line until a force acts upon the body to change this.
Well space has very very little friction and so it has very very little force to slow a moving body. A body as large as planets would have no problem continuing to move for millions/billions of years. Now if these planets have motion (like the weight at the end of the string) what force is acting upon them to constantly change their direction? The force is a pull that is gravity and is represented by the string.
So it is the planet's velocity (momentum) that prevents it from getting pulled into the sun while it is the sun's gravity that prevents the planet from traveling in a straight path away from the sun.
The Planet also has gravity and will attract the Sun
For your theory to work the planet must revolve around the Sun at a very fast speed.
Just look at the Moon it also has gravity just like the Earth, but the Earth and the Moons magnetic field repel each other, this is what makes the tides.
How come Lawrence? Do you know that a strong magnet turns around a weak magnet (if it has the repelling sides facing it) and attracts the small one to it. Take two magnets and experiment it for yourself. If you say that gravity of Sun attracts the planets then now there are two attraction forces: one the Sun's gravity and another is the Sun's magnetic attraction.
Yes you would be correct if the planet were not rotating on its axis.
There is a toy that operates on this same principal.
Wrong.
If you think it's wrong then explain, and I will prove you Wrong.
if the earths magnetic north was always on the same side as the suns magnetic north, what would happen to magnetic north during earths annual trip around the sun ? during northern hemisphere summer both the geographic north pole and the magnetic north pole would be facing the sun. as the year progressed from summer to winter the geographic north pole would tilt ie from 23.5deg from vertical towards the sun to 23.5deg from vertical away from the sun diagram
if the magnetic north were to remain on the same side as the suns magnetic north then then magnetic north of the earth would have to drift a total of 47deg between summer and winter. this is not the case. north pole drift
The Sun's magnetic poles will remain as they are now, with the north magnetic pole pointing through the Sun's southern hemisphere, until the year 2012 when they will reverse again. This transition happens, as far as we know, at the peak of every 11-year sunspot cycle -- like clockwork.
Earth’s magnetic field also flips, but with less regularity. Consecutive reversals are spaced 5 thousand years to 50 million years apart. The last reversal happened 740,000 years ago. Some researchers think our planet is overdue for another one, but nobody knows exactly when the next reversal might occur.
source
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| kjw Posted on Today at 2:27 PM Zarkov Posted on Today at 11:19 AM Are you a fool? place the bet and find out |
LOL
QUOTE
i predict that under no circumstance will you show these calculations on this forum
correct
as for your thick brick !!!
If I told you the secret..... LOL.....NO!
But philosophically the brick may fall or not.... in all our observations it has fallen... so no point making a bet
But LOL, I could change that
Hey! kjw,
why do you always think that a brick can fall to the ground only by a pulling/attracting force, why can't it be a pushing force? there is so much to say about the repulsive force of the stars which drives the planets in their(planets') orbits.
why do you always think that a brick can fall to the ground only by a pulling/attracting force, why can't it be a pushing force? there is so much to say about the repulsive force of the stars which drives the planets in their(planets') orbits.
ok! guys what do you think the outcome of an experiment that follows:
Imagine throwing two objects of the same mass from the top of a building. One can be a spherical brick. Another sphere of magnetic quality. This magnetic sphere should be hollow with another small spherical magnet inside it.
Both the objects won't reach the ground at the same time. Do you know that the maganetic sphere will reach the ground later than that of the spherical brick?
Imagine throwing two objects of the same mass from the top of a building. One can be a spherical brick. Another sphere of magnetic quality. This magnetic sphere should be hollow with another small spherical magnet inside it.
Both the objects won't reach the ground at the same time. Do you know that the maganetic sphere will reach the ground later than that of the spherical brick?
QUOTE (KKris+May 8 2008, 01:06 PM)
Both the objects won't reach the ground at the same time. Do you know that the magnetic sphere will reach the ground later than that of the spherical brick?
Both objects will each the ground at the same time.
Just because one of the objects is magnetic, won't slow it down.
QUOTE
KKris Posted: Yesterday at 10:55 PM Hey! kjw, why do you always think that a brick can fall to the ground only by a pulling/attracting force, why can't it be a pushing force?
pushed by what ?QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| KKris Posted: Yesterday at 10:55 PM Hey! kjw, why do you always think that a brick can fall to the ground only by a pulling/attracting force, why can't it be a pushing force? |
pushed by what ?
there is so much to say about the repulsive force of the stars which drives the planets in their(planets') orbits.
there is so much to say about the repulsive force of the stars which drives the planets in their(planets') orbits.
there is a lot to say, yes. but it does not make it correct. can you provide observational evidence of this repulsive theory
QUOTE
Both the objects won't reach the ground at the same time.
nice experiment... good conception
QUOTE
Zarkov Posted: Today at 8:02 AM
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Zarkov Posted: Today at 8:02 AM KKris Posted on Yesterday at 11:06 PM Both the objects won't reach the ground at the same time. nice experiment... good conception |
verified as false
QUOTE (kjw+May 8 2008, 11:16 PM)
nice experiment... good conception [/QUOTE] verified as false
Give him the benefit of the doubt, Kev. Maybe he missed the recent articles from the 15th and 16th centuries.
Later,
Ron
Give him the benefit of the doubt, Kev. Maybe he missed the recent articles from the 15th and 16th centuries.
Later,
Ron
guys, thats what I'm saying throw away the articles from 15th and 16th century. Stop using old parts of the brain, think for yourselves and experiment newly to understand what is right.
Planets in our solar system are pushed by the center Sun and the stars which form a circle around the solar system. Planets try to escape the repulsive force from both the sides (from the center Sun and the outer circle of stars) which resulting in a motion in their orbits. Gravitation is comparatively a negligible energy that is generated from the motion of the planet, its magnetic nature and also the temperature at various levels from the core to its crust.
QUOTE (KKris+May 9 2008, 12:56 PM)
guys, thats what I'm saying throw away the articles from 15th and 16th century. Stop using old parts of the brain, think for yourselves and experiment newly to understand what is right. Let's just make a wild assumption that your stupid claims have some substance.
So [suspend reality]
NASA, falsely believing gravity actually exists, and is not magnetic, has based all its planetary probes on false physics.
So, none of NASA's probes would ever get even close to where they were indended. The further from the sun the more wrong they get. Slingshot gravity assist wouldn't work.
Many of the instruments NASA includes on satelites and probes wouldn't work.
[/suspend reality]
But NASA's probes do work. They are able to land a probe on a moon of Saturn.
QUOTE (KKris+May 9 2008, 01:13 AM)
Planets in our solar system are pushed by the center Sun and the stars which form a circle around the solar system. Planets try to escape the repulsive force from both the sides (from the center Sun and the outer circle of stars) which resulting in a motion in their orbits. Gravitation is comparatively a negligible energy that is generated from the motion of the planet, its magnetic nature and also the temperature at various levels from the core to its crust.
The planets are attracted to the Sun by gravity and repelled by their magnetic field, this keeps them in the same orbit around the Sun.
Gravity is only an attractive force which is created by a nuclear reaction.
Try this experiment
Throw a bunch of magnets up in the air and see if any of them repel each other.
The planets are attracted to the Sun by gravity and repelled by their magnetic field, this keeps them in the same orbit around the Sun.
Gravity is only an attractive force which is created by a nuclear reaction.
Try this experiment
Throw a bunch of magnets up in the air and see if any of them repel each other.
guys, I'm not finished there. If you apply the same principle to all the objects in space it is not going to work. If you think that gravity of the Sun keeps planets in orbit and there is gravity again in the planets then Sun and the planets should form a single object. Stellar objects have different properties than that of the planets. Like wise, natural satellites have different properties than that of the planets. Don't apply gravity to all the objects in space or else there will be only one large object in space not innumerable galaxies.
Lawrence, are you talking about those magnets which have both the poles in the same magnet. What about those ones that have only one pole in two magnets A & B that are thrown up? If you say that they will repel each other, then put a third magnet C(of the same pole as the ones thrown above) in the way of B's repelled outcoming path. Don't you think B will again be repelled by the third magnet C and take a new path. Here, B is a planet that escapes the push of A and C taking a new path.
I don't totally mean that everything is magnetism but some kind of repulsive force from the center star Sun and the outer circle of Stars that pushes the planets. Now, assume that the planets totally dislike the force of the stars from both the sides, they will escape this push by moving away resulting in the orbital motion.
I don't totally mean that everything is magnetism but some kind of repulsive force from the center star Sun and the outer circle of Stars that pushes the planets. Now, assume that the planets totally dislike the force of the stars from both the sides, they will escape this push by moving away resulting in the orbital motion.
QUOTE
KKris Posted: Today at 3:52 AM If you apply the same principle to all the objects in space it is not going to work.
oh they work.N O M gave modern usage, so there is no need to repeat, so i choose a historical example
1705: halley accurately calculates an orbital period of approximately 76 years for the 1682 comet, using Newton's laws of motion.
QUOTE
If you apply the same principle to all the objects in space it is not going to work. If you think that gravity of the Sun keeps planets in orbit and there is gravity again in the planets then Sun and the planets should form a single object.
so correct. Gravity is not an attraction like magnets.
Newton knew that but he had no knowledge of the true mechanism.
QUOTE
1705: halley accurately calculates an orbital period of approximately 76 years for the 1682 comet, using Newton's laws of motion.
kjw, why does your physics formulae always gives only approximations not accurate answers?
There are so many factors that our minds cannot perceive/understand. So far the formulae formulated are all made up of variables only with very little understanding of space. There is still so much more to explore and understand or even just think about. Without those unrecognized variables/forces none of the equation is fully correct. Physicists always formulate theories only with limited understanding of space. They choose variables that fit their outcome. What about those vastly ignored forces?
Don't you know that certain laws in physics fail in quantum level? If the laws were formulated correctly they wouldn't fail at any level of the space matters.
QUOTE
Gravity obeys "Like attracts Like" and experiments with antimatter demonstrate that "Like attracts Unlike."
Could you reference? I would like to see an article or something where they have created substantially enough antimatter to test that theory.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Gravity obeys "Like attracts Like" and experiments with antimatter demonstrate that "Like attracts Unlike." |
Could you reference? I would like to see an article or something where they have created substantially enough antimatter to test that theory.
The planets are attracted to the Sun by gravity and repelled by their magnetic field,
You are correct about the gravity but wrong about the magnetics.
The planets orbiting the sun is accurately represented by spinning a weight on the end of a string. As you spin the weight around, you are imparting velocity to the weight. Now one of the laws of motion states that a body in motion will continue to stay in motion and will do so in a straight line until a force acts upon the body to change this.
Well space has very very little friction and so it has very very little force to slow a moving body. A body as large as planets would have no problem continuing to move for millions/billions of years. Now if these planets have motion (like the weight at the end of the string) what force is acting upon them to constantly change their direction? The force is a pull that is gravity and is represented by the string.
So it is the planet's velocity (momentum) that prevents it from getting pulled into the sun while it is the sun's gravity that prevents the planet from traveling in a straight path away from the sun.
QUOTE (KKris+May 9 2008, 05:52 PM)
If you apply the same principle to all the objects in space it is not going to work. If you think that gravity of the Sun keeps planets in orbit and there is gravity again in the planets then Sun and the planets should form a single object.
If the planets did not have a magnetic field, Yes they would all come together
All planets have a magnetic field, there magnetic north pole is on the same side as the Suns magnetic north pole, this will repel all of the planets away from the Sun.
But gravity will bring them back together. this is what keeps them in orbit.
If the planets did not have a magnetic field, Yes they would all come together
All planets have a magnetic field, there magnetic north pole is on the same side as the Suns magnetic north pole, this will repel all of the planets away from the Sun.
But gravity will bring them back together. this is what keeps them in orbit.
QUOTE (KKris+May 9 2008, 06:12 PM)
Lawrence, are you talking about those magnets which have both the poles in the same magnet. What about those ones that have only one pole
Magnets with two poles are called dipoles
Magnets with only one pole are called monopoles, and there are two of them,
one is a south monopole and the other is a north monopole.
These magnetic monopoles are what create the magnetic dipole, commonly known as a bar magnet.
Magnets with two poles are called dipoles
Magnets with only one pole are called monopoles, and there are two of them,
one is a south monopole and the other is a north monopole.
These magnetic monopoles are what create the magnetic dipole, commonly known as a bar magnet.
QUOTE
All planets have a magnetic field, there magnetic north pole is on the same side as the Suns magnetic north pole, this will repel all of the planets away from the Sun.
But gravity will bring them back together. this is what keeps them in orbit.
But gravity will bring them back together. this is what keeps them in orbit.
How come Lawrence? Do you know that a strong magnet turns around a weak magnet (if it has the repelling sides facing it) and attracts the small one to it. Take two magnets and experiment it for yourself. If you say that gravity of Sun attracts the planets then now there are two attraction forces: one the Sun's gravity and another is the Sun's magnetic attraction.
QUOTE
Magnets with two poles are called dipoles
Magnets with only one pole are called monopoles, and there are two of them,
one is a south monopole and the other is a north monopole.
These magnetic monopoles are what create the magnetic dipole, commonly known as a bar magnet
.Magnets with only one pole are called monopoles, and there are two of them,
one is a south monopole and the other is a north monopole.
These magnetic monopoles are what create the magnetic dipole, commonly known as a bar magnet
Hey! Lawrence come on, this topic doesn't ask you to define a magnet.
QUOTE (Precursor562+May 10 2008, 03:02 AM)
You are correct about the gravity but wrong about the magnetics.
The planets orbiting the sun is accurately represented by spinning a weight on the end of a string. As you spin the weight around, you are imparting velocity to the weight. Now one of the laws of motion states that a body in motion will continue to stay in motion and will do so in a straight line until a force acts upon the body to change this.
Well space has very very little friction and so it has very very little force to slow a moving body. A body as large as planets would have no problem continuing to move for millions/billions of years. Now if these planets have motion (like the weight at the end of the string) what force is acting upon them to constantly change their direction? The force is a pull that is gravity and is represented by the string.
So it is the planet's velocity (momentum) that prevents it from getting pulled into the sun while it is the sun's gravity that prevents the planet from traveling in a straight path away from the sun.
The Planet also has gravity and will attract the Sun
For your theory to work the planet must revolve around the Sun at a very fast speed.
Just look at the Moon it also has gravity just like the Earth, but the Earth and the Moons magnetic field repel each other, this is what makes the tides.
QUOTE (Lawrence+)
Just look at the Moon it also has gravity just like the Earth, but the Earth and the Moons magnetic field repel each other, this is what makes the tides.
Wrong.
Wrong.
QUOTE (KKris+May 10 2008, 03:46 AM)
How come Lawrence? Do you know that a strong magnet turns around a weak magnet (if it has the repelling sides facing it) and attracts the small one to it. Take two magnets and experiment it for yourself. If you say that gravity of Sun attracts the planets then now there are two attraction forces: one the Sun's gravity and another is the Sun's magnetic attraction.
Yes you would be correct if the planet were not rotating on its axis.
There is a toy that operates on this same principal.
QUOTE (TheDoc+May 10 2008, 03:55 AM)
Wrong.
If you think it's wrong then explain, and I will prove you Wrong.
QUOTE
Lawrence Posted: Today at 1:23 PM All planets have a magnetic field, there magnetic north pole is on the same side as the Suns magnetic north pole,
this is clearly false. if the earths magnetic north was always on the same side as the suns magnetic north, what would happen to magnetic north during earths annual trip around the sun ? during northern hemisphere summer both the geographic north pole and the magnetic north pole would be facing the sun. as the year progressed from summer to winter the geographic north pole would tilt ie from 23.5deg from vertical towards the sun to 23.5deg from vertical away from the sun diagram
if the magnetic north were to remain on the same side as the suns magnetic north then then magnetic north of the earth would have to drift a total of 47deg between summer and winter. this is not the case. north pole drift
QUOTE (Lawrence+May 10 2008, 03:59 AM)
There is a toy that operates on this same principal.
Lawrence of Arabidma,
Well put it back in its box and go to sleep, child.
Lawrence of Arabidma,
Well put it back in its box and go to sleep, child.
QUOTE (kjw+May 10 2008, 04:16 AM)
this is clearly false.
if the earths magnetic north was always on the same side as the suns magnetic north, what would happen to magnetic north during earths annual trip around the sun ? during northern hemisphere summer both the geographic north pole and the magnetic north pole would be facing the sun. as the year progressed from summer to winter the geographic north pole would tilt ie from 23.5deg from vertical towards the sun to 23.5deg from vertical away from the sun diagram
if the magnetic north were to remain on the same side as the suns magnetic north then then magnetic north of the earth would have to drift a total of 47deg between summer and winter. this is not the case. north pole drift
When I said the Earth's magnetic north pole is on the same side as the Sun's magnetic north pole. I meant they are both on top and the south pole is on the bottom.
Since the north pole is just a little stronger that the south pole it will cause the Earth's axis to tilt and give the Earth elliptical orbit around the Sun.
if the earths magnetic north was always on the same side as the suns magnetic north, what would happen to magnetic north during earths annual trip around the sun ? during northern hemisphere summer both the geographic north pole and the magnetic north pole would be facing the sun. as the year progressed from summer to winter the geographic north pole would tilt ie from 23.5deg from vertical towards the sun to 23.5deg from vertical away from the sun diagram
if the magnetic north were to remain on the same side as the suns magnetic north then then magnetic north of the earth would have to drift a total of 47deg between summer and winter. this is not the case. north pole drift
When I said the Earth's magnetic north pole is on the same side as the Sun's magnetic north pole. I meant they are both on top and the south pole is on the bottom.
Since the north pole is just a little stronger that the south pole it will cause the Earth's axis to tilt and give the Earth elliptical orbit around the Sun.
QUOTE (Lawrence+May 10 2008, 04:28 AM)
When I said the Earth's magnetic north pole is on the same side as the Sun's magnetic north pole. I meant they are both on top and the south pole is on the bottom.
Since the north pole is just a little stronger that the south pole it will cause the Earth's axis to tilt and give the Earth elliptical orbit around the Sun.
Figgin mo' or what!
Since the north pole is just a little stronger that the south pole it will cause the Earth's axis to tilt and give the Earth elliptical orbit around the Sun.
Figgin mo' or what!
QUOTE
Lawrence Posted on Today at 2:28 PM When I said the Earth's magnetic north pole is on the same side as the Sun's magnetic north pole. I meant they are both on top and the south pole is on the bottom.
that is not true either. the earths magneitc north and the suns magnetic north are not alwayts alignedThe Sun's magnetic poles will remain as they are now, with the north magnetic pole pointing through the Sun's southern hemisphere, until the year 2012 when they will reverse again. This transition happens, as far as we know, at the peak of every 11-year sunspot cycle -- like clockwork.
Earth’s magnetic field also flips, but with less regularity. Consecutive reversals are spaced 5 thousand years to 50 million years apart. The last reversal happened 740,000 years ago. Some researchers think our planet is overdue for another one, but nobody knows exactly when the next reversal might occur.
source
QUOTE (kjw+May 10 2008, 04:49 AM)
that is not true either. the earths magneitc north and the suns magnetic north are not alwayts aligned
The Sun's magnetic poles will remain as they are now, with the north magnetic pole pointing through the Sun's southern hemisphere, until the year 2012 when they will reverse again. This transition happens, as far as we know, at the peak of every 11-year sunspot cycle -- like clockwork.
Earth’s magnetic field also flips, but with less regularity. Consecutive reversals are spaced 5 thousand years to 50 million years apart. The last reversal happened 740,000 years ago. Some researchers think our planet is overdue for another one, but nobody knows exactly when the next reversal might occur.
source
The Sun's magnetic poles can not reverse and is not the cause sun spots.
The Earth' magnetic field never reversed itself.
Physics today is based on incorrect observations.
The Sun's magnetic poles will remain as they are now, with the north magnetic pole pointing through the Sun's southern hemisphere, until the year 2012 when they will reverse again. This transition happens, as far as we know, at the peak of every 11-year sunspot cycle -- like clockwork.
Earth’s magnetic field also flips, but with less regularity. Consecutive reversals are spaced 5 thousand years to 50 million years apart. The last reversal happened 740,000 years ago. Some researchers think our planet is overdue for another one, but nobody knows exactly when the next reversal might occur.
source
The Sun's magnetic poles can not reverse and is not the cause sun spots.
The Earth' magnetic field never reversed itself.
Physics today is based on incorrect observations.
QUOTE (Lawrence+)
If you think it's wrong then explain, and I will prove you Wrong.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but a Wikipedia page is all it takes to make you like an idiot.
Tidal forces
...
Oh! my God I can't stop laughing....
Dude that was too much of a princiPAL.
kjw, yes! to reproduce the same observation you would always follow the same method. What about those methods that we haven't thought yet?
kjw, yes! to reproduce the same observation you would always follow the same method. What about those methods that we haven't thought yet?
Have you ever tried to cut a dipole magnet in half? If you had you wouldn't have made that stupid assertion. Because you don't get two monopoles, you get two smaller dipoles.
That is right!
You still haven't proved me wrong.
I already have
You can not answer how the tides are created by the Moon's gravity.
If the Moon and Earth's gravity are pulling on each other what keeps them from smashing into each other?
If the Moon fell around the Earth it could not create tides.
Centrifugal force, not a chance, the Moon would have to revolve around Earth at a much faster rate than it does now.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but a Wikipedia page is all it takes to make you like an idiot.
Tidal forces
QUOTE (From the link above+)
The tidal force is a secondary effect of the force of gravity and is responsible for the tides.
QUOTE
Lawrence Posted on Today at 3:04 PM The Sun's magnetic poles can not reverse.
that is not true. it was observed to do so in 2001.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Lawrence Posted on Today at 3:04 PM The Sun's magnetic poles can not reverse. |
that is not true. it was observed to do so in 2001.
The Earth' magnetic field never reversed itself
The Earth' magnetic field never reversed itself
that is not necessarily true. there is evidence to suggest that it has.
QUOTE
Physics today is based on incorrect observations
that is not true. physics is based on re-producible observations. you think physics is based on incorrect observations.
QUOTE (Lawrence+May 10 2008, 03:38 AM)
Magnets with two poles are called dipoles
Magnets with only one pole are called monopoles, and there are two of them,
one is a south monopole and the other is a north monopole.
These magnetic monopoles are what create the magnetic dipole, commonly known as a bar magnet.
Have you ever tried to cut a dipole magnet in half? If you had you wouldn't have made that stupid assertion. Because you don't get two monopoles, you get two smaller dipoles.
Magnets with only one pole are called monopoles, and there are two of them,
one is a south monopole and the other is a north monopole.
These magnetic monopoles are what create the magnetic dipole, commonly known as a bar magnet.
Have you ever tried to cut a dipole magnet in half? If you had you wouldn't have made that stupid assertion. Because you don't get two monopoles, you get two smaller dipoles.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| (Lawrence @ May 10 2008, 03:59 AM) There is a toy that operates on this same principal. Lawrence of Arabidma, Well put it back in its box and go to sleep, child. |
...Oh! my God I can't stop laughing....
Dude that was too much of a princiPAL.
QUOTE
that is not true. physics is based on re-producible observations. you think physics is based on incorrect observations.
kjw, yes! to reproduce the same observation you would always follow the same method. What about those methods that we haven't thought yet?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| that is not true. physics is based on re-producible observations. you think physics is based on incorrect observations. |
kjw, yes! to reproduce the same observation you would always follow the same method. What about those methods that we haven't thought yet?
Have you ever tried to cut a dipole magnet in half? If you had you wouldn't have made that stupid assertion. Because you don't get two monopoles, you get two smaller dipoles.
That is right!
You must learn to think for yourself.
While the Moon's gravity is pulling on the ocean, it's magnetic field is being repelled by the Earth's magnetic field, this allows the Moon's gravity to create tidal forces on the Earth.
While the Moon's gravity is pulling on the ocean, it's magnetic field is being repelled by the Earth's magnetic field, this allows the Moon's gravity to create tidal forces on the Earth.
QUOTE (kjw+May 10 2008, 05:21 AM)
that is not true. it was observed to do so in 2001.
that is not necessarily true. there is evidence to suggest that it has.
that is not true. physics is based on re-producible observations. you think physics is based on incorrect observations.
The only way to tell if the Sun's magnetic field changes is to take a compass and
go to the Sun. Because you can not tell if it's magnetic field changes from earth.
This was based on small particles of magnetite found in rock samples, this is incorrect. The Earth's crust is always moving, and you can also create magnetite by Lightning, this will invalidate your observation.
If this were correct physics would have solved the TOE long ago.
that is not necessarily true. there is evidence to suggest that it has.
that is not true. physics is based on re-producible observations. you think physics is based on incorrect observations.
The only way to tell if the Sun's magnetic field changes is to take a compass and
go to the Sun. Because you can not tell if it's magnetic field changes from earth.
This was based on small particles of magnetite found in rock samples, this is incorrect. The Earth's crust is always moving, and you can also create magnetite by Lightning, this will invalidate your observation.
If this were correct physics would have solved the TOE long ago.
QUOTE (barakn+May 10 2008, 05:22 AM)
Have you ever tried to cut a dipole magnet in half? If you had you wouldn't have made that stupid assertion. Because you don't get two monopoles, you get two smaller dipoles.
Yes if you cut magnet in half you would get a smaller dipole.
But you forgot one thing, magnetic dipoles are created by moving magnetic monopoles. These monopoles are moving in opposite directions because north attracts south if you do not stop the monopoles from moving you will always get a dipole.
Their is a way to separate magnetic monopoles and it is very easy maybe you can figure it out.
Yes if you cut magnet in half you would get a smaller dipole.
But you forgot one thing, magnetic dipoles are created by moving magnetic monopoles. These monopoles are moving in opposite directions because north attracts south if you do not stop the monopoles from moving you will always get a dipole.
Their is a way to separate magnetic monopoles and it is very easy maybe you can figure it out.
Guys, why is our science buddy Lawrence so ignorant?
He makes me laugh all the time!
He makes me laugh all the time!
This is a diagram of how a magnetic dipole is created by using north and south magnetic monopoles.
Only one magnetic line of force is shown (magnetic dipoles have many lines of force).
These monopoles will always attract each other in perpetual motion, the only thing that can slow them down is heat.
If you cool a magnet it will become very strong (this is how superconductor magnets are made).
If you heat a magnet it will become very weak (this is why things melt because matter is bound together by magnetic monopoles).
If you cut a magnet in half you will always get a dipole (because the magnetic monopoles that created the dipole are still moving in the direction).
You must learn to think for yourself and not let the standard model of physics which is based on incorrect observations.
Try this imagine that magnetic monopoles move in the way that I have described and decide for yourself if it would create a dipole.
User posted image: User posted image
Only one magnetic line of force is shown (magnetic dipoles have many lines of force).
These monopoles will always attract each other in perpetual motion, the only thing that can slow them down is heat.
If you cool a magnet it will become very strong (this is how superconductor magnets are made).
If you heat a magnet it will become very weak (this is why things melt because matter is bound together by magnetic monopoles).
If you cut a magnet in half you will always get a dipole (because the magnetic monopoles that created the dipole are still moving in the direction).
You must learn to think for yourself and not let the standard model of physics which is based on incorrect observations.
Try this imagine that magnetic monopoles move in the way that I have described and decide for yourself if it would create a dipole.
User posted image: User posted image
QUOTE (Lawrence+)
While the Moon's gravity is pulling on the ocean, it's magnetic field is being repelled by the Earth's magnetic field, this allows the Moon's gravity to create tidal forces on the Earth.
And your proof?
And your proof?
QUOTE (TheDoc+May 10 2008, 08:19 PM)
You still haven't proved me wrong.
I already have
You can not answer how the tides are created by the Moon's gravity.
If the Moon and Earth's gravity are pulling on each other what keeps them from smashing into each other?
If the Moon fell around the Earth it could not create tides.
Centrifugal force, not a chance, the Moon would have to revolve around Earth at a much faster rate than it does now.
QUOTE (Lawrence+)
I already have
No, you haven't. You posted some mindless gibberish based on misconceptions, and then tried to pass it off as fact. Big whoop. People do that every day here.
And (gasp) NEITHER CAN YOU!
And (gasp) NEITHER CAN YOU!
Centrifugal force, not a chance, the Moon would have to revolve around Earth at a much faster rate than it does now.
Where did I mention centrifugal force? Care to point out where I referenced that?
No, you haven't. You posted some mindless gibberish based on misconceptions, and then tried to pass it off as fact. Big whoop. People do that every day here.
QUOTE
You can not answer how the tides are created by the Moon's gravity.
And (gasp) NEITHER CAN YOU!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You can not answer how the tides are created by the Moon's gravity. |
And (gasp) NEITHER CAN YOU!
Centrifugal force, not a chance, the Moon would have to revolve around Earth at a much faster rate than it does now.
Where did I mention centrifugal force? Care to point out where I referenced that?
Answer the question
What causes the tides?
What causes the tides?
Lawrence you are sorta right but mostly wrong
However your observational skills are well honed
Yes the tides are not well explained by established theory. The tidal motion is 30 minutes BEFORE the Moon, so yes the Moon is not "pulling" the water.. it is pushing it... think diamagnetism
Yes the tides are not well explained by established theory. The tidal motion is 30 minutes BEFORE the Moon, so yes the Moon is not "pulling" the water.. it is pushing it... think diamagnetism
If the Moon and Earth's gravity are pulling on each other what keeps them from smashing into each other?
Some experts think the Moon orbits the Sun.. not the Earth... yes Newton's principles have been taken to the extreme of ignorance in this age (The Sun "pulls" on the Moon twice as strongly as the Earth does (by established calculations)... makes you wonder where their brains are... so theoretically the Sun should suck the Moon off)
The Sun has a spin system... and the Earth and planets are in that spin system..
the Earth has a separate spin system and the Moon and satellites are in that... the spin systems are all entirely separate.. but linked
In fact the Moon is losing speed so it is moving AWAY from the Earth... and in general all the moons of the Solar System are moving away from their parent.
Yes there is more to this... as outlined above.
The Moon's magnetic field (simply because it is massive and bathed in Sun's magnetic field
pushes diamagnetic water away from the direction of its travel.... and of course water sloshes in a harmonic so the tidal bulge exists on both sides of the Earth
In fact you can pick up the magnetic pushes from not only the Moon, but the Sun, Jupiter etc. so there is more than one "tidal motion"
Unfortunately modern researchers are not up to the standard of Newton, nor do they truly respect Newton, because they have corrupted much of his work.
However your observational skills are well honed
QUOTE
You can not answer how the tides are created by the Moon's gravity.
Yes the tides are not well explained by established theory. The tidal motion is 30 minutes BEFORE the Moon, so yes the Moon is not "pulling" the water.. it is pushing it... think diamagnetism
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You can not answer how the tides are created by the Moon's gravity. |
Yes the tides are not well explained by established theory. The tidal motion is 30 minutes BEFORE the Moon, so yes the Moon is not "pulling" the water.. it is pushing it... think diamagnetism
If the Moon and Earth's gravity are pulling on each other what keeps them from smashing into each other?
Some experts think the Moon orbits the Sun.. not the Earth... yes Newton's principles have been taken to the extreme of ignorance in this age (The Sun "pulls" on the Moon twice as strongly as the Earth does (by established calculations)... makes you wonder where their brains are... so theoretically the Sun should suck the Moon off)
The Sun has a spin system... and the Earth and planets are in that spin system..
the Earth has a separate spin system and the Moon and satellites are in that... the spin systems are all entirely separate.. but linked
In fact the Moon is losing speed so it is moving AWAY from the Earth... and in general all the moons of the Solar System are moving away from their parent.
QUOTE
If the Moon fell around the Earth it could not create tides.
Yes there is more to this... as outlined above.
The Moon's magnetic field (simply because it is massive and bathed in Sun's magnetic field
pushes diamagnetic water away from the direction of its travel.... and of course water sloshes in a harmonic so the tidal bulge exists on both sides of the Earth
In fact you can pick up the magnetic pushes from not only the Moon, but the Sun, Jupiter etc. so there is more than one "tidal motion"
Unfortunately modern researchers are not up to the standard of Newton, nor do they truly respect Newton, because they have corrupted much of his work.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.