Sam Batchelar

No I have not, They were just my thoughts from what was given to me, Thankyou for referring me to some science, I shall study the subject of circular motion.

And the comparative difference between the answers, try with you method to predict the length of the diameter when the radius is at 3,000cm. And I show your calculations

Correct me if I am wrong but it seems the force you are referring to is centrifugal force. This force operates perpendicular to the object (on the swings) trajectory and therefor has no effect on the objects velocity. In case you disagree, Pulling the ball on the swing in such a way as to apply only tension to the sting does not cause it to be set into motion providing the swing can take the tension.

at 9Ft the field strength is 9.8N/kg at 30,000Ft the field strength is unknown. 30,000Ft divided by 9Ft = 0.0003 9.8 multiplied by 0.0003 = 0.00294N/kg which is the answer without the square aspect 0.00147N/kg being the approximate answer. If a circle has a radius of 6 cm therefor it has a diameter of 12 cm. if the radius is increased to 3000 cm given that the radius is directly proportional to the diameter using my calculation method I can predict the length of the diameter which obviously would be 6000 cm although the point is to prove its accuracy before transferring it to quantities which exist in different measurement systems where the answer is less obvious. Radius ----- 6 cm divided by 3000 cm = 0.002 Diameter ----- 12 cm divided by 0.002 = [ 6000 cm ] However through experience I have learned that calculating square laws provides a very large margin of inaccuracy, this is the reason for the answer being a approximation. In answer to your point learning is hard work, this is what memorizing previously written equations is like, he who actually understands the equations can simply develop them on the spot and hence he has nothing to remember.

Inertia is resistance to change in a objects velocity, in a vacuum. With this a infinitesimal field strength would not cause a infinitesimal change in velocity, in fact there would be a threshold of force which must be exceed in order for a object to change velocity, this is the single reason why inertia is in no way related to velocity.

If you could direct me to a forum where progress is acceptable then that would be much appreciated. How is one to make progress with a utter reluctance to question that which came before him. The evidence is obvious for some, the ball would continue in its current direction of motion beyond the increasing field strength into a area of decreasing field strength.

A flawed understanding of the point of which that relationship does start would result in catastrophic failure in attempting to reach space. Are you suggesting Elon has such a understanding despite his success in the very en-devour of reaching space? Again, Do you feel a deterioration of the gravitational force at high altitudes within a plane? Of course the answer is no and obviously Elon is right, this cannot be explained in the example of the planet because of atmospheric displacement because the plane maintains the same atmospheric pressure as at the surface of the earth. It seems to me that you are a prime example of someone who is completely unwilling to accept anything which is contradictory to the theory you currently believe so as to avoid putting any effort into re visitation of that theory or devising a new theory, it seems implied by the evidence that discovery is not what you are after but rather a strange and rather increasingly common pressing desire for a certain aristocratic scientific self glorification.

If you could explain exactly why gravity is a pull only phenomenon in a satisfactory and convincing way then you will change my mind.

I cannot unravel this mystery of clues although it may be beneficial to me if you could.

If force is applied to a finite volume of a object which is smaller than the entire volume of that object the force strength (through the volume where force is applied) increases by the same proportion as the inertial stress (through the volume of the object where force is not applied) providing the two volumes remain constant in volume. Where F is the force strength (applied to a object within a volume smaller than the entire volume of the object), where I is the inertial stress felt through the volume where force is not applied, and S is represents that each previously defined volume remains constant with respect to size. I = F/S If force is applied in such a way as to push the object the volume where force is not applied feels compression stress, If force is applied in such a way as to pull the object the volume where force is not applied feels tension stress. These stresses are felt because a object is not literally solid, it is held together by electro-static bonds which have a elasticity to them. That is all for inertia.

A object falls to earth from space, this is most closely linked to the act of pulling a object. If the object could fall through the earth then as it did this the action of gravity upon the object would be closer to that of a pushing motion.

I do agree with that. Conciser how gravity is proposed to originate from bodies with greater mass for they curve space to a greater extent. Now acknowledge that gravity is relatively constant throughout the atmosphere of the planet (as stated by Elon Musk) only to decay with the inverse square law relationship (between distance and field strength) from the very top of the atmosphere. Adding credit to the idea that gravity on this planet originates from the atmosphere more likely or possibly a interaction between the ground and atmosphere. Do you experience any noticeable change in gravity when in a plane at high altitude? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTynupCm0sU At 05:49 He says the force of gravity at the boundary of space is almost exactly the same as the force of gravity on the surface of the earth.

As far as I can tell work is done to lift the ball against gravity although I am unsure if you are thinking of this part. As for the work gravity does on the ball the resultant velocity perpendicular and parallel to the earths surface of the ball would be equal to the velocity of the ball if there was no swing and the ball was moving in the downward direction.

Inertia is a stress, dependent upon how force is applied to a object this stress may manifest as sheer, tension and compression. This is observed clearly by the way of which no inertia is felt when a object has force applied evenly throughout its entire volume. Therefor inertia has no effect on the overall velocity of a object.

Suction is as result of changing the particles per cubic measurement of volume. All substances want to be surrounded by substances of the same particles per cubic volume. This is also the cause of displacement in the atmosphere and oceans.

Could you elaborate in order for me to see if we are opposing in view upon the concept of gravity's action upon objects. I cannot comment upon your current answer.

It is based on the premise that mass must have a origin, the origin not being mass in its well recognized state. To say mass is one particle which gives the mass quality to the atom is to simply avoid the question entirely, the question being what is mass. To state mass is energy in a secondary state, the primary being the energy present in space time is to answer the question of the origin of mass, although it may not satisfactory answer the question of exactly how this manifestation of energy from one form to another comes about given the intricacy involved in the types of motion known to be possessed by, a particle.

Interesting idea, and the correlation between spinning masses and gravity is seemingly obvious. However Earth and Mars have a almost identical RPM while their gravitational force is significantly different, although this is not entirely convincing because of the variations in the diameter of the planets. Although to find correlations between RPM and gravitational field strength is a seemingly good course of action to either add credit or remove validity to the theory of a correlation between RPM and field strength. Furthermore I would like to congratulate you simply on your appreciation for the importance of new ideas in order for scientific progression. Another area for study when trying to provide a adequate explanation for the occurrence of gravity to varying strengths would be a correlation between a potential difference of electro-static charge and gravity, if such a correlation exists the gravitational field direction would be easy to associate with the positioning of the two charges involved in the potential difference (of electro-static charge) while the potential difference (the difference in electro-static charge) also would be easy to associate with field strength.

To perform this experiment a motor connected to a rotating disc of a solid construction throughout its volume is required. The motor needs to be able to rotate the disc to as higher RPM as possible (within the limitations of resources), this discs diameter being parallel with the ground will serve to better demonstrate this concept. The other two components required are a means to measure force exerted on the underside of the disc in the upward direction, while the second is a means to measure the force exerted on the top side of the disc in the downward direction. It is worth noting that the two measurements of force exerted upward on the underside of the disc and force exerted downward on the top side of the disc may be better done separately. In order to measure these forces the disc must be able to move perpendicular to the ground against a spring used to measure force.

Okay, you are quite right, Kinetic energy is the work needed to accelerate a object to a given velocity. A object falling towards earth in a vacuum chamber will reach a velocity, this velocity could be stated as being the highest potential velocity (the field can accelerate object of varying masses to) this highest potential velocity as a quantity is the same for objects of varying masses while the field strength is similarly the same. It is obvious that the field in the cause does the work to accelerate the object to the highest potential velocity quantity. The highest potential velocity quantity also is directly proportional to the field strength, therefor the work that the field does on the object so to speak is directly proportional to the field strength. Therefor the work needed to accelerate a object to any finite quantity of velocity (kinetic energy) is directly proportional to the velocity itself. This is because the field strength is directly proportional to the highest potential velocity, the field strength doing the work. Because the object reaches the velocity the work need to reach the velocity in question is proportional to the velocity itself.

Kinetic energy is is the energy velocity equivalence of a object. The second law of motion states the net forces are directly proportional the the acceleration vector of a object. This acceleration vector could be stated as the rate of change in velocity vector (for a object) Therefor the acceleration vector is a study of a quantity of velocity. Given it has already been stated by me that kinetic energy is the energy velocity equivalence of a object, the equation where the acceleration vector is directly proportional to the net forces (influencing a object) is equivalent to the kinetic energy equation which therefor should be written as the net forces influencing a object are directly proportional to the objects rate of change in kinetic energy vector, again given that kinetic energy and velocity are the same.

I simply read the quotation you provided and re worded it, the essence of the second part of the comment is the the universe is a objective universe incase you didn't follow, how are you finding understanding the quote?

Matter is mass, mass is a defined area of energy as defined by velocity. Waves exhibit momentum which is a product of mass and velocity, therefor that which is applied to create a wave of some various definition must be essentially creating mass providing again the wave exhibits momentum. Given it is possible to create a wave in a vacuum the mass (energy defined by velocity) must originate in space-time. Therefor there is a undefined sea of energy in space-time.

He is stating that the constructs of the physical universe remain constant over time in the first part of the statement, the second statement could be interpreted as simply saying that for example a event in space as a event is palpable, given that events occur in space is space were to be removed the event would be rather non-conventional, similarly if space were to be effected somehow the way the event could be predicted to occur in the future based of a equation derived off events occurring in space would not provide accurate post the change to space definition.

Energy in its original state is undefined as anything, it is from this point (its original state) that it may be defined as something such as mass, velocity, a transverse vibration...