I-try

captcass Your learning may be assisted by going to Gravity by i-try

Zet. With regards the manner in which you have drawn that you call an aerofoil, then of course the leading section would generate a down force and the trailing section would generate an upwards generated force. Such a shaped wing would attempt to twist if set in horizontal motion. To generate lift, the raised leading section must be much shorter than the relatively longer tapered trailing section, and the angle of attack must be slightly raised to counter balance the down pressure on the leading section. Strange as it may seem, it is gravity that enables an aircraft to maintain lift due to atmospheric pressure.

ajb. You truthfully state on post 127: I don't know your work so I can't really make any useful comments. Answer In that regard, nobody else on this forum has even an idea of my work. Almost from the beginning of the thread The way I-try views energy was split from the essence of energy, I have been defending against misinformed accusations intermingled with abuse to the point of realisation that my quest on this forum was doomed. Every defence made was ignored and it rapidly became obvious that nobody was prepared to understand by reading my posts other than that pertaining to their own demands. With regards to how my work was examined on this forum, there is a need for a person with the power of a moderator to be assigned to the task of ensuring fairness when the ops are attempting to defend their work. There appears to be an established method of attack by ignoring salient points made by the defence, and either use abuse, sarcasm, or providing statements like it does not agree with QM or GR without bothering to attempt to explain why. In my case, it was not that I was not able to respond to statements implying my work did not comply with well established facts, it was a matter of being sick of having to reply to people who, on being completely ignorant of my work, were dedicated only to ridiculing it. When the referred to thread was locked, the main benefit was in relieving me from having to defend against disinterested people demanding that I explain to them something that had already been posted several times previous. I see you are classified as physic expert. Therefore, in the interest of clarification, I would be much obliged if you would go to Speculations and click on page 7 and then post number 137 of the locked thread The way I-try views energy. My work requires that the Gravitational mass is exactly equal to the Inertial mass irrespective of where it is measured in the universe. However, the work also requires that statement only applies to the actions of gravitation. The equivalence disappears when an experiment is performed with regards to inertia in proportion as supplied in post 137. If you are interested, I am willing to provide all reasons to your satisfaction, as to why that is so. That explanation of gravitation should help to provide a reason to properly examine my work; there is also an opportunity for a paper on the subject. There is a lot of unknown physics to be gained from an examination of the referred to statement regarding the lack of equivalence when dealing experimentally with inertia.

After having read the majority of posts provided on this thread, it appears that a person who challenges mainstream concepts such as gravitation is automatically regarded as a potential crackpot.; guilty and not to be proven to be innocent. I now realize why I would have been regarded as a crackpot 30 or more years ago, when I supplied my work to mainstream science, that provided a concept of gravity and gravitation that disallowed the existence of constantly reoccurring gravitational induced waves.

Elfmotat. I will risk another warning or being banned by answering your several statement in the reverse order you provided them. I was new to this forum and was reading a post in classical physics where two members stated they had no idea of a quantum wave. I provided a post to the effect that if it was allowed and their email addresses were available, I would supply them with a copy of my work. That resulted in the first warning regarding attempting to introduce my Pet theory on this forum, I left this forum for a year or so and only returned when I became aware of the speculations section. The second warning came when a member was inquiring about the veracity of the author of an article he had read concerning the hunt for gravity waves. The authors name was mentioned. Several other posters stated they thought he was a quack and did not respond further. I supplied truthful information to the extent that the author was a university trained mathematician and did not mention gravity waves. The third warning was the results of me thinking that somehow my post had gone astray because there was absolutely no evidence of it in that thread, so I re-posted it. Instead of just removing the. text of my first post and substituting a caution, I received that warning. You stated: I think it's safe to say that nobody has a clue what you mean when you say that gravity and gravitation are "different." People have asked for clarification several times now, but all you ever say is "I already explained the difference in a previous post." Answer And so I have, Originally in the number of posts that were totally ignored because there were no replies or questions. Also explained to Strange to have it ignored and then in a later post he stated that he was not going to attempt to get his head around it. That did not surprise me because in another forum and some years ago, he stated that I was a idiot for believing that gravity and gravitation were two differing phenomenons. You state: Look, it's not our fault that your nonsense is nonsense. You're getting honest feedback here. I know you'd prefer validation, but you're not going to get it because nothing you're saying makes any sense. That's the truth. Answer. It is obvious that you have given little of no attention to the many posts to this thread and to the locked thread Gravity by I-try. Apart from the moderators, the other posters to Speculation are the people who only concentrate on the threads they start, and to whatever extent, people like Strange who post to several forums. Remember, he self confessed that his value to his company required him providing polite answers to silly questions.

To the members of this forum. I came to this forum in an attempt to gain an evaluation of my work It appears that was never possible. From the information regarding gravity and gravitation I have supplied to this forum, then perhaps the reference to the pull of gravity or gravitational pull will eventually cease to be referred to. In that regard, mainstream science has at least one conceptual description of gravity that had it been fairly examined, has a precision to explain why Pioneer received an acceleration beyond that expected by the application of Newtonian gravitation; also why Io is the most volcanic effected body of matter in the solar-system. With regards to the how and the why of mainstream science belief regarding the reason for such concepts as matter and antimatter, also nuclear force etceteras; then their belief will not be challenged by my work regarding those subjects because there will be no further posted extracts from it. The reason for that decision is the lack of interest in my work and I have now received three warnings.

jajrussel. Don't waste effort and material building a wheel, build a balance instead at right angle to the neutral point of the differing gravitational effects, then rotate it 360 degrees. It will remain in balance for the same reason the rotating Earth stays in perfect balance as it orbits the Sun.

Strange. I provided ample opportunity over a number of posts for you to realise why ? appears to violate the exact equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass. In my last post there was a request that you post the reason why you constantly state: But you have said that acceleration (in a lift) is not the same as gravity. This has been tested to levels of accuracy that completely rule out your "1 in 30,583,019. the difference". (You keep ignoring this.) Unfortunately you were unable or unwilling to post a reason. In that case I cannot be fairly accused of lecturing or attempting to humiliate you by supplying an answer. You should remember the discussion began with regards to a n of force relative to both methods of accelerating a kg of matter. Then to a dine of force with regards to both methods of accelerating a gram of matter. The above calculation results from the relative acceleration of a 9.81 kg of matter, and would be 1000 times less for the acceleration of 9.81 grams. A relative acceleration of a smaller amount than a gram of matter, the difference would be proportionally less. In my posts that relationship was stated to you but you chose to ignore. If an electron was the subject of comparison acceleration, the difference would be approaching infinitely small and well beyond our ability to measure. The lift explanation provided by Einstein was only an indication as to what he was referring to, and the exact equivalence is only inferred. Far from falsifying ?, it presents further evidence why it should be intensely but fairly examined. To do so requires a full understanding of ?

Strange. Your stated. <shrug> Science doesn't really care whether people think the results are ridiculous or not. There are a lot of scientists who are not happy with what science tells them. Some of them, e.g. Einstein, spend much of their lives trying to show theory is wrong for that reason. Answer. Especially when the concepts are ridiculously derived through ignorance and subsequently go on to cost the world community a large amount of brain power and scarce finances. You stated. But you have said that acceleration (in a lift) is not the same as gravity. This has been tested to levels of accuracy that completely rule out your "1 in 30,583,019. the difference". (You keep ignoring this.) Answer. I most certainly do not ignore that statement. How could I when you continually repeat and rely on it. In that regard it reminds me of the day I was sitting in our car outside a friends house. Their parrot hopped through their gate and hopped over to me. It turned its head sideways and when looking up to me said; Hello. I replied hello and then the bird asked an intelligent question in the form of how are you. I answered good, how are you and the bird replied good and then turned and hopped back home. I had a conversation with that bird which conveyed information that is impossible with you. Yes I know, that is the level of my conversational ability and has nothing to do with your complete ignorance of the intricacies regarding the fundamental dynamic nature of gravity and the gravitational effect. You have a stated disinterest in ? and only desire to attempt to falsify it . Why not provide an example of how the accuracy you refer to was arrived at. imatfaal Because I view all sections of this forum, then when I noticed a statement referring to Other features or words to that effect, I clicked on it and a list appeared. At the bottom of that list was the Rubbish Bin. To the right of that bin was this thread and the latest answer from Strange. Up to this point, the title of this thread has been only lightly printed and with no other markings as most other threads are. Today, this thread is in full print and equal with most other threads. . If your statement regard the complex you refer to is correct, then I must have imagined that originally this thread got the attention of staff members and the other thread Gravity by I-try was locked suddenly without warning.

Th would appear that this thread can be accessed via the trash can, there fore to the moderators of this forum, I have provided many posts that appear to have had an interest to viewers but of little interest to you people. Despite my viewing of many subjects discussed on this forum, the only interest in the fundamental dynamic nature of physics was a question by robinpike when he asked how does an electron know it is being accelerated. ? automatically supplies the answer to that question along with all changes taking place during the instant by instant acceleration of an electron. About as close as you people can get to the nature of an electron is to refer to it as a point particle, or when it suits, as a cloud of probability surrounding a nucleus. It appears that mainstream ideas of the how and why of that underlying physics must be protected irrespective of how valuable a concept such as the Gravitational Thermodynamic Effect may be to humanity. Well done, you have convinced me of the futility of attempting to provide conceptual argument in an attempt to intrude into the hallowed concept of gravity provided by GR. You do that despite the obvious failings regarding Newtonian gravitation when Pioneer bypassed Jupiter. Do you have any idea as to why Newtonian gravitation failed in that event. I would bet you don't. Yes, I agree, this thread belongs in the trash can along with Strange's replies that imply that presently believed concepts of mainstream science are sacrosanct. I will await the results of Rosetta with increased interest.

Mordred. You state: Assuming no particle how would you measure energy?. Remember your the one pushing it as being unique and distinquishable. If that is the case you need to be able to measure it directly. Answer. At the basic level of reality, I refer to the amassing of the intrinsic energy contained in parts of primeval waves travelling from all direction and at the speed of light; there was a reference to the extremely short wavelength being responsible for universal pressure. That statement regarding the attempted description of the fundamental dynamic nature of energy cannot be subjected to measurement as was stated at the time of posting. Even so, and although QM cannot measure and exactly define a part of a quantum wave, you demand that I do so. In that regard and relative to QM, ? close approximates that for a QM required version of gravity The remainder of your post proves your earlier statement that you have zero interest in ? other than attempting to falsify it. Unfortunately that is also the attitude of Strange, and I believe most other members of this forum who have done likewise. That attempt to falsify would be acceptable if there had been any attempt to actually read and understand ?. In that regard, the how and the why underlying physics has remained in the dark ages since Einstein attempted to define the fundamental nature of gravity and gravitation, and will remain so for the foreseeable future due to that attitude.

Mordred. Much later in ?, attempts are made to provide information regarding the manner in which particles form and interact; including information regarding how other force such as nuclear MAY originate. Therefore I will leave your first statement unanswered. With regards to your other statement; you measure the energy constituting a particle (by assuming that the measurement did not induce change) such as an electron, by obtaining its mass value and then applying the equation E = MC^2. The existence of a particle is dependent on the magnitude of its amassed intrinsic energy. In an environment such as our rotating and orbiting Earth, the parameters are constantly undergoing unrecognisable changes besides those that are recognisable, and therefore, the energy contained within a particle must be regarded as having a potential to be subjected to change. Strange. As you would well know and as I have repeatedly stated, the difference between the two lift example is with the method of the application of the accelerating influence. Gravitation results from the eternally acting phenomenon resulting in either acceleration or what is called weight. Suddenly stop the winding apparatus supplying the uniform acceleration, the lift would go into uniform motion and there would be no weight. Personally, I find it difficult to believe that people supposed to think rationally, can believe in the ridiculous idea presently provided by mainstream science to account for weight. I have informed you of the reason why there is a need to supply energy from an external source in the case of horizontal acceleration: there is a retarding influence that requires to be overcome to achieve said acceleration, and that retarder is not present during vertical acceleration due to the gravitational effect. If you want to believe otherwise, that is your prerogative and it has nothing to do with the falsifying of ?.

Strange. Posted Today, 06:00 PM I-try, on 04 Nov 2014 - 12:43 PM, said: And with regards to argument, I stated because the difference was so small, Einstein's belief in his two lift explanation was well within the bounds of a reasonable assumption. You stated: Although this has now been validated to very high levels of accuracy. Why doesn't this rule out your theory? Answer. Because ? agrees with the exact equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass. It is physically impossible for them not to be equal because they are one and the same mass. However, and to enlighten further, I will supply the following information. Presently, Newtonian gravitational effect has been measured to a high degree of accuracy except for a slight over estimation with regards the 9,81 n. Even so, that accuracy only applies to presently known physics; the excess acceleration of Pioneer and other spacecraft is an indication of that fact. ? requires that there are other unrecognised phenomenon involved when dealing with gravitational effect acting on spacecraft. With regards to the two lift explanation, there is a retarding phenomenon acting (I referred to it in an earlier post) during the horizontal acceleration that is not acting during the gravitational induced acceleration. In that regard, and as stated several times before, ? can supply an instant by instant (time relative to an electron) description of an electron during horizontal and vertical acceleration. I refer to my work with a question mark because I have never claimed it to be correct or beyond falsification. You state: And yet you reject every piece of evidence that contradicts it, you reject all attempts to explain why it is based on false principles, and you reject all discussion other than people agreeing with you. Answer. You have supplied evidence from presently believed concepts of the nature of matter, and refuse to examine ?. That would be because you consider me to be a self deluding, miss guided, obstinate old fool. Despite what you may presently believe, if the two lift example has been examined to such high precision, then that is just another example of the ability of ?, because it predicts a discrepancy equal to only 1 in 30,583,019. the difference between the mainstream view and that of ?. I will refer you to my above answer for the reason for a slight difference. You have a weird idea of agreement received during this discussion..

Mordred. Judging from your post number 120, I can well believe you when you state that you have zero interest in ?. Your first statement of that post regarding energy and pressure was subjected to a fundamental dynamic analyses in one of my early post. You state: Just like inertia is resistance to momentum. Inertia is a measure of mass I would suggest that statement would be improved by stating that the magnitude of the inertia of a matter particle when attempting to resist changes to its momentum, is dependent on the quantity of the amassed energy composing it. You state: energy is a property of particles it does NOT have its own unique and distinquishable property or essence. In my opinion, that statement indicates a sad lack of understanding of the fundamental dynamic nature on which our physics is based. You state: You sit here and preach to us your model ideas but have spent 40 years of being told "Do the math" and you never bothered. No Mordred, I have spent more than 40 years providing ? to universities without any replies except for two who stated that they would like to do more than glancing through my work but they did not have the spare time. Perhaps the fact that the developing gravity wave detecting adventure was gaining popularity may have something to do with my lack of success. There were physicists who stated an interest to read ?, there were never any replies. You stated: The worse insult is that you wrote a book on your ideas which will only cause trouble for any student who buys your book. Calm your fears, it is not a text book. It was published with the aid of an American self publishing company, and now lies buried in millions of more popular literature such as fictional novels mainly covering adventures in the sleazy side of humanity. There is also a huge number of fictional science novels. I was not advised to learn mathematics. I was advised to use my power of imagination to write fiction but the gravitation dynamic effect kept me chained to this quest. Yes I know, I followed that advice to write fiction and now I am attempting to impose it on this forum. ? was available free of charge for several years via a non peer review Journal. How do I find a peer whom has made a study of the fundamental dynamic nature of matter.

Mordred. You say: Posted Yesterday, 09:00 PM All forms of energy or energy density regardless of type or source in sufficient amounts can exert gravity. That is according to the Einstien field equations. I have zero interest in your personal model. I will continue to use GR and when its still accurate to a good approximation such as Euclidean non relativistic Newtonian. Answer You mean perhaps an energy density like the Sun or us. However, the Sun does not exert gravity, it exerts a gravitational effect commonly called the pull of gravity or gravitational pull. I will state again that there is no such force as a pulling force. You then continue to state that (and being a scientist or having stated an interest in the advancement in the knowledge of physics) you are content with the present state of the how and the why of physics. That appears to me to be a self centred attitude, given the possible benefit to humanity if the Gravitational Thermodynamic Effect represents physical reality. . In a previous post to you, there was notification of intention to provide further information regarding gravity and gravitation. That was a reference to my intention to provide the mathematical competent members of this forum with a means of using their ability to perhaps solve the anomaly regarding the excess acceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft during its bypass of Jupiter. The motivation being the benefit to ?. In that regard, your zero interest in ? is also the general attitude of members of this forum, and so that information will be emailed to a friendly mathematician. If he accepts and succeeds, you will hear of the success via the media. Strange. I am well aware of the fact that a matter particle or any thing else cannot be accelerated beyond the fastest moving phenomenon in the universe. I have supplied my reason for making that statement. I subscribe to the concept of relativistic momentum and not to relativistic mass. I have posted my reasons for that belief. I referred to one second because that is the time period that a given force is applied to displace a kg of matter a distance of half a meter whilst achieving a velocity of one meter consistent with the final part of the referred to time period. Thanks for providing your calculation for my believed difference between acceleration due to gravitation and horizontal acceleration. And with regards to argument, I stated because the difference was so small, Einstein's belief in his two lift explanation was well within the bounds of a reasonable assumption. Even so, that difference did not violate the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass. It simply implies that the 9.81 n due to the gravitational effect is too high by that amount. ? provided the reason for making that calculation.