QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Dec 11 2007, 10:53 PM)
c++? What the hell does a programming language have to do with demonstrating a physical concept? It proves and demonstrates nothing.
Oh whatever. Have you even read Einstein's work, or taken a class in GR? Prove it. Find me one quote from a GR textbook, or even a pop science book on GR that says that.
And you're saying that because Einstein was right, that means he didn't mean what he said? That's utterly illogical.
If you're the choir, you're singing backwards...
"Attempted to pose?" Thanks for letting me know that you know nothing of physics.
Dallas knows GR. Go through his posting history, and find something in there that disagrees with real GR (not your version of it, the version they teach in schools around the world.)
After you do that, I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona you might be interested in....
Really? He merged spacetime in Special Relativity? You so sure of that?
Yes. Have you ever cracked even a pop science book on this subject?
I suppose you think knowing what Einstein's birthday was means you know how his thought processes occured... Even though your knowledge of SR and GR is.... Well, let's just say my crystal collecting, ghost hunting, bigfoot believing girlfriend (who thinks I'm a supergeek already, for even posting on this board) can discuss the issue from a more knowledgable position. Literally.
I'm not joking.
She hated science class, but still knows enough to know you're wrong. She laughed when I pointed out your claims.
Isn't that sad?
BDW,
From your point of view, you're saying that the acceleration of the body causes the gravitational field (gravitational time dilation). It's plainly obvious that the gravitational field causes acceleration. That's why it's called gravitational time dilation, because it causes acceleration.
Perhaps you should look into the "coincidence" that a precessing orbit advances at a rate which requires both gravitational and special relativistic time dilation. Yes it's a very special case, but it does show that there can be a subtle difference. Maybe I was talking about one and you were talking about the other. Who knows, I don't care. Just read a book and learn the difference. We are talking about gravitation in this thread, right?
If you don't know what C++ has to do with modern relativity, then don't stop reading books -- you're not done learning yet. The fact that you can't even tell the difference between English and any programming language speaks volumes of your knowledge. Welcome to the 20th, errrr I guess 21st century, bud.
Jeeze you guys are merciless, aren't you? No wonder why you're so well respected.
Drop the attitude and maybe I'll teach you for free. I might not be an expert, but I don't go around telling everyone they're morons, and I certainly know a lot more than you about physics and computer science. You're definitely not a *****, but you are kind of an *** at times.
Oh whatever. Have you even read Einstein's work, or taken a class in GR? Prove it. Find me one quote from a GR textbook, or even a pop science book on GR that says that.
And you're saying that because Einstein was right, that means he didn't mean what he said? That's utterly illogical.
If you're the choir, you're singing backwards...
"Attempted to pose?" Thanks for letting me know that you know nothing of physics.
Dallas knows GR. Go through his posting history, and find something in there that disagrees with real GR (not your version of it, the version they teach in schools around the world.)
After you do that, I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona you might be interested in....
Really? He merged spacetime in Special Relativity? You so sure of that?
Yes. Have you ever cracked even a pop science book on this subject?
I suppose you think knowing what Einstein's birthday was means you know how his thought processes occured... Even though your knowledge of SR and GR is.... Well, let's just say my crystal collecting, ghost hunting, bigfoot believing girlfriend (who thinks I'm a supergeek already, for even posting on this board) can discuss the issue from a more knowledgable position. Literally.
I'm not joking.
She hated science class, but still knows enough to know you're wrong. She laughed when I pointed out your claims.
Isn't that sad?
BDW,
From your point of view, you're saying that the acceleration of the body causes the gravitational field (gravitational time dilation). It's plainly obvious that the gravitational field causes acceleration. That's why it's called gravitational time dilation, because it causes acceleration.
Perhaps you should look into the "coincidence" that a precessing orbit advances at a rate which requires both gravitational and special relativistic time dilation. Yes it's a very special case, but it does show that there can be a subtle difference. Maybe I was talking about one and you were talking about the other. Who knows, I don't care. Just read a book and learn the difference. We are talking about gravitation in this thread, right?
If you don't know what C++ has to do with modern relativity, then don't stop reading books -- you're not done learning yet. The fact that you can't even tell the difference between English and any programming language speaks volumes of your knowledge. Welcome to the 20th, errrr I guess 21st century, bud.
Jeeze you guys are merciless, aren't you? No wonder why you're so well respected.
Drop the attitude and maybe I'll teach you for free. I might not be an expert, but I don't go around telling everyone they're morons, and I certainly know a lot more than you about physics and computer science. You're definitely not a *****, but you are kind of an *** at times.
QUOTE (shalayka+Dec 12 2007, 07:07 PM)
From your point of view, you're saying that the acceleration of the body causes the gravitational field (gravitational time dilation).
Yes.
Wrong.
Wrong.
If you don't know what C++ has to do with modern relativity, then don't stop reading books -- you're not done learning yet. The fact that you can't even tell the difference between English and any programming language speaks volumes of your knowledge. Welcome to the 20th, errrr I guess 21st century, bud.
The fact that you seem to think there is a connection clues me in to the fact that you have no knowledge of GR or SR whatsoever. News flash, both theories were written WELL before the invention of c++, c+, visual basic, java, html, or any other programming language.
The fact that you haven't bothered to actually quote Einstein or any other specialist in General Relativity tells me that you have no reason but your own misconceptions to argue this point. Of course, I already knew that.
The fact that you think Dallas doesn't know the difference between coordinate time and proper times lets me know that you're too delusional to ever get in touch with reality.
The fact that you think you can teach anyone here anything except how to be a crank lets me know that arguing with you is pointless.
Goodbye.
The fact that you think Dallas doesn't know the difference between coordinate time and proper times lets me know that you're too delusional to ever get in touch with reality.
Don't worry, I am used to cranks pretending that I don't know physics
Neat how you inform the casual readers of the manner of forewarning of the other members of what you are about to try to pull off, looks conspiratorial in manner that all of the other members are told in advance as to go along with the attempted ruse AKA keep their mouths shut.
Not even English. Maybe if you really tried, you could construct a sentence more devoid of meaning, but I deplore the thought that you will. Go back to your alley.
Yes.
QUOTE
It's plainly obvious that the gravitational field causes acceleration. That's why it's called gravitational time dilation, because it causes acceleration.
Wrong.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It's plainly obvious that the gravitational field causes acceleration. That's why it's called gravitational time dilation, because it causes acceleration. |
Wrong.
If you don't know what C++ has to do with modern relativity, then don't stop reading books -- you're not done learning yet. The fact that you can't even tell the difference between English and any programming language speaks volumes of your knowledge. Welcome to the 20th, errrr I guess 21st century, bud.
The fact that you seem to think there is a connection clues me in to the fact that you have no knowledge of GR or SR whatsoever. News flash, both theories were written WELL before the invention of c++, c+, visual basic, java, html, or any other programming language.
The fact that you haven't bothered to actually quote Einstein or any other specialist in General Relativity tells me that you have no reason but your own misconceptions to argue this point. Of course, I already knew that.
The fact that you think Dallas doesn't know the difference between coordinate time and proper times lets me know that you're too delusional to ever get in touch with reality.
QUOTE
Drop the attitude and maybe I'll teach you for free.
The fact that you think you can teach anyone here anything except how to be a crank lets me know that arguing with you is pointless.
Goodbye.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Dec 13 2007, 08:04 AM)
For the record....
Neat how you inform the casual readers of the manner of forewarning of the other members of what you are about to try to pull off, looks conspiratorial in manner that all of the other members are told in advance as to go along with the attempted ruse AKA keep their mouths shut.
Everyone (All of the people 'casual' readers that they may be) who knows anything about Finance and Compound interest rates - now - knows you are attempting to fool anyone who reads these pages...and are continuing to try to.
Gravitational attractions are compounding event histories, always summing.
No - once again - Both of those statements apply to you...not me.
This is goddammed ######## you arrogant little ########.
You're so ####### paranoid that you're making up ####### conspiracies where there are none you ####### #####!
I am not forwarning anyone of anything you ####### ####.
I am not attempting a ruse you ####### #######.
I am not asking anyone to keep their ####### mouth shut you #######.
The only thing that sums is the velocity you ####### #######.
I'm not trying to conceal anything you ###-###### ###### ####### ### ##### #### ###### #####!
I think perhaps the greatest irony of all of this is that I knew you would try weasel out of this you ### ##### #### ###### ###-###!
The more you speak, the more I am convinced that my comments about you being paranoid and delusional are correct. You would rather concoct fantasies about conspiracy theories then admit that you were actually wrong.
I could also equally validly argue that what I have calculated is the accelerations of a series of masses at a series of heights.
Or are you now going to try and argue that a 10kg mass at an altitude of 5000 km has a different acceleration from a 10 kg mass that has fallen to an altitude from an altitude of 10,000 km?
#### Parsons. You give new meaning to words like "Arrogance" and "Dishonesty".
Neat how you inform the casual readers of the manner of forewarning of the other members of what you are about to try to pull off, looks conspiratorial in manner that all of the other members are told in advance as to go along with the attempted ruse AKA keep their mouths shut.
Everyone (All of the people 'casual' readers that they may be) who knows anything about Finance and Compound interest rates - now - knows you are attempting to fool anyone who reads these pages...and are continuing to try to.
Gravitational attractions are compounding event histories, always summing.
No - once again - Both of those statements apply to you...not me.
This is goddammed ######## you arrogant little ########.
You're so ####### paranoid that you're making up ####### conspiracies where there are none you ####### #####!
I am not forwarning anyone of anything you ####### ####.
I am not attempting a ruse you ####### #######.
I am not asking anyone to keep their ####### mouth shut you #######.
The only thing that sums is the velocity you ####### #######.
I'm not trying to conceal anything you ###-###### ###### ####### ### ##### #### ###### #####!
I think perhaps the greatest irony of all of this is that I knew you would try weasel out of this you ### ##### #### ###### ###-###!
The more you speak, the more I am convinced that my comments about you being paranoid and delusional are correct. You would rather concoct fantasies about conspiracy theories then admit that you were actually wrong.
I could also equally validly argue that what I have calculated is the accelerations of a series of masses at a series of heights.
Or are you now going to try and argue that a 10kg mass at an altitude of 5000 km has a different acceleration from a 10 kg mass that has fallen to an altitude from an altitude of 10,000 km?
#### Parsons. You give new meaning to words like "Arrogance" and "Dishonesty".
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Dec 13 2007, 12:39 AM)
The fact that you think Dallas doesn't know the difference between coordinate time and proper times lets me know that you're too delusional to ever get in touch with reality.
Don't worry, I am used to cranks pretending that I don't know physics
iN my humble opinion, gravity is caused by descrepancy of time between 2 isolated spaces.In a short word, gravity is exactly a Time Vortex.Our consciousness plays a psychological role in understanding gravity,which mislead us from the truth.A very very tiny time dilation causes apparant perception of Gravity,object falling down, the weight and the energy etc. Evry object with a mass is a perfectly closed space,in Poicares word:a sphere, and in this sphere the time is stopped,mass is invalid/zero to the outside. It means you can not percept it even it may has infinite mass. Only when there is an input of mysterious energy, the time begin to dilate/flow,and as a result its space become a doughnut.In this case i can only abstractly imagine a geometric represenation of this effect: All matter with perceptable mass is located in a spacetime concavity its not new idea. Mine is that in this concavity the time is relative to the mass contained and it will only change due to outside force: gravitational pull from other more massive objects or other 3 form of forces.The more massive object has a larger circumference of spacetime concavity and its effect is immidiate between 2 spacetime concvities because the time is unified as one point in all universe and the object will only move when THE TIME ESCAPES FROM ITS CONCAVITY TO THE EXPANDED TIME CONCAVITY. Therefore all movement cause by gravitational pull is directly the result of time escapement from concavity or spacetime curvature.
About pyramid mysteries: Suppose that if there is a detectable spacetime concavity around all kind of matter caused by gravity of Earth, when we engulf a rock with electrogmantic force to cover the spacetime concavity that is distinctive to the target and we may be able to move it at spedd of the electron! But as the result of antigravity teleportation,if the electrogmagnitc force is larger than the concavity field of the object teleported, the object may suffer age change due to shifting into other timestream( The electromagnetic force isolated the object from the timestream of Earths gravitation field) It is highly possible that all pyramids are considerablly OLDER than carbon dating shows because the electromagnetic force used to teleport these rocks has change the carbon halflife attached on them.
This energy which cause the closed spacetime to expand and concave is UNKNOWN therefor the true mystery lies here as to what cause the gravity. Our usual perception of gravity is the perception of tiny descrepancy of time between 2 spaces. Yes,time has weight to our sense, and is palpable.On the contrary the matter itself is what we should ask and is what we can not percept with our known 5 senses.It may also be the force of creation!
About pyramid mysteries: Suppose that if there is a detectable spacetime concavity around all kind of matter caused by gravity of Earth, when we engulf a rock with electrogmantic force to cover the spacetime concavity that is distinctive to the target and we may be able to move it at spedd of the electron! But as the result of antigravity teleportation,if the electrogmagnitc force is larger than the concavity field of the object teleported, the object may suffer age change due to shifting into other timestream( The electromagnetic force isolated the object from the timestream of Earths gravitation field) It is highly possible that all pyramids are considerablly OLDER than carbon dating shows because the electromagnetic force used to teleport these rocks has change the carbon halflife attached on them.
This energy which cause the closed spacetime to expand and concave is UNKNOWN therefor the true mystery lies here as to what cause the gravity. Our usual perception of gravity is the perception of tiny descrepancy of time between 2 spaces. Yes,time has weight to our sense, and is palpable.On the contrary the matter itself is what we should ask and is what we can not percept with our known 5 senses.It may also be the force of creation!
the cause of gravity is constructive wave interference where as the gravitational waves generated from all objects align through the path of least resistance in a natural attempt to form equal density distribution. The catch phrase is gravitational wave synchronization where as the pull feeling of gravity is a wave DE- synchronization of wave frequency distribution. Time and space are wave functions of this process and are thereby subject to relative due to the change in disruption of wave frequency synchronization between all objects. Matter dies not warp time and space it creates time and space. rate and volume. wave synchronization is the missing link of understanding.
QUOTE (insight+Dec 13 2007, 06:38 AM)
the cause of gravity is constructive wave interference where as the gravitational waves generated from all objects align through the path of least resistance in a natural attempt to form equal density distribution. The catch phrase is gravitational wave synchronization where as the pull feeling of gravity is a wave DE- synchronization of wave frequency distribution. Time and space are wave functions of this process and are thereby subject to relative due to the change in disruption of wave frequency synchronization between all objects. Matter dies not warp time and space it creates time and space. rate and volume. wave synchronization is the missing link of understanding.
Speaking of catch-phrases, interference, and missing links, where did you get your wonderfully mangled 'education'? Oral Roberts University? Or have you beeen talking to parsons?
Speaking of catch-phrases, interference, and missing links, where did you get your wonderfully mangled 'education'? Oral Roberts University? Or have you beeen talking to parsons?
Consider this idea. Gravity and photons are connected because photons basically are peaks of gravity waving. Photons are the first level waves. Thus light is not bent really. Its flattened. Consider strong gravity as a very smooth line. If such line is waving first thing that you will see are photons. The tiniest of peaks. Photons would basically be gravity waves. Or should one say - photons are like the other face of gravity.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Dec 12 2007, 02:04 PM)
Neat how you inform the casual readers of the manner of forewarning of the other members of what you are about to try to pull off, looks conspiratorial in manner that all of the other members are told in advance as to go along with the attempted ruse AKA keep their mouths shut.
Not even English. Maybe if you really tried, you could construct a sentence more devoid of meaning, but I deplore the thought that you will. Go back to your alley.
I dont know how else to say this but Newton knew nothing about electromagnetism. Thus gravity is a relic. I dont know why Einstein used the name but the real deal is electro-magnetic field. Gravity is just a very simplistic description of electro-magnetism. Electro-magnetism is more complex than just having attraction.
QUOTE (Majkl+Dec 13 2007, 02:45 PM)
I dont know how else to say this but Newton knew nothing about electromagnetism. Thus gravity is a relic. I dont know why Einstein used the name but the real deal is electro-magnetic field. Gravity is just a very simplistic description of electro-magnetism. Electro-magnetism is more complex than just having attraction.
This must be a science fiction site. The way all you geniuses come out and say things as a matter of fact statement. Electromagnetism and gravity are the same! What are you smoking. If your serious, you need to either check your weapons at the door or just read what non-psychotic educated people have to say about the subject. Just the other day some poor kid starting his 1st year of physics heard this kind of statement and thought it was true. That's all your doing is confusing people who don't know better. Start your thread in science fiction, please. It's not fair to the normal people.
Thanks,
Ron
This must be a science fiction site. The way all you geniuses come out and say things as a matter of fact statement. Electromagnetism and gravity are the same! What are you smoking. If your serious, you need to either check your weapons at the door or just read what non-psychotic educated people have to say about the subject. Just the other day some poor kid starting his 1st year of physics heard this kind of statement and thought it was true. That's all your doing is confusing people who don't know better. Start your thread in science fiction, please. It's not fair to the normal people.
Thanks,
Ron
BTW If (I) had had my own computer (I) could have simply programmed this math in Qbasic (FORTRAN would be easier for me) and produced the results.
So - lets see, trippy's 'error' is one of note.
He has already laid the trail of his exit plan. Post #289830
So - lets see, trippy's 'error' is one of note.
He has already laid the trail of his exit plan. Post #289830
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 9 2007, 04:25 PM)
Oops. A typo, thanks for pointing it out.
His back up his 'excuse' ........again.
If you note - the numbers that (I) supplied, they differ only in where the decimal point lays..And they both use only the number one (1)..if we calculate anything using those two numbers, the ONLY difference we will see in the answers is where the decimal point lays as the Numbers that will actually appear - results - will be the same ones...sorta like 2653487610.0 & 0.26534876100 ....exact same 'numbers' - but different values.
So the obviousness of someone who has scholastic training in mathematics enough to knows how to generate a 'Data set' well, missing a decimal point like that and the aforementioned of the offer of a view prior to post Suggests a form of Foul play at foot....why we looked and saw the set up to-for the 'exit plan'
So rather then quibble incessantly with one who is going to protest, proclaiming innocence - in their absent of innocence - that they then innocently - Deny - and then knowledgeably Proclaim that denial.
In Respect of time and Spiritual Essence, one would use the Maxim of Doing unto 'others' as you would have wanted for yourself and ask to see - Given in return - what was 'asked' of me....
BTW A quick scan of the last 30 days reveals the use of the words *typo *typing *error as this search 17 Posts-results (Members only) removing the word error brings 6 post-results (Members only) and the only one that is using the words apropos to admitting to Typing error is the one cited at the top of this post - for him - the rest are just not relevant to 'admitting to typing error's' .....except on my part...
So, asking for what was asked for.
And boy, would I love to be there with a video camera! I wouldn't even sell it to those bum fights guys, I'd post it for free on the internet, complete with special features, audio commentary, instant replay, frame by frame analysis....
I don't expect anyone to really comprehend what I just stated. Nobody understands it really.
Incredible. Are you including yourself? Perhaps someone with more patience than I will attempt to help you...
lol. no not quite
You of course realise all matter is both electric and magnetic,
and the Universe is composed of bubbles of crossed electric and magnetic fields
so movement of any matter in these fields causes a reaction... you call that, inertia
and because these fields are differentially driven.... spinning magnetic and electric fields
the poynting vector resultant of this morion causes objects (magnetic and electric) to "fall" (pushed) towards the centre
LOL, you call this gravity
Not really electrmagnetism... though electromagnetic waves are pushed forward by the propogating Poynting vector
The term used is electrodynamics... the electrodymnamics of spinning electric crossed magnetic fields and the resultant caused by the motion (spin).
Its an energy thing.
not too hard to tackle.
Gravity is no longer the mysterious "only unidirectional force" in the Universe
it does not pull (nothing can pull in a physics sense) it is a resultant push
The driven fields around planets degrade and this degradation is manifest as "gravity"
If you note - the numbers that (I) supplied, they differ only in where the decimal point lays..And they both use only the number one (1)..if we calculate anything using those two numbers, the ONLY difference we will see in the answers is where the decimal point lays as the Numbers that will actually appear - results - will be the same ones...sorta like 2653487610.0 & 0.26534876100 ....exact same 'numbers' - but different values.
So the obviousness of someone who has scholastic training in mathematics enough to knows how to generate a 'Data set' well, missing a decimal point like that and the aforementioned of the offer of a view prior to post Suggests a form of Foul play at foot....why we looked and saw the set up to-for the 'exit plan'
So rather then quibble incessantly with one who is going to protest, proclaiming innocence - in their absent of innocence - that they then innocently - Deny - and then knowledgeably Proclaim that denial.
In Respect of time and Spiritual Essence, one would use the Maxim of Doing unto 'others' as you would have wanted for yourself and ask to see - Given in return - what was 'asked' of me....
BTW A quick scan of the last 30 days reveals the use of the words *typo *typing *error as this search 17 Posts-results (Members only) removing the word error brings 6 post-results (Members only) and the only one that is using the words apropos to admitting to Typing error is the one cited at the top of this post - for him - the rest are just not relevant to 'admitting to typing error's' .....except on my part...
So, asking for what was asked for.
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 10 2007, 04:09 PM)
Sure thing Parsons, but on two conditions.When I post it two things must happen when the data I post support my assertions.
1. You will immeadiately admit your error, in public, in this thread.
2. You will give me a positive feedback that consists of an apology for the abuse you have directed at me on this topic.
1. You will immeadiately admit your error, in public, in this thread.
2. You will give me a positive feedback that consists of an apology for the abuse you have directed at me on this topic.
QUOTE (Ron+Dec 13 2007, 03:05 PM)
This must be a science fiction site. The way all you geniuses come out and say things as a matter of fact statement. Electromagnetism and gravity are the same! What are you smoking. If your serious, you need to either check your weapons at the door or just read what non-psychotic educated people have to say about the subject. Just the other day some poor kid starting his 1st year of physics heard this kind of statement and thought it was true. That's all your doing is confusing people who don't know better. Start your thread in science fiction, please. It's not fair to the normal people.
Thanks,
Ron
I deleted my post. Dont want to ruin things.
Just one more thing. Just to clear any misconception about my thoughts. I didnt said it nicely. Gravity is real. But Newton was not ignorant like i am for example. Its just that attraction and only attraction makes me think. Singularities, monopoloes. You know what i mean.
Thanks,
Ron
I deleted my post. Dont want to ruin things.
Just one more thing. Just to clear any misconception about my thoughts. I didnt said it nicely. Gravity is real. But Newton was not ignorant like i am for example. Its just that attraction and only attraction makes me think. Singularities, monopoloes. You know what i mean.
Hi Majkl,
I almost apologized immediately after posting. I'm sorry for being too rude. That's out of character for me. Thanks for understanding what really bothered me, though. I think this site is more important to younger kids than us who should be teaching them.
Peace,
Ron
I almost apologized immediately after posting. I'm sorry for being too rude. That's out of character for me. Thanks for understanding what really bothered me, though. I think this site is more important to younger kids than us who should be teaching them.
Peace,
Ron
Robin, you entire last two posts were BS, and chock full of paranoid delusional persecuting mania. Schizophrenic, to put it concisely.
Trippy proved you wrong, and you can't even be enough of a man to admit it.
You're just plain pathetic.
Trippy proved you wrong, and you can't even be enough of a man to admit it.
You're just plain pathetic.
BDW, he's just a troll. I think that the only attention he gets at all comes from this forum, and that is what is pathetic. If he acted this way in his alley, some other bum would tend to it in a direct fashion.
Lets find stunning hints about the gravity mystery! Check them out!
1: The mysterious redshifts as shown by distant galaxies, quasars, stars.
2: The mysterious brake as reported by NASA of their 2 voyagers which have travel outside the orbit of Pluto.
3: The mysterious unknown energy which causes light to bend around without reflecting it and its bizzard property can not be explained by known science but with comically helpless cliche "dark matter" for simple desination as total darkness in our understanding.
My explaination:
The blackholes give off a radiation of TIME CONTRACTION WAVES which sweep throughout the universe as they devour enormous amount of matter. The near-lightspeed movement of matter around the blackholes cause their mass isolated into other dimension of spacetime distinguished by the highly dilated flow of time. Therefore Einsteins law of Mass-energy conversion in my opinion is also valid to Space--Time conversion. When the massive matter disappear from our normal space into time dilated space,the devoured mass will say Byebye by giving off time contracted ripples of spacetime where the time flows radically faster than the outside.It may also be the secret of Universal expansion! Looking at the distant stars, why they are radically redshifted? especially some quasars show a spectrum of redshift can not explained otheriwse than near light speed recession!
Answer: Their lights have to go through more massive layers of these spacetime ripples spreading all over universe which cause them prematurely weakened/redshifted(quasars are superblackholes). It also explains the mysterious brakes of the 2 voyagers: the gravity of Sun enervate the effect of these death message of disappeared matter: time contraction. when the voyagers travel into deep space, far from Sun gravitational influence, these ripples or bubbles of time contraction zone(or space dilated zone?) cause their time goes faster than nearer anywhere inside the plenatry orbits.But from our pespective on Earth, as the time is related to our world, they seemed slowed down as they are travelling into the bubble spending more time and energy but reach nowhere further. On the other hand all the lights,either going through the time contraction bubbles or normal spaces all arrive as classical mechanics predicts,and the outstanding physical decay due to time changes suffered in abnormal space will deceptively look like to our understanding as if had going through enormous distance as suggested by time-speed classical equation. Our Suns mass may also be able to cause time contraction bubbles, but its effect may be revocable( through more intensive motion).But as to effect from DISAPPEARED MASS the bubbles caused may be irrevocable and produce true expansion of universe. There is more, check out the dark matter photos, the galaxies whose image are supposedly multiplied by dark matter clouds all show blue-shift! but the galaxies surround by dark matter show throrough redshift. This phenonmenon can not explained other than the ripple effect of spacetime: on the immidiate border of time contraction zone, the time is dilated as result the lights from further background objects bended around this border will look as if teleported through enormous distance to our sight, the effect is so large that the light from much more further galaxies are multiplied and intense blue! It obvious can not be explained by all visible mass plus the supposed mass of central blackholes.Why? The death messages of the mass eaten and disppeared!
This is a totally new mechanism of energy conversion, in form of time and space.
My intuition tells that Einstein WAS HINDING SOMETHING THAT HE KNEW. And some of our big brothers also understand the secret of gravity which may be the key to free energy.Sory to slip conspiracy theory here.
1: The mysterious redshifts as shown by distant galaxies, quasars, stars.
2: The mysterious brake as reported by NASA of their 2 voyagers which have travel outside the orbit of Pluto.
3: The mysterious unknown energy which causes light to bend around without reflecting it and its bizzard property can not be explained by known science but with comically helpless cliche "dark matter" for simple desination as total darkness in our understanding.
My explaination:
The blackholes give off a radiation of TIME CONTRACTION WAVES which sweep throughout the universe as they devour enormous amount of matter. The near-lightspeed movement of matter around the blackholes cause their mass isolated into other dimension of spacetime distinguished by the highly dilated flow of time. Therefore Einsteins law of Mass-energy conversion in my opinion is also valid to Space--Time conversion. When the massive matter disappear from our normal space into time dilated space,the devoured mass will say Byebye by giving off time contracted ripples of spacetime where the time flows radically faster than the outside.It may also be the secret of Universal expansion! Looking at the distant stars, why they are radically redshifted? especially some quasars show a spectrum of redshift can not explained otheriwse than near light speed recession!
Answer: Their lights have to go through more massive layers of these spacetime ripples spreading all over universe which cause them prematurely weakened/redshifted(quasars are superblackholes). It also explains the mysterious brakes of the 2 voyagers: the gravity of Sun enervate the effect of these death message of disappeared matter: time contraction. when the voyagers travel into deep space, far from Sun gravitational influence, these ripples or bubbles of time contraction zone(or space dilated zone?) cause their time goes faster than nearer anywhere inside the plenatry orbits.But from our pespective on Earth, as the time is related to our world, they seemed slowed down as they are travelling into the bubble spending more time and energy but reach nowhere further. On the other hand all the lights,either going through the time contraction bubbles or normal spaces all arrive as classical mechanics predicts,and the outstanding physical decay due to time changes suffered in abnormal space will deceptively look like to our understanding as if had going through enormous distance as suggested by time-speed classical equation. Our Suns mass may also be able to cause time contraction bubbles, but its effect may be revocable( through more intensive motion).But as to effect from DISAPPEARED MASS the bubbles caused may be irrevocable and produce true expansion of universe. There is more, check out the dark matter photos, the galaxies whose image are supposedly multiplied by dark matter clouds all show blue-shift! but the galaxies surround by dark matter show throrough redshift. This phenonmenon can not explained other than the ripple effect of spacetime: on the immidiate border of time contraction zone, the time is dilated as result the lights from further background objects bended around this border will look as if teleported through enormous distance to our sight, the effect is so large that the light from much more further galaxies are multiplied and intense blue! It obvious can not be explained by all visible mass plus the supposed mass of central blackholes.Why? The death messages of the mass eaten and disppeared!
This is a totally new mechanism of energy conversion, in form of time and space.
My intuition tells that Einstein WAS HINDING SOMETHING THAT HE KNEW. And some of our big brothers also understand the secret of gravity which may be the key to free energy.Sory to slip conspiracy theory here.
QUOTE
BDW, he's just a troll. I think that the only attention he gets at all comes from this forum, and that is what is pathetic. If he acted this way in his alley, some other bum would tend to it in a direct fashion.
And boy, would I love to be there with a video camera! I wouldn't even sell it to those bum fights guys, I'd post it for free on the internet, complete with special features, audio commentary, instant replay, frame by frame analysis....
QUOTE (Sunova+Dec 13 2007, 11:25 AM)
1: The mysterious redshifts as shown by distant galaxies, quasars, stars.
Wow. I find it astonishing that one could even have heard of redshift and yet still think it a mystery.
It's not mysterious. It's mundane.
It's breathtakingly simple, too.
It's high school level physics.
Middle school, if you're attending a private school.
Yeesh.
Wow. I find it astonishing that one could even have heard of redshift and yet still think it a mystery.
It's not mysterious. It's mundane.
It's breathtakingly simple, too.
It's high school level physics.
Middle school, if you're attending a private school.
Yeesh.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Dec 14 2007, 04:07 AM)
BTW If (I) had had my own computer (I) could have simply programmed this math in Qbasic (FORTRAN would be easier for me) and produced the results.
So - lets see, trippy's 'error' is one of note.
He has already laid the trail of his exit plan. Post #289830
His back up his 'excuse' ........again.
If you note - the numbers that (I) supplied, they differ only in where the decimal point lays..And they both use only the number one (1)..if we calculate anything using those two numbers, the ONLY difference we will see in the answers is where the decimal point lays as the Numbers that will actually appear - results - will be the same ones...sorta like 2653487610.0 & 0.26534876100 ....exact same 'numbers' - but different values.
So the obviousness of someone who has scholastic training in mathematics enough to knows how to generate a 'Data set' well, missing a decimal point like that and the aforementioned of the offer of a view prior to post Suggests a form of Foul play at foot....why we looked and saw the set up to-for the 'exit plan'
So rather then quibble incessantly with one who is going to protest, proclaiming innocence - in their absent of innocence - that they then innocently - Deny - and then knowledgeably Proclaim that denial.
In Respect of time and Spiritual Essence, one would use the Maxim of Doing unto 'others' as you would have wanted for yourself and ask to see - Given in return - what was 'asked' of me....
BTW A quick scan of the last 30 days reveals the use of the words *typo *typing *error as this search 17 Posts-results (Members only) removing the word error brings 6 post-results (Members only) and the only one that is using the words apropos to admitting to Typing error is the one cited at the top of this post - for him - the rest are just not relevant to 'admitting to typing error's' .....except on my part...
So, asking for what was asked for.
####### ######## you ####### ########## arrogant ### ## # ##### ####### #######.
First off, I made a stupid typo. I accidentally switched the numerator and the denominator you ####### ##### and then owned up to my mistake when it was pointed out to me.
It's called honesty.
What the #### are you on about? Have you even bothered to look at the ####### spreadsheet you ###### ####### #######!?
What 'Offer of a view' are you on about you ###### ###### #####?!
I have done nothing dishonest or wrong you ###### ###### #### ###### ##### ###### ###### ####### ###### #####!
What the ###### #### does how often I have used the word 'Typo' have to do with anything?
If you expect me to give you a ####### thing other then what you deserve you're ####### dreaming you ###### ###### ##### and you're even more delusional then I thought.
I have done nothing wrong.
I have been completely honest and above board.
Everything I have done has been completely transparent.
So - lets see, trippy's 'error' is one of note.
He has already laid the trail of his exit plan. Post #289830
His back up his 'excuse' ........again.
If you note - the numbers that (I) supplied, they differ only in where the decimal point lays..And they both use only the number one (1)..if we calculate anything using those two numbers, the ONLY difference we will see in the answers is where the decimal point lays as the Numbers that will actually appear - results - will be the same ones...sorta like 2653487610.0 & 0.26534876100 ....exact same 'numbers' - but different values.
So the obviousness of someone who has scholastic training in mathematics enough to knows how to generate a 'Data set' well, missing a decimal point like that and the aforementioned of the offer of a view prior to post Suggests a form of Foul play at foot....why we looked and saw the set up to-for the 'exit plan'
So rather then quibble incessantly with one who is going to protest, proclaiming innocence - in their absent of innocence - that they then innocently - Deny - and then knowledgeably Proclaim that denial.
In Respect of time and Spiritual Essence, one would use the Maxim of Doing unto 'others' as you would have wanted for yourself and ask to see - Given in return - what was 'asked' of me....
BTW A quick scan of the last 30 days reveals the use of the words *typo *typing *error as this search 17 Posts-results (Members only) removing the word error brings 6 post-results (Members only) and the only one that is using the words apropos to admitting to Typing error is the one cited at the top of this post - for him - the rest are just not relevant to 'admitting to typing error's' .....except on my part...
So, asking for what was asked for.
####### ######## you ####### ########## arrogant ### ## # ##### ####### #######.
First off, I made a stupid typo. I accidentally switched the numerator and the denominator you ####### ##### and then owned up to my mistake when it was pointed out to me.
It's called honesty.
What the #### are you on about? Have you even bothered to look at the ####### spreadsheet you ###### ####### #######!?
What 'Offer of a view' are you on about you ###### ###### #####?!
I have done nothing dishonest or wrong you ###### ###### #### ###### ##### ###### ###### ####### ###### #####!
What the ###### #### does how often I have used the word 'Typo' have to do with anything?
If you expect me to give you a ####### thing other then what you deserve you're ####### dreaming you ###### ###### ##### and you're even more delusional then I thought.
I have done nothing wrong.
I have been completely honest and above board.
Everything I have done has been completely transparent.
WHAT IS GRAVITY? HERE IS THE ANSWER.
Time and Space expanded shortly after the big bang and still might be expanding or accelerating. All the matter including atoms, galaxy's to black holes are sucking in the fabric of spacetime.
Spacetime is flowing into matter like water going down a drain to exist and move into the future. The cosmos as a whole is still decompressing while the smaller amount of matter are sucking it in. Basically, matter will eventually win the tug of war by sucking in all of spacetime resulting in another 'big crunch' then a 'big bang' as the forces become unstable again.
So gravity is essentially matter moving into another dimension of time as it sucks in spacetime. We can feel the flow of spacetime flowing from above us into the Earth. Gravity is a pushing force not a pulling force in way.
Take a bed sheet with something on it then pull it toward yourself. Gravity moves stationary objects like being on an elastic conveyor belt. The bed sheet would represent the imaginary spacetime grid.
I don't expect anyone to really comprehend what I just stated. Nobody understands it really.
Time and Space expanded shortly after the big bang and still might be expanding or accelerating. All the matter including atoms, galaxy's to black holes are sucking in the fabric of spacetime.
Spacetime is flowing into matter like water going down a drain to exist and move into the future. The cosmos as a whole is still decompressing while the smaller amount of matter are sucking it in. Basically, matter will eventually win the tug of war by sucking in all of spacetime resulting in another 'big crunch' then a 'big bang' as the forces become unstable again.
So gravity is essentially matter moving into another dimension of time as it sucks in spacetime. We can feel the flow of spacetime flowing from above us into the Earth. Gravity is a pushing force not a pulling force in way.
Take a bed sheet with something on it then pull it toward yourself. Gravity moves stationary objects like being on an elastic conveyor belt. The bed sheet would represent the imaginary spacetime grid.
I don't expect anyone to really comprehend what I just stated. Nobody understands it really.
QUOTE (rbolo30+Dec 13 2007, 01:27 PM)
I don't expect anyone to really comprehend what I just stated. Nobody understands it really.
Incredible. Are you including yourself? Perhaps someone with more patience than I will attempt to help you...
QUOTE (rbolo30+Dec 13 2007, 01:27 PM)
Nobody understands it really.
No, we understand it. We just don't understand why you believe it.
After all, your idea would just KILL the whole concept of orbit...
And result in a significant slowing of light when emitted by (or reflected off) massive objects.
And a whole host of other problems...
No, we understand it. We just don't understand why you believe it.
After all, your idea would just KILL the whole concept of orbit...
And result in a significant slowing of light when emitted by (or reflected off) massive objects.
And a whole host of other problems...
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Dec 13 2007, 05:01 PM)
Wow. I find it astonishing that one could even have heard of redshift and yet still think it a mystery.
It's not mysterious. It's mundane.
It's breathtakingly simple, too.
It's high school level physics.
Middle school, if you're attending a private school.
Yeesh.
The problem is radical and more: near light speed recession of quasars/dining superblackholes as explained by their hyper-redshifts but at the same time some adjacent galaxies do not. Hawking thinks blackholes give off some sort of radiation, here it is.By the way I simply do not believe our smart scientists have not found it, they just playing dumb about secrets of gravity and spacetime.Hint: check out "dark matter", how ridiculous is that serious scientists become so bored enough of telescopes and mathematics to coin this frivolous term!
Hawking radiation may be the stuff called "dark matter". The excrement of blackholes.
It's not mysterious. It's mundane.
It's breathtakingly simple, too.
It's high school level physics.
Middle school, if you're attending a private school.
Yeesh.
The problem is radical and more: near light speed recession of quasars/dining superblackholes as explained by their hyper-redshifts but at the same time some adjacent galaxies do not. Hawking thinks blackholes give off some sort of radiation, here it is.By the way I simply do not believe our smart scientists have not found it, they just playing dumb about secrets of gravity and spacetime.Hint: check out "dark matter", how ridiculous is that serious scientists become so bored enough of telescopes and mathematics to coin this frivolous term!
Hawking radiation may be the stuff called "dark matter". The excrement of blackholes.
QUOTE
Electromagnetism and gravity are the same!
lol. no not quite
You of course realise all matter is both electric and magnetic,
and the Universe is composed of bubbles of crossed electric and magnetic fields
so movement of any matter in these fields causes a reaction... you call that, inertia
and because these fields are differentially driven.... spinning magnetic and electric fields
the poynting vector resultant of this morion causes objects (magnetic and electric) to "fall" (pushed) towards the centre
LOL, you call this gravity
Not really electrmagnetism... though electromagnetic waves are pushed forward by the propogating Poynting vector
The term used is electrodynamics... the electrodymnamics of spinning electric crossed magnetic fields and the resultant caused by the motion (spin).
Its an energy thing.
not too hard to tackle.
Gravity is no longer the mysterious "only unidirectional force" in the Universe
it does not pull (nothing can pull in a physics sense) it is a resultant push
The driven fields around planets degrade and this degradation is manifest as "gravity"
QUOTE (Sunova+Dec 14 2007, 02:41 AM)
The problem is radical and more: near light speed recession of quasars/dining superblackholes as explained by their hyper-redshifts but at the same time some adjacent galaxies do not. Hawking thinks blackholes give off some sort of radiation, here it is.By the way I simply do not believe our smart scientists have not found it, they just playing dumb about secrets of gravity and spacetime.Hint: check out "dark matter", how ridiculous is that serious scientists become so bored enough of telescopes and mathematics to coin this frivolous term!
Hawking radiation may be the stuff called "dark matter". The excrement of blackholes.
Ahh, I see. You don't understand it, so there must be a vast conspiracy to keep you from understanding. Well, that doesn't bode well for me. I don't understand every aspect of tax law, so that means the IRS is out to get me!
Hawking radiation may be the stuff called "dark matter". The excrement of blackholes.
Ahh, I see. You don't understand it, so there must be a vast conspiracy to keep you from understanding. Well, that doesn't bode well for me. I don't understand every aspect of tax law, so that means the IRS is out to get me!
Zarkov:
Bubbles? That sounds like you've misunderstood Maxwell at the root, and flown away with gross misconceptions afterward.
Perhaps you should keep more of your thoughts to yourself.
Bubbles? That sounds like you've misunderstood Maxwell at the root, and flown away with gross misconceptions afterward.
Perhaps you should keep more of your thoughts to yourself.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Dec 13 2007, 10:05 PM)
No, we understand it. We just don't understand why you believe it.
After all, your idea would just KILL the whole concept of orbit...
And result in a significant slowing of light when emitted by (or reflected off) massive objects.
And a whole host of other problems...
Why would it kill the idea of orbiting and what about inertia resulting from angular momentum? Physics teaches that object fall around the Earth at sufficient velocity and I always thought inertia from angular momentum was canceling out gravity. How do we know massive object don't slow light down? Light can't even escape black holes.
I'm not convinced my theory is wrong. I think it would explain why light gets bent slightly around large objects in space as the flow of spacetime is flowing faster toward the mass around that object.
Anyone with an good, solid reasoning as to why this theory would be wrong? What other problems to be specific?
After all, your idea would just KILL the whole concept of orbit...
And result in a significant slowing of light when emitted by (or reflected off) massive objects.
And a whole host of other problems...
Why would it kill the idea of orbiting and what about inertia resulting from angular momentum? Physics teaches that object fall around the Earth at sufficient velocity and I always thought inertia from angular momentum was canceling out gravity. How do we know massive object don't slow light down? Light can't even escape black holes.
I'm not convinced my theory is wrong. I think it would explain why light gets bent slightly around large objects in space as the flow of spacetime is flowing faster toward the mass around that object.
Anyone with an good, solid reasoning as to why this theory would be wrong? What other problems to be specific?
QUOTE (rbolo30+Dec 14 2007, 11:46 AM)
Why would it kill the idea of orbiting and what about inertia resulting from angular momentum? Physics teaches that object fall around the Earth at sufficient velocity and I always thought inertia from angular momentum was canceling out gravity. How do we know massive object don't slow light down? Light can't even escape black holes.
Because if space were moving towards the emitting massive object rather than being curved by the massive object, it would need to be moving at every increasing rates in order to maintain the constant force needed to keep objects at rest on it. If It moved at an unchanging rate, immediately after an object came to rest on it, it's inertia in the direction away from the emitting object would match the pull of the massive object and the resting object would find itself in freefall. This also means that after any signifigant period of time, the orbiting object's angular momentum would be insufficiant to maintain orbit. It also means that light moving through the emitting objects gravitational field would not warp around the object then continue on it's way, but get sucked into the object. All object would in effect be black holes, after any significant period of time. Clearly, that is not the case.
(Not really, but for the sake of argument I will assume you're referring to an object that simply sprang into existence a few attoseconds before the light passed nearby) Yes, but GR also explains it, and includes the mathematical rigor needed to make precise predictions. Predictions which have been confirmed.
(Not really, but for the sake of argument I will assume you're referring to an object that simply sprang into existence a few attoseconds before the light passed nearby) Yes, but GR also explains it, and includes the mathematical rigor needed to make precise predictions. Predictions which have been confirmed.
Anyone with an good, solid reasoning as to why this theory would be wrong? What other problems to be specific?
Lack of mathematical rigor.
Because if space were moving towards the emitting massive object rather than being curved by the massive object, it would need to be moving at every increasing rates in order to maintain the constant force needed to keep objects at rest on it. If It moved at an unchanging rate, immediately after an object came to rest on it, it's inertia in the direction away from the emitting object would match the pull of the massive object and the resting object would find itself in freefall. This also means that after any signifigant period of time, the orbiting object's angular momentum would be insufficiant to maintain orbit. It also means that light moving through the emitting objects gravitational field would not warp around the object then continue on it's way, but get sucked into the object. All object would in effect be black holes, after any significant period of time. Clearly, that is not the case.
QUOTE
I'm not convinced my theory is wrong. I think it would explain why light gets bent slightly around large objects in space as the flow of spacetime is flowing faster toward the mass around that object.
(Not really, but for the sake of argument I will assume you're referring to an object that simply sprang into existence a few attoseconds before the light passed nearby) Yes, but GR also explains it, and includes the mathematical rigor needed to make precise predictions. Predictions which have been confirmed.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm not convinced my theory is wrong. I think it would explain why light gets bent slightly around large objects in space as the flow of spacetime is flowing faster toward the mass around that object. |
(Not really, but for the sake of argument I will assume you're referring to an object that simply sprang into existence a few attoseconds before the light passed nearby) Yes, but GR also explains it, and includes the mathematical rigor needed to make precise predictions. Predictions which have been confirmed.
Anyone with an good, solid reasoning as to why this theory would be wrong? What other problems to be specific?
Lack of mathematical rigor.
Just to elaborate on my last post,
If your theory holds true, then the planet earth is sucking in space at an ever-increasing rate of 9.80665 m/s2 (that's 9.80665 meters per second per second) in order to produce 1 g, which means that some incredibly simple calculations show that after having existed for slightly less than one year (353.82318281377848100429206107496 days, to be exact,) all objects on the surface would be moving through the incoming space at a rate of c (the speed of light,) which is impossible for massive bodies. It would require an infinite amount of energy being emitted by the planet and any objects resting on it, and channeled into not only the "suction" of space, but into some sort of stabilizing force that keeps the matter of the resting object from slamming into the matter of the planet with enough force to cause a fusion reaction. Infinite energy cannot come from a finite amount of matter. It violates all logic in mathematics (as well as E=mc2) not to mention the 1st law of thermodynamics, which is itself supported by rigorous mathematics, and numerous experiments. Additionally, an orbiting object would eventually need to have an angular momentum of c, which is once again impossible. While it is not impossible for space itself to move with speeds greater than c (I believe, I may be wrong about that) it would be impossible for any object to move through that space with enough speed to keep it in orbit.
On a different note, you might notice I gave you a negative feedback after reading you first post. This was in response to the manner in which you presented it, prefacing it with "WHAT IS GRAVITY? HERE IS THE ANSWER."
which suggests that you know your theory to be true. Your most recent post expresses it as a theory, which is better. If you can see my reasoning and accept that your theory is wrong, I will pos you in one week, and I'm sure the two others who negged you will lay off. If you must insist that your theory is correct despite your lack of mathematical modeling and experimental evidence, and the fact that it doesn't work even qualitatively, then you will be branded as a crank and persecuted on this forum by those who know enough to see through it.
I have nothing against you other than what I just mentioned, for the record. Show that you can learn from the mistakes you made, and you will have shown yourself to be a more reasonable, intelligent and worthwhile contributor to this forum than many of the theorizers who come here.
(BTW, there's nothing inherently wrong with coming up with theories. Keep doing so as you wish. Just be prepared to discard or augment them as necessary in order to keep with current scientific knowledge.)
If your theory holds true, then the planet earth is sucking in space at an ever-increasing rate of 9.80665 m/s2 (that's 9.80665 meters per second per second) in order to produce 1 g, which means that some incredibly simple calculations show that after having existed for slightly less than one year (353.82318281377848100429206107496 days, to be exact,) all objects on the surface would be moving through the incoming space at a rate of c (the speed of light,) which is impossible for massive bodies. It would require an infinite amount of energy being emitted by the planet and any objects resting on it, and channeled into not only the "suction" of space, but into some sort of stabilizing force that keeps the matter of the resting object from slamming into the matter of the planet with enough force to cause a fusion reaction. Infinite energy cannot come from a finite amount of matter. It violates all logic in mathematics (as well as E=mc2) not to mention the 1st law of thermodynamics, which is itself supported by rigorous mathematics, and numerous experiments. Additionally, an orbiting object would eventually need to have an angular momentum of c, which is once again impossible. While it is not impossible for space itself to move with speeds greater than c (I believe, I may be wrong about that) it would be impossible for any object to move through that space with enough speed to keep it in orbit.
On a different note, you might notice I gave you a negative feedback after reading you first post. This was in response to the manner in which you presented it, prefacing it with "WHAT IS GRAVITY? HERE IS THE ANSWER."
which suggests that you know your theory to be true. Your most recent post expresses it as a theory, which is better. If you can see my reasoning and accept that your theory is wrong, I will pos you in one week, and I'm sure the two others who negged you will lay off. If you must insist that your theory is correct despite your lack of mathematical modeling and experimental evidence, and the fact that it doesn't work even qualitatively, then you will be branded as a crank and persecuted on this forum by those who know enough to see through it.
I have nothing against you other than what I just mentioned, for the record. Show that you can learn from the mistakes you made, and you will have shown yourself to be a more reasonable, intelligent and worthwhile contributor to this forum than many of the theorizers who come here.
(BTW, there's nothing inherently wrong with coming up with theories. Keep doing so as you wish. Just be prepared to discard or augment them as necessary in order to keep with current scientific knowledge.)
BDW has it. I, too, will renege on my neg, given evidence to support a change of opinion.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Dec 13 2007, 12:15 PM)
Robin, you entire last two posts were BS, and chock full of paranoid delusional persecuting mania. Schizophrenic, to put it concisely.Trippy proved you wrong, and you can't even be enough of a man to admit it.You're just plain pathetic.
Funny then how he used f=ma in it....
So Trippy, taking just the raw figures that we had, My stipulation of conditions;
So Trippy, taking just the raw figures that we had, My stipulation of conditions;
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+)
Static drop - from 10,000 miles out-away from the earth, one weight at 10,000KG and the other at .000001 kgs...SHOW ME THE MATH!
Use Gmm/r^2 .......as that is how we calculate acceleration due to gravitational attractions
And your - thereafter - 'data'
Use Gmm/r^2 .......as that is how we calculate acceleration due to gravitational attractions
And your - thereafter - 'data'
QUOTE (trippy+)
G 6.67428E-11
M_E 5.96E+24
M_1 10,000
M_2 0.000001
R_E 6371
r (km) f_1 (N) a_1 (m/s/s) f_2 (N) a_2 (m/s/s) a1-a2 (m/s/s)
10000 14842.26786 1.484226786 1.48423E-06 1.484226786 0.0000000000E+00
M_E 5.96E+24
M_1 10,000
M_2 0.000001
R_E 6371
r (km) f_1 (N) a_1 (m/s/s) f_2 (N) a_2 (m/s/s) a1-a2 (m/s/s)
10000 14842.26786 1.484226786 1.48423E-06 1.484226786 0.0000000000E+00
Just doing the math - along the lines explained - gives us...
Using GmEm1/(r + 10,000)^2 and GmEm2/(r + 10,000)^2 yields...
with r = 6371 then + 10,000 = 16371 then 'all squared' or ^2 = 268009641
So GmEm1 = 39778708800000000000 and (r+10000)^2 = 268009641 so dividing that gives us 148422678570.73
For GmEm2 it results in 14.842267857073096
That would be the instantaneous attraction - due to gravitational attraction - between the Masses...all three of them.... well, the earth and a 10,000 Kg weight (An elephant or a dump truck) and the earth and a 0.001 Gram weight (Flake of Gold so small you could barely even see it)
Notice how much more the attraction on the Larger mass - is.
Ask a child which falls faster? an elephant or a feather...the child will - intuitively - tell you the elephant, you agree - then take that opportunity to ask the child another question, Because the child knows already how easy it is to move a feather - simply blow on it - also knows how difficult it would be to move the elephant, (harder even then moving the sofa!) so you ask them the question of why is it that the elephant should be pulled faster when it takes more force to move it, what if gravity pulls proportionately to their mass? and makes it look like they fall at the same rate?.....when the get to the same point that an elephant makes when it swings it body in front of you, ('I am heavy-Big - powerful - what do you want?') the child will realize that it is because the elephants body does pull on the earth too...especially when the two bodies-masses are far enough away as then all of the Large mass' (Elephants') gravitational force becomes-is totally devoted to the larger of the two gravitational Masses, in this case the earth.
Oh Yes, (I) do agree it is not a huge difference in how much initial accelerative gain occurs between the three masses, Earth 10,000Kg and 0.001 Grams....but it is still there and it is still working, and it grows as you move further away and enlarges again by the mass numbers....so...
Bit like a mass magnet, and the Neutrons are the Borg Particle.....Resistance is futile.
Using GmEm1/(r + 10,000)^2 and GmEm2/(r + 10,000)^2 yields...
with r = 6371 then + 10,000 = 16371 then 'all squared' or ^2 = 268009641
So GmEm1 = 39778708800000000000 and (r+10000)^2 = 268009641 so dividing that gives us 148422678570.73
For GmEm2 it results in 14.842267857073096
That would be the instantaneous attraction - due to gravitational attraction - between the Masses...all three of them.... well, the earth and a 10,000 Kg weight (An elephant or a dump truck) and the earth and a 0.001 Gram weight (Flake of Gold so small you could barely even see it)
Notice how much more the attraction on the Larger mass - is.
Ask a child which falls faster? an elephant or a feather...the child will - intuitively - tell you the elephant, you agree - then take that opportunity to ask the child another question, Because the child knows already how easy it is to move a feather - simply blow on it - also knows how difficult it would be to move the elephant, (harder even then moving the sofa!) so you ask them the question of why is it that the elephant should be pulled faster when it takes more force to move it, what if gravity pulls proportionately to their mass? and makes it look like they fall at the same rate?.....when the get to the same point that an elephant makes when it swings it body in front of you, ('I am heavy-Big - powerful - what do you want?') the child will realize that it is because the elephants body does pull on the earth too...especially when the two bodies-masses are far enough away as then all of the Large mass' (Elephants') gravitational force becomes-is totally devoted to the larger of the two gravitational Masses, in this case the earth.
Oh Yes, (I) do agree it is not a huge difference in how much initial accelerative gain occurs between the three masses, Earth 10,000Kg and 0.001 Grams....but it is still there and it is still working, and it grows as you move further away and enlarges again by the mass numbers....so...
Bit like a mass magnet, and the Neutrons are the Borg Particle.....Resistance is futile.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Dec 19 2007, 12:43 PM)
Funny then how he used f=ma in it....
So Trippy, taking just the raw figures that we had, My stipulation of conditions;
And your - thereafter - 'data'
So Trippy, taking just the raw figures that we had, My stipulation of conditions;
And your - thereafter - 'data'
QUOTE (trippy+)
G 6.67428E-11
M_E 5.96E+24
M_1 10,000
M_2 0.000001
R_E 6371
r (km) f_1 (N) a_1 (m/s/s) f_2 (N) a_2 (m/s/s) a1-a2 (m/s/s)
10000 14842.26786 1.484226786 1.48423E-06 1.484226786 0.0000000000E+00
M_E 5.96E+24
M_1 10,000
M_2 0.000001
R_E 6371
r (km) f_1 (N) a_1 (m/s/s) f_2 (N) a_2 (m/s/s) a1-a2 (m/s/s)
10000 14842.26786 1.484226786 1.48423E-06 1.484226786 0.0000000000E+00
Just doing the math - along the lines explained - gives us...
Using GmEm1/(r + 10,000)^2 and GmEm2/(r + 10,000)^2 yields...
with r = 6371 then + 10,000 = 16371 then 'all squared' or ^2 = 268009641
So GmEm1 = 39778708800000000000 and (r+10000)^2 = 268009641 so dividing that gives us 148422678570.73
For GmEm2 it results in 14.842267857073096
That would be the instantaneous attraction - due to gravitational attraction - between the Masses...all three of them.... well, the earth and a 10,000 Kg weight (An elephant or a dump truck) and the earth and a 0.001 Gram weight (Flake of Gold so small you could barely even see it)
Notice how much more the attraction on the Larger mass - is.
Ask a child which falls faster? an elephant or a feather...the child will - intuitively - tell you the elephant, you agree - then take that opportunity to ask the child another question, Because the child knows already how easy it is to move a feather - simply blow on it - also knows how difficult it would be to move the elephant, (harder even then moving the sofa!) so you ask them the question of why is it that the elephant should be pulled faster when it takes more force to move it, what if gravity pulls proportionately to their mass? and makes it look like they fall at the same rate?.....when the get to the same point that an elephant makes when it swings it body in front of you, ('I am heavy-Big - powerful - what do you want?') the child will realize that it is because the elephants body does pull on the earth too...especially when the two bodies-masses are far enough away as then all of the Large mass' (Elephants') gravitational force becomes-is totally devoted to the larger of the two gravitational Masses, in this case the earth.
Oh Yes, (I) do agree it is not a huge difference in how much initial accelerative gain occurs between the three masses, Earth 10,000Kg and 0.001 Grams....but it is still there and it is still working, and it grows as you move further away and enlarges again by the mass numbers....so...
Bit like a mass magnet, and the Neutrons are the Borg Particle.....Resistance is futile.
I used f=ma because that's what you wanted me to use.
I used f=ma because I knew that if I used a=GMe/R^2 you would reject the result off hand as using an erroneous formula.
What, precisely is your point in this post? Are you simply ignoring the fact that the difference in the accelerations of the the two masses is exactly zero to twenty decimal places.
You do actually understand what that means don't you?
It means I have proven you absolutely wrong.
Using GmEm1/(r + 10,000)^2 and GmEm2/(r + 10,000)^2 yields...
with r = 6371 then + 10,000 = 16371 then 'all squared' or ^2 = 268009641
So GmEm1 = 39778708800000000000 and (r+10000)^2 = 268009641 so dividing that gives us 148422678570.73
For GmEm2 it results in 14.842267857073096
That would be the instantaneous attraction - due to gravitational attraction - between the Masses...all three of them.... well, the earth and a 10,000 Kg weight (An elephant or a dump truck) and the earth and a 0.001 Gram weight (Flake of Gold so small you could barely even see it)
Notice how much more the attraction on the Larger mass - is.
Ask a child which falls faster? an elephant or a feather...the child will - intuitively - tell you the elephant, you agree - then take that opportunity to ask the child another question, Because the child knows already how easy it is to move a feather - simply blow on it - also knows how difficult it would be to move the elephant, (harder even then moving the sofa!) so you ask them the question of why is it that the elephant should be pulled faster when it takes more force to move it, what if gravity pulls proportionately to their mass? and makes it look like they fall at the same rate?.....when the get to the same point that an elephant makes when it swings it body in front of you, ('I am heavy-Big - powerful - what do you want?') the child will realize that it is because the elephants body does pull on the earth too...especially when the two bodies-masses are far enough away as then all of the Large mass' (Elephants') gravitational force becomes-is totally devoted to the larger of the two gravitational Masses, in this case the earth.
Oh Yes, (I) do agree it is not a huge difference in how much initial accelerative gain occurs between the three masses, Earth 10,000Kg and 0.001 Grams....but it is still there and it is still working, and it grows as you move further away and enlarges again by the mass numbers....so...
Bit like a mass magnet, and the Neutrons are the Borg Particle.....Resistance is futile.
I used f=ma because that's what you wanted me to use.
I used f=ma because I knew that if I used a=GMe/R^2 you would reject the result off hand as using an erroneous formula.
What, precisely is your point in this post? Are you simply ignoring the fact that the difference in the accelerations of the the two masses is exactly zero to twenty decimal places.
You do actually understand what that means don't you?
It means I have proven you absolutely wrong.
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 19 2007, 01:04 AM)
I used f=ma because that's what you wanted me to use.
I used f=ma because I knew that if I used a=GMe/R^2 you would reject the result off hand as using an erroneous formula.What, precisely is your point in this post? Are you simply ignoring the fact that the difference in the accelerations of the the two masses is exactly zero to twenty decimal places. You do actually understand what that means don't you? It means I have proven you absolutely wrong.
Actually no, you haven't.
Your figure is 1.484226786 m/s/s yet that is simply GmE/(r+10,000)^2 as by using f=ma you have eliminated the contribution of the 10,000 Kg mass....so lets simply add it back in....as Gm1 or 0.000000667428 = 1.484227453428 m/s/s which elucidates the small difference that is going to occur as a result of the 10,000 Kg Mass's contributuion to the Mutually summing attraction.
Given that it is a recurring compounding that is going to occur, accelerating by and travelling 1.484227453428 m in the first second, accelerating again in the second second by another 1.484227453428 m to a speed of 2.968454906856 m/s/s and travelling the addition of the distances or 4.452682360284 m recurring again and again - on the per second - until it hits the planet - such that, the larger of the two masses contributuion to the event will cause it to accelerate faster than the smaller one, and hit the face of the planet before the other one does.
If we simply accelerate the other mass .000001 Kg at your figure of 1.484226786 m/s/s by the second second it has travelled 4.452681359142 m and is going at 2.968453572 m/s/s
They are different numbers-results.
As the larger one is getting - closer - faster - this Difference will only INCREASE.
They Do NOT accelearate at the same rate.
I used f=ma because I knew that if I used a=GMe/R^2 you would reject the result off hand as using an erroneous formula.What, precisely is your point in this post? Are you simply ignoring the fact that the difference in the accelerations of the the two masses is exactly zero to twenty decimal places. You do actually understand what that means don't you? It means I have proven you absolutely wrong.
Actually no, you haven't.
Your figure is 1.484226786 m/s/s yet that is simply GmE/(r+10,000)^2 as by using f=ma you have eliminated the contribution of the 10,000 Kg mass....so lets simply add it back in....as Gm1 or 0.000000667428 = 1.484227453428 m/s/s which elucidates the small difference that is going to occur as a result of the 10,000 Kg Mass's contributuion to the Mutually summing attraction.
Given that it is a recurring compounding that is going to occur, accelerating by and travelling 1.484227453428 m in the first second, accelerating again in the second second by another 1.484227453428 m to a speed of 2.968454906856 m/s/s and travelling the addition of the distances or 4.452682360284 m recurring again and again - on the per second - until it hits the planet - such that, the larger of the two masses contributuion to the event will cause it to accelerate faster than the smaller one, and hit the face of the planet before the other one does.
If we simply accelerate the other mass .000001 Kg at your figure of 1.484226786 m/s/s by the second second it has travelled 4.452681359142 m and is going at 2.968453572 m/s/s
They are different numbers-results.
As the larger one is getting - closer - faster - this Difference will only INCREASE.
They Do NOT accelearate at the same rate.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Dec 19 2007, 02:10 PM)
Your figure is 1.484226786 m/s/s yet that is simply GmE/(r+10,000)^2 as by using f=ma you have eliminated the contribution of the 10,000 Kg mass....so lets simply add it back in....as Gm1 or 0.000000667428 = 1.484227453428 m/s/s which elucidates the small difference that is going to occur as a result of the 10,000 Kg Mass's contributuion to the Mutually summing attraction.
Ha ha ha!!!
I just realised that you really believe that the acceleration of the object is GmM/r^2!!!
That's the force between the objects, which is why you need to use f=ma to find the acceleration. You can't just say "I don't want to use GM/r^2 so I'll pretend that the force is also the acceleration", you silly, silly man!!!
The acceleration of a body in the gravitational potential of the Earth is instantaneously equal GM/r^2 towards the Earth. Period. It really is very simple!
Ha ha ha!!!
I just realised that you really believe that the acceleration of the object is GmM/r^2!!!
That's the force between the objects, which is why you need to use f=ma to find the acceleration. You can't just say "I don't want to use GM/r^2 so I'll pretend that the force is also the acceleration", you silly, silly man!!!
The acceleration of a body in the gravitational potential of the Earth is instantaneously equal GM/r^2 towards the Earth. Period. It really is very simple!
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Dec 20 2007, 03:10 AM)
Actually no, you haven't.
Your figure is 1.484226786 m/s/s yet that is simply GmE/(r+10,000)^2 as by using f=ma you have eliminated the contribution of the 10,000 Kg mass....so lets simply add it back in....as Gm1 or 0.000000667428 = 1.484227453428 m/s/s which elucidates the small difference that is going to occur as a result of the 10,000 Kg Mass's contributuion to the Mutually summing attraction.
Given that it is a recurring compounding that is going to occur, accelerating by and travelling 1.484227453428 m in the first second, accelerating again in the second second by another 1.484227453428 m to a speed of 2.968454906856 m/s/s and travelling the addition of the distances or 4.452682360284 m recurring again and again - on the per second - until it hits the planet - such that, the larger of the two masses contributuion to the event will cause it to accelerate faster than the smaller one, and hit the face of the planet before the other one does.
If we simply accelerate the other mass .000001 Kg at your figure of 1.484226786 m/s/s by the second second it has travelled 4.452681359142 m and is going at 2.968453572 m/s/s
They are different numbers-results.
As the larger one is getting - closer - faster - this Difference will only INCREASE.
They Do NOT accelearate at the same rate.
No, you're wrong.
F=GMm/r^2 gives you the force that exists between the earth and the object.
f=ma gives you the aceleration provided by that force.
And you're ignoring the fact that I explicitly stated that I hadn't calculated the velocity, only the acceleration.
If you had bothered to look at the spreadsheet, you would see that GmE/(r+10,000)^2 was not the formula that I used for calculating either mass or acceleration.
The fact that using the two step method you were claiming would give different results, not only gives the same results, but gives the same results as a=GMe/r^2 should tell you just how wrong your assertions actually are.
I have proven you wrong, anyone reading this thread can see that, you simply refuse to accept it. The acceleration of both masses due to gravity, for the same height above the earths surface, is the same.
Your figure is 1.484226786 m/s/s yet that is simply GmE/(r+10,000)^2 as by using f=ma you have eliminated the contribution of the 10,000 Kg mass....so lets simply add it back in....as Gm1 or 0.000000667428 = 1.484227453428 m/s/s which elucidates the small difference that is going to occur as a result of the 10,000 Kg Mass's contributuion to the Mutually summing attraction.
Given that it is a recurring compounding that is going to occur, accelerating by and travelling 1.484227453428 m in the first second, accelerating again in the second second by another 1.484227453428 m to a speed of 2.968454906856 m/s/s and travelling the addition of the distances or 4.452682360284 m recurring again and again - on the per second - until it hits the planet - such that, the larger of the two masses contributuion to the event will cause it to accelerate faster than the smaller one, and hit the face of the planet before the other one does.
If we simply accelerate the other mass .000001 Kg at your figure of 1.484226786 m/s/s by the second second it has travelled 4.452681359142 m and is going at 2.968453572 m/s/s
They are different numbers-results.
As the larger one is getting - closer - faster - this Difference will only INCREASE.
They Do NOT accelearate at the same rate.
No, you're wrong.
F=GMm/r^2 gives you the force that exists between the earth and the object.
f=ma gives you the aceleration provided by that force.
And you're ignoring the fact that I explicitly stated that I hadn't calculated the velocity, only the acceleration.
If you had bothered to look at the spreadsheet, you would see that GmE/(r+10,000)^2 was not the formula that I used for calculating either mass or acceleration.
The fact that using the two step method you were claiming would give different results, not only gives the same results, but gives the same results as a=GMe/r^2 should tell you just how wrong your assertions actually are.
I have proven you wrong, anyone reading this thread can see that, you simply refuse to accept it. The acceleration of both masses due to gravity, for the same height above the earths surface, is the same.
If we follow that F=ma method for calculating the force of attraction between the Earth and the Moon (After the GmEmMoo/r^2) we will to cancel out the Moons contribution to the event, and even a schoolchild can tell you that that - is wrong.
My simply 'summing' of the forces available is based upon the framing of them as the Lagrangian point becomes 'superficial' to the mass - in the second to last earth radii - and goes to the center of gravity of the - accelerating towards the earth - mass when it passes into the last framing - (by Earth radii - in this case) - of the Earth's 'globally acting field effect' that has swallowed whole the 'locally acting field effect' of the - accelerating towards the earth - mass.
Simple English.
My simply 'summing' of the forces available is based upon the framing of them as the Lagrangian point becomes 'superficial' to the mass - in the second to last earth radii - and goes to the center of gravity of the - accelerating towards the earth - mass when it passes into the last framing - (by Earth radii - in this case) - of the Earth's 'globally acting field effect' that has swallowed whole the 'locally acting field effect' of the - accelerating towards the earth - mass.
Simple English.
So..... it was predictable...right? ...(I) said...
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Dec 13 2007, 11:07 AM)
So rather then quibble incessantly with one who is going to protest, proclaiming innocence - in their absent of innocence - that they then innocently - Deny - and then knowledgeably Proclaim that denial.
And Trip answers with...
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 19 2007, 01:04 AM)
I used f=ma because that's what you wanted me to use.
I used f=ma because I knew that if I used a=GMe/R^2 you would reject the result off hand as using an erroneous formula. What, precisely is your point in this post? Are you simply ignoring the fact that the difference in the accelerations of the the two masses is exactly zero to twenty decimal places. You do actually understand what that means don't you? It means I have proven you absolutely wrong.
I used f=ma because I knew that if I used a=GMe/R^2 you would reject the result off hand as using an erroneous formula. What, precisely is your point in this post? Are you simply ignoring the fact that the difference in the accelerations of the the two masses is exactly zero to twenty decimal places. You do actually understand what that means don't you? It means I have proven you absolutely wrong.
He Blames (twits) me and decries his Victory
That's Honesty - to you - trip?
So we can all be kinda certain that this part too, will be so 'dealt with'.....
Simple
It's simple, all right. How could it be otherwise, considering the source.
Welcome back parsons, hope you like your new box.
That's Honesty - to you - trip?
So we can all be kinda certain that this part too, will be so 'dealt with'.....
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Dec 13 2007, 11:07 AM)
In Respect of time and Spiritual Essence, one would use the Maxim of Doing unto 'others' as you would have wanted for yourself and ask to see - Given in return - what was 'asked' of me....
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Dec 27 2007, 10:49 AM)
Simple
It's simple, all right. How could it be otherwise, considering the source.
Welcome back parsons, hope you like your new box.
BTW once the mass has landed it's affective 'center of gravity' is no longer inside of itself (As it is no longer a discrete mass) it is now using the center of the earth as it's center of gravity.
It is in the manner of the summation event.
There is No 'inert' matter/mass (per-say) it is all gravitational matter/mass and even when it is sitting on the ground (Seemingly inert) it is still - in motion - just unto itself - atomically.
There is though - the property of inertial motion/momentum of gravitational masses.
It is in the manner of the summation event.
There is No 'inert' matter/mass (per-say) it is all gravitational matter/mass and even when it is sitting on the ground (Seemingly inert) it is still - in motion - just unto itself - atomically.
There is though - the property of inertial motion/momentum of gravitational masses.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Dec 28 2007, 05:00 AM)
So..... it was predictable...right? ...(I) said...
And Trip answers with...
He Blames (twits) me and decries his Victory
That's Honesty - to you - trip?
So we can all be kinda certain that this part too, will be so 'dealt with'.....
You are full of #### Parsons.
I blamed you for nothing.
I stated that I used the methods that you wanted me to use, and pointed out that those very same methods proved you wrong.
END. OF. STORY.
And yes. I have been completely open and honest. If I wasn't, I wouldn't have provided the spreadsheet you senile decript #### faced #### ####### ########## old fool.
Did I give you permission to call me Trip? No. I only let people I have even a modicum of respect for refer to me by that affectation.
You have lost even the slither of respect that I might have had for you right here in this thread with the obvious BS over this gravity thing.
The only thing you're fooling is yourself you #####.
And Trip answers with...
He Blames (twits) me and decries his Victory
That's Honesty - to you - trip?
So we can all be kinda certain that this part too, will be so 'dealt with'.....
You are full of #### Parsons.
I blamed you for nothing.
I stated that I used the methods that you wanted me to use, and pointed out that those very same methods proved you wrong.
END. OF. STORY.
And yes. I have been completely open and honest. If I wasn't, I wouldn't have provided the spreadsheet you senile decript #### faced #### ####### ########## old fool.
Did I give you permission to call me Trip? No. I only let people I have even a modicum of respect for refer to me by that affectation.
You have lost even the slither of respect that I might have had for you right here in this thread with the obvious BS over this gravity thing.
The only thing you're fooling is yourself you #####.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Dec 28 2007, 04:49 AM)
If we follow that F=ma method for calculating the force of attraction between the Earth and the Moon (After the GmEmMoo/r^2) we will to cancel out the Moons contribution to the event, and even a schoolchild can tell you that that - is wrong.
My simply 'summing' of the forces available is based upon the framing of them as the Lagrangian point becomes 'superficial' to the mass - in the second to last earth radii - and goes to the center of gravity of the - accelerating towards the earth - mass when it passes into the last framing - (by Earth radii - in this case) - of the Earth's 'globally acting field effect' that has swallowed whole the 'locally acting field effect' of the - accelerating towards the earth - mass.
Simple English.
Incoherent babble.
My simply 'summing' of the forces available is based upon the framing of them as the Lagrangian point becomes 'superficial' to the mass - in the second to last earth radii - and goes to the center of gravity of the - accelerating towards the earth - mass when it passes into the last framing - (by Earth radii - in this case) - of the Earth's 'globally acting field effect' that has swallowed whole the 'locally acting field effect' of the - accelerating towards the earth - mass.
Simple English.
Incoherent babble.
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 27 2007, 12:30 PM)
Incoherent babble.
So any of you who can find even the slightest meaning or sense or common sense or knowledge ~ in what (I) wrote ~ here...
Ah, you are still in the ego-clutched state of thinking you need to 'win', I seee.
"Weally, Centuwion? I'm surpwised to hear a man like you wattled by a wabble of wowdy webels."
Now, this promises to be a good battle!
() v. OW1904
And the Winnnahh is...
What does gravity mean to relativity? Einstein suggested that atomic clocks slowed down in gravitational fields. Where is the gravitational field the greatest on a planet? The surface. What is the field strength at the center of a planet? Zero. What does that zero mean? It means allot depending on there being a medium or not. Logically the field strength is reduced as you approach the center. This would mean two different things depending on a medium. With a medium the space would expand ~ to linear gradient if the densities were ~ through the planet. Math would work the same with or without a medium but how the atomic clock reacts at the center would give a clue to there being a medium causing gravity or math causing gravity. Gravity = negative energy. The center of a planet has the greatest negative energy. Gravity is a monopole. The position from the center is the gravity potential difference. A medium would be dilated the most in the center of a planet. Without a medium it would be dilated the most on the surface. Einstein said time slows in a gravitational field. While this is true I suspect it slows the most in the center of a planet where the gravity field strength is measured to be zero.
Check this site out to discover what gravity really is. It also covers time dilation and length contraction.
http://home.sprynet.com/~jolsen03/
There are some errors, but I guarantee this is real.
TG.
So any of you who can find even the slightest meaning or sense or common sense or knowledge ~ in what (I) wrote ~ here...
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Dec 27 2007, 11:49 AM)
If we follow that F=ma method for calculating the force of attraction between the Earth and the Moon (After the GmEmMoo/r^2) we will to cancel out the Moons contribution to the event, and even a schoolchild can tell you that that - is wrong.
My simply 'summing' of the forces available is based upon the framing of them as the Lagrangian point becomes 'superficial' to the mass - in the second to last earth radii - and goes to the center of gravity of the - accelerating towards the earth - mass when it passes into the last framing - (by Earth radii - in this case) - of the Earth's 'globally acting field effect' that has swallowed whole the 'locally acting field effect' of the - accelerating towards the earth - mass.
Simple English.
My simply 'summing' of the forces available is based upon the framing of them as the Lagrangian point becomes 'superficial' to the mass - in the second to last earth radii - and goes to the center of gravity of the - accelerating towards the earth - mass when it passes into the last framing - (by Earth radii - in this case) - of the Earth's 'globally acting field effect' that has swallowed whole the 'locally acting field effect' of the - accelerating towards the earth - mass.
Simple English.
Well figure it out - as you are proved as being really THAT much farther Ahead then trippy ~ as he cannot find a thing!
"Guard, do we have any cwucifixions today?"
[This is the 'What is the cause of Levity' thread, isn't it?]
[This is the 'What is the cause of Levity' thread, isn't it?]
I don't believe gravitons exist distinct particles, and certainly not as a messenger of an "attractive force". I had argued against their existence in the past due to the fact that they contradict causality and conservation laws, and if causality is not true, then there is no fundamental means to understand physics.
In order for a gravition to carry an "attractive force", the3 graviton must have momentum which is equal and opposite of its own vector of motion. (if it is a particle.) And that coudl only happen in one of two ways.
Since momentum is a function of mass times velocity, then either the mass or the change in time(Delta T) for a "graviton" would need to be negative, which would require "gravitons" to be Tachyons. Nobody has ever observed "negative" mass or "negative" time.
For this reason, IF gravitons exist, they are NOT messengers of an attractive force. In order to not violate causality, "gravitons" would only be a REPULSIVE force coming from distant objects in the universe. Specific "attraction" between nearby objects is merely an illusion caused by a shadowing effect.
In order for a gravition to carry an "attractive force", the3 graviton must have momentum which is equal and opposite of its own vector of motion. (if it is a particle.) And that coudl only happen in one of two ways.
Since momentum is a function of mass times velocity, then either the mass or the change in time(Delta T) for a "graviton" would need to be negative, which would require "gravitons" to be Tachyons. Nobody has ever observed "negative" mass or "negative" time.
For this reason, IF gravitons exist, they are NOT messengers of an attractive force. In order to not violate causality, "gravitons" would only be a REPULSIVE force coming from distant objects in the universe. Specific "attraction" between nearby objects is merely an illusion caused by a shadowing effect.
QUOTE (mandible+Jan 4 2008, 10:27 AM)
"Guard, do we have any cwucifixions today?" [This is the 'What is the cause of Levity' thread, isn't it?]
Only when we get to the part wherein we figure out how to annul or counter-use gravity does it become the "Cause of the 'Levity' Field" (Heinous omission) thread ~ till then ~ all Humorous attempts at humor must qualify as humorous so as to been seen as funny in the minds' eye of the person(s) doing the laughing...otherwise > it ain't funny.
P.S. cwucifixions were never on the list, but we were thinking of....... 
( 
)
Only when we get to the part wherein we figure out how to annul or counter-use gravity does it become the "Cause of the 'Levity' Field" (Heinous omission) thread ~ till then ~ all Humorous attempts at humor must qualify as humorous so as to been seen as funny in the minds' eye of the person(s) doing the laughing...otherwise > it ain't funny.
P.S. cwucifixions were never on the list, but we
were thinking of....... ( )
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Jan 4 2008, 04:34 PM)
all Humorous attempts at humor must qualify as humorous so as to been seen as funny in the minds' eye of the parson(s) doing the laughing...otherwise > it ain't funny.
Is that the same as all religious attempts at Reality must qualify as 'true' so as to be seen as 'real' in the 'mind's eye' of the parson(s) doing the believing...otherwise it ain't REAL?
Now we have minus seventy. Nice wound number, eh, Biggus?
Is that the same as all religious attempts at Reality must qualify as 'true' so as to be seen as 'real' in the 'mind's eye' of the parson(s) doing the believing...otherwise it ain't REAL?
Now we have minus seventy. Nice wound number, eh, Biggus?
QUOTE (mandible+Jan 4 2008, 12:52 PM)
Is that the same as all religious attempts at Reality must qualify as 'true' so as to be seen as 'real' in the 'mind's eye' of the parson(s) doing the believing...otherwise it ain't REAL? Now we have minus seventy. Nice wound number, eh, Biggus?
Nay darth yarn, in pursuet of the Recordings of Estimable record - one seeks for the greatest value of numberosity one can achieve - in as short a space as permissible - as to obtain the record of valuation ~ as valued ~ invaluably to the extend and degree that such record - of recorded notation - notes! ......Meaning ~ (I) WIN!! Because (I) go the HEUUUGEST NUMBER AVAILABLE...
Later know to admit 'Never could have done it .....without all of my fans'
Later know to admit 'Never could have done it .....without all of my fans'
QUOTE
Meaning ~ (I) WIN!! Because (I) go the HEUUUGEST NUMBER AVAILABLE...
Ah, you are still in the ego-clutched state of thinking you need to 'win', I seee.
"Weally, Centuwion? I'm surpwised to hear a man like you wattled by a wabble of wowdy webels."
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Jan 4 2008, 12:18 PM)
Nay darth yarn, in pursuet of the Recordings of Estimable record - one seeks for the greatest value of numberosity one can achieve
numberosity? ROFLMAO ROFLMAO ROFLMAO
Talk about schizophrenia...
numberosity? ROFLMAO ROFLMAO ROFLMAO
Talk about schizophrenia...
To all,
Why does everything end up in insults? Please stick to discussing the subject and challenge new ideas without attacking each other. Challenging new ideas using your knowledge against unlikely ideas. It will improve both parties and readers. Attacking the individual will not prove anything and drive contributers away.
Why does everything end up in insults? Please stick to discussing the subject and challenge new ideas without attacking each other. Challenging new ideas using your knowledge against unlikely ideas. It will improve both parties and readers. Attacking the individual will not prove anything and drive contributers away.
QUOTE (4Dguy+Jan 8 2008, 05:48 PM)
To all,
Why does everything end up in insults? Please stick to discussing the subject and challenge new ideas without attacking each other. Challenging new ideas using your knowledge against unlikely ideas. It will improve both parties and readers. Attacking the individual will not prove anything and drive contributers away.
yea, everyone should check out what 4Dguy is saying....
may i chime in?
something is funny to me-
it seems like alot of the members are intelligent.....right?
intellect is important to these people...
do most of you believe you are well endowed...in the brain?
do you?
because....and pardon me...but i beg to differ....
all i see is monkeys with great potential....but.....
much useless bickering.....
may i compare it to apes? male apes....the competition to be the top breeder is the REAL topic of any conversation and, in my humble opinion, is a big unecessary obstacle...slowing down production....slowing down evolution...
maybe that's the plan.....we are capable of understanding all.....immediately....but for some reason, our dumb animal instincts get in the way and drag us down....
the leading scientists seem to do the same thing......meetings are just pecking parties...
pecking order reigns supreme on the planet of the apes......
Why does everything end up in insults? Please stick to discussing the subject and challenge new ideas without attacking each other. Challenging new ideas using your knowledge against unlikely ideas. It will improve both parties and readers. Attacking the individual will not prove anything and drive contributers away.
yea, everyone should check out what 4Dguy is saying....
may i chime in?
something is funny to me-
it seems like alot of the members are intelligent.....right?
intellect is important to these people...
do most of you believe you are well endowed...in the brain?
do you?
because....and pardon me...but i beg to differ....
all i see is monkeys with great potential....but.....
much useless bickering.....
may i compare it to apes? male apes....the competition to be the top breeder is the REAL topic of any conversation and, in my humble opinion, is a big unecessary obstacle...slowing down production....slowing down evolution...
maybe that's the plan.....we are capable of understanding all.....immediately....but for some reason, our dumb animal instincts get in the way and drag us down....
the leading scientists seem to do the same thing......meetings are just pecking parties...
pecking order reigns supreme on the planet of the apes......
QUOTE (OldWoman1904+Jan 11 2008, 05:38 PM)
yea, everyone should check out what 4Dguy is saying....
may i chime in?
something is funny to me-
it seems like alot of the members are intelligent.....right?
intellect is important to these people...
do most of you believe you are well endowed...in the brain?
do you?
because....and pardon me...but i beg to differ....
all i see is monkeys with great potential....but.....
much useless bickering.....
may i compare it to apes? male apes....the competition to be the top breeder is the REAL topic of any conversation and, in my humble opinion, is a big unecessary obstacle...slowing down production....slowing down evolution...
maybe that's the plan.....we are capable of understanding all.....immediately....but for some reason, our dumb animal instincts get in the way and drag us down....
the leading scientists seem to do the same thing......meetings are just pecking parties...
pecking order reigns supreme on the planet of the apes......
She posts,,,
She SCORES,,,
1,2,3,,,,10
Down for the count,,,
IT"S A KNOCK OUT,,,
OldWoman1904 wins another bout!
BTW where have you been? long time no read.
may i chime in?
something is funny to me-
it seems like alot of the members are intelligent.....right?
intellect is important to these people...
do most of you believe you are well endowed...in the brain?
do you?
because....and pardon me...but i beg to differ....
all i see is monkeys with great potential....but.....
much useless bickering.....
may i compare it to apes? male apes....the competition to be the top breeder is the REAL topic of any conversation and, in my humble opinion, is a big unecessary obstacle...slowing down production....slowing down evolution...
maybe that's the plan.....we are capable of understanding all.....immediately....but for some reason, our dumb animal instincts get in the way and drag us down....
the leading scientists seem to do the same thing......meetings are just pecking parties...
pecking order reigns supreme on the planet of the apes......
She posts,,,
She SCORES,,,
1,2,3,,,,10
Down for the count,,,
IT"S A KNOCK OUT,,,
OldWoman1904 wins another bout!
BTW where have you been? long time no read.
QUOTE (4Dguy+Jan 8 2008, 08:48 PM)
To all,
Why does everything end up in insults? Please stick to discussing the subject and challenge new ideas without attacking each other. Challenging new ideas using your knowledge against unlikely ideas. It will improve both parties and readers. Attacking the individual will not prove anything and drive contributers away.
Mine was in humor only ~ but ~ apparently(?) you missed that.
OldWoman1904 you and your inane and to oft repeated 'monkeys' insults should go jump into backwards into history ~ and stay there.
Why does everything end up in insults? Please stick to discussing the subject and challenge new ideas without attacking each other. Challenging new ideas using your knowledge against unlikely ideas. It will improve both parties and readers. Attacking the individual will not prove anything and drive contributers away.
Mine was in humor only ~ but ~ apparently(?) you missed that.
OldWoman1904 you and your inane and to oft repeated 'monkeys' insults should go jump into backwards into history ~ and stay there.
Now, this promises to be a good battle!() v. OW1904
And the Winnnahh is...
What does gravity mean to relativity? Einstein suggested that atomic clocks slowed down in gravitational fields. Where is the gravitational field the greatest on a planet? The surface. What is the field strength at the center of a planet? Zero. What does that zero mean? It means allot depending on there being a medium or not. Logically the field strength is reduced as you approach the center. This would mean two different things depending on a medium. With a medium the space would expand ~ to linear gradient if the densities were ~ through the planet. Math would work the same with or without a medium but how the atomic clock reacts at the center would give a clue to there being a medium causing gravity or math causing gravity. Gravity = negative energy. The center of a planet has the greatest negative energy. Gravity is a monopole. The position from the center is the gravity potential difference. A medium would be dilated the most in the center of a planet. Without a medium it would be dilated the most on the surface. Einstein said time slows in a gravitational field. While this is true I suspect it slows the most in the center of a planet where the gravity field strength is measured to be zero.
QUOTE (4Dguy+May 20 2008, 02:48 PM)
What does that zero mean? It means allot depending on there being a medium or not.
Wrong. There is no connection between the "medium" and the "gravitational field".
4D stands for:
Math: D grade
Physics: also D
Logic : D as well
Ethics : D minus
Wrong. There is no connection between the "medium" and the "gravitational field".
4D stands for:
Math: D grade
Physics: also D
Logic : D as well
Ethics : D minus
QUOTE (4Dguy+May 20 2008, 02:48 PM)
What does gravity mean to relativity? Einstein suggested that atomic clocks slowed down in gravitational fields. Where is the gravitational field the greatest on a planet? The surface. What is the field strength at the center of a planet? Zero. What does that zero mean? It means allot depending on there being a medium or not. Logically the field strength is reduced as you approach the center. This would mean two different things depending on a medium. With a medium the space would expand ~ to linear gradient if the densities were ~ through the planet. Math would work the same with or without a medium but how the atomic clock reacts at the center would give a clue to there being a medium causing gravity or math causing gravity. Gravity = negative energy. The center of a planet has the greatest negative energy. Gravity is a monopole. The position from the center is the gravity potential difference. A medium would be dilated the most in the center of a planet. Without a medium it would be dilated the most on the surface. Einstein said time slows in a gravitational field. While this is true I suspect it slows the most in the center of a planet where the gravity field strength is measured to be zero.
You have no idea what is "gravitational field" .
Solve the following problem:
You are using a gun to shoot a projectile. The mass of the projectile is "m", the nozzle velocity is "v" and the angle of the barrel with the ground is "alpha". Find the equation of the projectile trajectiory
All other members, please abstain from showing the solution, let 4Dguy show his knowledge of physics.
4D, no weaseling this time, show what you know. The equations of the trajectory, please. You have enough information, so, no weaseling.
You have no idea what is "gravitational field" .
Solve the following problem:
You are using a gun to shoot a projectile. The mass of the projectile is "m", the nozzle velocity is "v" and the angle of the barrel with the ground is "alpha". Find the equation of the projectile trajectiory
All other members, please abstain from showing the solution, let 4Dguy show his knowledge of physics.
4D, no weaseling this time, show what you know. The equations of the trajectory, please. You have enough information, so, no weaseling.
QUOTE (4Dguy+May 20 2008, 02:48 PM)
What does gravity mean to relativity? Einstein suggested that atomic clocks slowed down in gravitational fields. Where is the gravitational field the greatest on a planet? The surface. What is the field strength at the center of a planet? Zero.
Well wouldya look at this?
You finally figure out yer wrong, and do any o them folks who posted and posted tryin to get you to realize the truth get even a lick of thanks? Nope. Not even an acknowledgement.
What a poor sport you are. Y'aughta be ashamed of yerself, son...
Well wouldya look at this?
You finally figure out yer wrong, and do any o them folks who posted and posted tryin to get you to realize the truth get even a lick of thanks? Nope. Not even an acknowledgement.
What a poor sport you are. Y'aughta be ashamed of yerself, son...
My personal favorite hypothesis regarding the cause of gravity is “Expansion causality” however premature the math is to back it up; it does have all of the bells and whistles of a fitting principle of nature.
It is a widely excepted fact that the “universe” is expanding, but let us think about that for a moment…
The very fabric of SPACE/TIME itself is expanding; stretching out like a giant rubber sheet being pulled in all directions, for every second that passes the universe has changed… It has expanded by 1 second more; however that is only “relatively” speaking.
Gravity is a phenomenon fundamentally tied to matter. Why does matter cause the effect of gravity? (Rhetorical question)
The answer could be found within a question; what effect does matter have on the expanding SPACE/TIME.
The hypothesis of “Expansion causality” is that matter slows down the rate of expansion within its domain, thus creating a gravity field. As SPACE/TIME in earths orbit continues to expand at its individual constant, the expanding SPACE/TIME on Earth is slowed down ever so slightly. The drag caused by matter against the flow of expanding SPACE/TIME causes the pulling effect of gravity and slows down time. (See time dilation, GPS satellites)
Happy pondering
NEVERDRY
It is a widely excepted fact that the “universe” is expanding, but let us think about that for a moment…
The very fabric of SPACE/TIME itself is expanding; stretching out like a giant rubber sheet being pulled in all directions, for every second that passes the universe has changed… It has expanded by 1 second more; however that is only “relatively” speaking.
Gravity is a phenomenon fundamentally tied to matter. Why does matter cause the effect of gravity? (Rhetorical question)
The answer could be found within a question; what effect does matter have on the expanding SPACE/TIME.
The hypothesis of “Expansion causality” is that matter slows down the rate of expansion within its domain, thus creating a gravity field. As SPACE/TIME in earths orbit continues to expand at its individual constant, the expanding SPACE/TIME on Earth is slowed down ever so slightly. The drag caused by matter against the flow of expanding SPACE/TIME causes the pulling effect of gravity and slows down time. (See time dilation, GPS satellites)
Happy pondering
NEVERDRY
It is not required that graviy be interpreted in terms of curved space-time. As Poincare pointed out, it is always pssible to represent everything in terms of Euclidian Geometry. A new relativistic gravity theory has just been posted at johnwilliams22.hi5.com. Please have a look at the 3 documents there.
QUOTE (dude222+May 23 2008, 08:44 PM)
It is not required that graviy be interpreted in terms of curved space-time. As Poincare pointed out, it is always pssible to represent everything in terms of Euclidian Geometry. A new relativistic gravity theory has just been posted at johnwilliams22.hi5.com. Please have a look at the 3 documents there.
Can you show the theory in simple drawings?
Sometimes helps to understand the ideas
Can you show the theory in simple drawings?
Sometimes helps to understand the ideas
MjolnirPants,
I think that was the first time I wrote about gravity field strength. The other times it was about gravity potential. I realize the problem I was having with definition of terms. I thank C2 and Montec for their patience in the barrage of attacks and taking some flack for my definition of terms being incorrect.
I see your warning is already 20% with so few posts. So young and so angry, Why?
Equivalency in SR and GR is the issue I am Trying to show. The center of a planet is the strongest negative energy. I believe gravity is negative energy.
In SR as you approach the speed of light there is less and less energy left until you reach a limit set by E=MC^2. Energy is reduced as you approach the speed of light with mass. Atomic clocks slow as speed increases.
In GR as you approach the center of a planet energy is similarly reduced. The surface is acceleration and the center is just like a constant speed after acceleration in SR. The single most important point of gravitational potential is its distance from the center of a planet. The center has the strongest negative energy. Atomic clocks slow as you approach the center.
QUOTE
Well wouldya look at this?
You finally figure out yer wrong, and do any o them folks who posted and posted tryin to get you to realize the truth get even a lick of thanks? Nope. Not even an acknowledgement.
What a poor sport you are. Y'aughta be ashamed of yerself, son...
You finally figure out yer wrong, and do any o them folks who posted and posted tryin to get you to realize the truth get even a lick of thanks? Nope. Not even an acknowledgement.
What a poor sport you are. Y'aughta be ashamed of yerself, son...
I think that was the first time I wrote about gravity field strength. The other times it was about gravity potential. I realize the problem I was having with definition of terms. I thank C2 and Montec for their patience in the barrage of attacks and taking some flack for my definition of terms being incorrect.
I see your warning is already 20% with so few posts. So young and so angry, Why?
Equivalency in SR and GR is the issue I am Trying to show. The center of a planet is the strongest negative energy. I believe gravity is negative energy.
In SR as you approach the speed of light there is less and less energy left until you reach a limit set by E=MC^2. Energy is reduced as you approach the speed of light with mass. Atomic clocks slow as speed increases.
In GR as you approach the center of a planet energy is similarly reduced. The surface is acceleration and the center is just like a constant speed after acceleration in SR. The single most important point of gravitational potential is its distance from the center of a planet. The center has the strongest negative energy. Atomic clocks slow as you approach the center.
Check this site out to discover what gravity really is. It also covers time dilation and length contraction.
http://home.sprynet.com/~jolsen03/
There are some errors, but I guarantee this is real.
TG.
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.