insane_alien

its a whole quantum mechanical 'virtual particle' thing that i have never been able to comprehend.

well, i say gun but it doesn't fire anything at great speeds. *hangs his head in shame for only reaching 3ms^-1*

W and Z particles there isn't a Y particle(yet). and yes i do believe that since there is experimental evidence to back it up. you should try out evidence sometime.

Photons!

yes i understand how a railgun works. i've built one infact. it seems here has been a misunderstanding on my part. you made it sound like you were claiming the fields propagated at g instead of c. sorry. what layering of gravity fields? to all intents and purposes there is one field.

please post evidence that an iron atom will polarize. you need to back this claim up.

the field will also not propagate at 9.81ms^-2 either. it will propagate at c. i have a hard time imagining the mechanisms for a force to propagate at an accelerating rate.

mine has become far too violent and gorey for kids to read so i don't think i can post it here. although it is incredibly funny to the sick minded

good questions. g is the gravitational field stregnth of the earth. and as such it is an acceleration. 9.81 metres per second per second means that every second an object in freefall will gain 9.81 ms^-2 example: time(s) velocity(ms^-1) 0 0 1 9.81 2 19.62 3 29.43 etc. etc. until it hits the ground. now for your rocket. with a mass of 330grams. to get it off the ground you will need to give it an acceleration greater than 9.81 ms^-2. we can use F=ma for this. and to use the mass we must turn it into kilograms(divide by 1000) and we have the acceleration we need to at least match(9.81) so we get F=0.33*9.81 this give a force of 3.24N any engine that can provide a higher thrust than that will lift the rocket. you are getting the concepts of mass(kg) and weight(N) mixed up. mass is constant and is essentialy the amount of stuff that is there.we measure this in kilograms. weight is the force acting upon the mass due to gravity and we measure this in newtons.

well at least its not a problem on my end

ahh. well that makes a bit more sense. alpha-137, if thats what you mean by singularity could you please use monopole instead. standard definitions make things much easier to understand.

gravity is not caused by singularities. nobody has evey said that a singularity exists at the centre of the earth.(excluding the numerous crackpots). I think with the hydrogen and iron at the centre you are talking about denser elements sinking and less dense elements floating. well, iron is pretty dense and it is one of the more common elements on the planet, why shouldn't it be found at the centre.

Is the chat server down or is it a problem at my end? i can't seem to connect at all and yes, i have checked my settings. i can also log in to other chatrooms

now i might be wrong here only studying chemical engineering and all but could you please look up element 26 and tell me what it is?

No. its not. it is a combination of electro-magnetic force and weak nuclear force. It DOES NOT mean that electromagnetic force and weak nuclear force are identical. Yes i am aware of the Gravito-magnetism effect. It was discussed earlier on this forum. from what i read there it was a predicted effect of relativity and didn't have much to do with magnetism per-se. i think that bit is an analogy to the way you get a magnetic field from a moving electric field you get a gravito-magnetic field from a moving gravitational field. stop putting word into newton and einsteins mouths. newton did not know about subatomic forces and therefore could not have thought this. i don't recall reading anything about einstein saying this either. please provide a source. no its not. the force carrier responsible for electric fields is the photon. get your physics right. there is a HUGE difference in those states of matter. please define one or the other as it cannot be both. it IS liquid. it IS NOT plasma. if it were plasma it would be a charged gas. and seismology wouldn't work. the states are not that extreme. the temperature of around 5000*C kind of is but the immense pressures at the centre of the earth prevent melting of the inner core and vapourisation of the outer core. holy crap where did all our elements go! there are 60 natural elements heavier than iron. and there is also a lot of nickel down there along with all theother elements known to man. well, technically it is the crystal structure that causes the magnetic effects rather than the individual atoms. also why should it need to polarise for gravity. gravity is caused by mass. simple as. the forces involved in making it have a magnetic field, electromagnetism. the forces involved in giving it gravity, gravity. it does not require an external force. i can't make heads or tales of this. does somebody want to translate?

um wouldn't the sheer forces caused by the very steep gravitational gradients pull it apart? i could see how it would work in accretion disks where there is evidence of fusion (x-rays and gamma rays) but that is a LOT of hydrogen falling in. enough to surround the blackhole. i could be wrong though.

A little thing that i don't like about americans(ok this doesn't apply to all of them and most of you guys and gals are not a problem in this way) is that america uses the imperial system and automatically asume that the rest of the world uses that system. Just a moment ago i was called "a ****tard" for using the metric system when "everybody in the world uses american units" so ignorant he didn't even know he is using the imperial system from the uk. i've seen this alot.

@CanadaAotS, it was just coincidence that that happened i just listed a few things that came to mind without really thinking about them. @kenshin, yeah i hope that he tells us his 'G-1' theory but there are glaring errors in this part showing that he doesn't fully understand the current theories. mostly i would assume that it is difficulty in getting his point across but for some i think it goes beyond that(such as his mass elongation) which cannot be explained by inarticulateness.

although in engineering classes both are used. including some obscure units that haven't been used since 4 century egypt.

We know you need math but you need to give us some numbers from your experiments and a detailed account of your methods so we can determine if the data is valid and then we could start making some maths.

Ok, something has made me decide to try and get all the misunderstandings out of the way. i have a number of quetions and comments to make on this alpha so just bear with me and answer them as best you can. i will try and make everything as clear and simple as possible as to avoid confusion. lets start. ummm, newton never wrote anything about electromagnetism. neither did einstein as far as i can recall. therfore this is irrelevant and probably lead to a lot of confusion. also as a little note, einsteins theories REPLACE newtons theories as there are many cases wher newtonian physics is just plain wrong. einsteins theories correct this and apply where newtons theories are 'good enough'. so it supercedes newtonian gravity. ok' date=' you seem to think that atomic bonding is a direct result of the weak force. not true, the weak force has not got the range nor the stregnth. this is purely an electromagnetic phenomenon. No, sorry. this is a purely electromagnetic phenomenon again. the weak force is a short range force. it is not responsible for macroscopic phenomena. ok, this is a reasonable description of an electromagnet up until you mention the fields repelling each other as the reason the field propagates. the reason i propagtes is that it is a electromagnetic phenomenon where the force is transmitted by photons. these move at the speed of light and will hence spread out. the force decreases with distance as the photons spread out. no repulsion unless another magnet is brought in. you got the speed right. except for weak and strong forces. these are transmitted by massive(with mass) particles and as massive particles, cannot travel at the speed of light. this also means that they are very short ranged as the particles decay. Gravitational fields have evidence to suggest they move at the speed of light but the method of transmission is as yet unknown. your going to have to post that part of your theory and also give references to where you found data on gravitational forces being picked up in the electromagnetic spectrum. i think it will turn out to be that it was an analogy that you interpreted to be data. Ok, i am far from an expert on the internal workings of an atom but as far as i am aware the information i'm about to type is correct. i'm sure that if i am wrong swansont or someone will correct me. You show a strong force loop holding an electron coming from a proton. electrons are not held by the strong force but the electro-magnetic force. you seem to get all these forces mixed up into the one single force but this is not what theories like the electro-weak theory are about. they show the relationship of the forces and not that they are one in the same. The forces are not of one type and you have not placed gravity. this part needs a lot of work and you will need to figure out the relationships which means maths. if you want help then you need to meet us half way and give us something to work with. nurghh? i can't make any sense of that. you'll have to clarify. the outer core is plasma? woah. where did you get that doozy? its a liquid. mainly iron and nickel. its runny but it isn't a plasma. its also cooler than the inner core but under less pressure hence is liquidness. and if the outer core is the sole provider of gravitational fields for the earth do you mind explaining why everything else can display measurable gravitational fields (including, but not limited to; mountains, rocks, brass, water, cats, gnats, didgerydoos, kangeroos and you.) they didn't say that as far as i recall. it is allowed in their models of gravity but requires a whole lot of wierd stuff like negative mass and energy which we have not as of yet encountered. How do you know the polarity of earth? it looks like you are claiming that gravity works like a magnet and if you made a magnet like that then it would not result in a monopole. but an extremely convoluted multipole. a visual way of thinking about it is that there would be small places on earth where you would fall up into space. with what you just said' date=' they would need to be chucked out and rewritten. i must have missed this bit. please, elaborate and clarify. first of all' date=' mass cannot move at the speed of light. einstein said nothing of the sort. he said that a mass would contract(shrink) along its velocity vector, not elongate. you have misunderstood relativity at a basic level here. your diagram makes it quite clear that this is not merely a muddle but a complete and utter miss. you cannot simulate an impossible event. a simulation requires you to apply physical laws to a virtual element. since the laws say that it cannot happen then it cannot be simulated. like typing 3/0 into a calculator. oh dear. infrared light particles are called photons. the same as particles of all other lights. these are not heat. heat is kinetic energy possesed y an atom. this will not strip away electrons as the photons do not have enough energy to ionize an atom. if its very high energy infrared then you might be able to get a transition but this is a very different thing. the laser and cutting torch do operate similarly, the heat the metal up till it vapourises(becomes a gas) in the same way water will become a gas at 100*C. This does not simulate travel at the speed of light. The nuclei are unaffected by infrared radiation as they are far too small to absorb he photons. the only electromagnetic radiation capable of interacting with a nuclei are gamma rays. and they will reorder the nuclei but not in the way hat you predict. The strong force is short ranged it can operate over the diameter of an iron nuclei but no further no matter how polarised(if it can indeed be polarised) it is. there is no relationship by the method you are describing. mind explaining this one? i always thought that it was the sparcity of the sunlight. we understand tidal locking of the moon and earth very well. this also happens with space shuttles and satellites in orbit. if the fields really did repel then why isn't the moon flying away? Now for the 'star of david' in the crystals. it is merely a geometric shape and crystals are known for creating geometric shapes. its more complex than the usual shapes but not as comlex as it could be. it is likely that this symbol was taken from shapes seen in crystals by ancient cultures. they probably thought it was the signature of god or similar. if the sun had an iron core then it would not be able to undergo fusion. the sun has a hydrogen/helium core. the sun does have iron in it but a very very tiny amount compared to everything else thats in it. I'm going to end now. my fingers are sore but i will continue tomorrow.

dammit, your going to be driving? just as i'm about to be legaly allowed to drive i'm going to have to stay off because of your craziness. DAMN YOU! i hope you know i'm joking about that. i'll be safe up here in scotland. i hope.

ummm... yeah ... thats meant to be 'gamer' ... double check that its spelt right. good.

well, the price differences of a few hundered £ between a dell and another lappy of identical spec.

just because we are young does not mean that we cannot be well versed in scientific theories. and if you realy did study navy nukes and design IR sensors then you would have a clue how the worked and be very very well educated in mathematics. i don't think you done any real studying of navy nuklear reactors. i think you just read up on a few articles about it and none of the maths. you don't seem to have very much knowledge about einsteins theories either. you keep mentioning mass stretching out approaching c, but it doesn't, it SHRINKS it is called legnth CONTRACTION. and what is the 'newton rate of [g]'? do you mean 9.81 ms^-2? if you do then you should know that gravity has been pretty much proven to propagate at c. and how would you explain different gravitational pulls? if your theory is so great, why hasn't it been published? come back when you have some evidence and numbers from you experiments. you don't have to be a mathematician to record a few numbers.