Relative

I was not going any where , if you read, i was explaining my thought process and how i derived with my gravity speculation, You will find before the homework thread, I had a thread in speculations called gravity which got closed for , wait for it, random speculations, wild accusations, or something along those lines. ''This thread is not about any specific physics question, dont go there, '' you are correct it is not my intention to start a physics thread, although I am in the lounge and your own rules on the opening page, on this lounge section, states ''talk about anything;;, define anything? I even gave formulas Discuss life, work, school, anything! Can i please make a suggestion? cant you let me just talk openly in this thread and rename it to the nutters thread, and stay off the main forum that way/ Because I know by asking the right questions, im giving you answers, I will still be a nobody and you guys will advance.

The pole holds the string, the ground holds the pole, gravity holds the ground. But the force on the string is never equal to zero, the ball always wants to accelerate away, so goes circualr Yes I should , but do I not have the same knowledge at my finger tips? I can instantly look any subject material up, I understand what I read quite fast in the terms of I can put into a physical picture in my mind and draw that picture. Can you see by my logical reasoning I understand centrifugal , centripetal, gravity current, ? My problem with the string, if I retracted the string, added centripetal force, the balls orbit will just contract inwards at any velocity. However if i retract my string and could put an opposing invisible force in the way to stop the contraction, my ball would maintain a stable orbit I could obviously only retract my string equal to the opposing force This is how I think, I am thinking out aloud. Is this more understandable than previous? I see gravity different to current, I see several paradoxes. I can not help where my mind takes me. Imagine I and you, I and you are 100 meters apart on a train track on a small track cart, each of us have a pully wheel ,rope connecting our carts, we turn the wheel and we draw nearer together, Then imagine I put a 100 meter spring on the rope, This is what i see the sun and the earth does. It does not matter how much force we put into turning the pully wheel , the spring will never allow us to get close. Then recently I argued your Fn, then I realised what you was saying, the ground has spring like properties, I then consider all mass is attracted to mass, but all stopping Fn is equal to the force. S o my conclusion was that the action of gravity had an opposite reaction, the opposite action been equal in force to the action of gravity, And I hope you understand now , why and how I get my thoughts, I do use a thought process, it is not just half baked ideas, I think them through, often my ideas are instantaneous though, and I agree my sentencing is still not the best, although dramatically improving.

If I run you through my logic, then you can tell me where i am misguided. Ty for the link, so my thought about electro magnetic interactions is just my thought then . No idea where i had the notion from. And I thought Newton and Einstein did the gravity together, sorry my error I understand the centrifugal force part, I got banned in my early science days for arguing gravity orbit was centrifugal force, they thought i was a troll, i did not know that it was centrifugal force, that made the orbit. I firstly looked at a ball on a string been hit around a pole, a ball in ''centrifugal flow'', yes my words, an orbit of centrifugal force. I realized though, that the string does not pull back. yes I know that sounds confusing, a string not pulling back,

arrr, now I see, from a child I always thought gravity was magnets/electrical interaction of forces, I thought that was classical mechanics, So before Einstein there was no theory? I think I am even more confused now, so the ancient greeks did not discover that now gravity , was electromagnetic interaction, blimey i need go read some classical mechanics see what that is about. To me the link i provided looks exactly like the gravity example diagram in previous thread strange provided. I always thought electromagnetism was classical mechanics, I have the sun as a positive, planet cores as positive, mantles, surfaces negative, by thought about lightning strikes. I have the positives repelling, I have both positives attracting the negative.

Can you now see why I struggle with current science theory on Gravity, when there is all this information out there, that to the ordinary person looks the same, meaning the physical process that is achieved been the same.?

I completely understand the forums concerns , ''This summarises your problem. It is not "our own science"; it is your mangled and incorrect version of science.'' incorrect version, how can a speculation be an incorrect version, mangled , yes maybe, I am just getting to grips with models and formulas, you have learnt me, helped me. ''I'm not sure that gravity was ever though of as being magnetic. But even if it was, once upon a time, that is irrelevant because we have known it isn't for hundreds of years. Why bring up ancient history (which I suspect is wrong anyway).'' Ok, if it was not magnetism , what was it before Einstein? I brought up history , history been apart of my speculation, Gravity been one force,attracting, and magnetism been the stopping force and also possible Emr force by electricity contained in the emr been repelled by KE of planets. ''They do point out problems in what you say. Often this explanation takes the form of trying to explain what is actually known about the subject (the "science of now").'' The subjects I speculate about I already know about, several years now on the internet, probably longer hours than in a University studying. So talking about the current and not the actual speculation, does not achieve any goals. ''''Science can be wrong. But the very basic things you ask about are very well understood and have been thoroughly tested by experiment. The chances of anything being fundamentally wrong is nearly zero.'' Maxwell, etc, all made maths to fit what was observed, so yes it will work, but that is not to say that there is not a paradox explanation, that also works and can be made to fit. And P.s yes or no to the opening diagram in this thread, would that work ? So gravity never was considered to be like this link? http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/orbmag.html I am not sure whether it was this forum or another forum , but I asked why a negative tail meets a positive header in lightning strikes on the ground. A basic diagram of what I drew to go with it. From this diagram I considered perpetual motion.

My nature is never to accept something , unless there is 100% facts , and my own logic, has ruled out any other possible ways first. How can I rule out thoughts, if I have no one to share them with?. ,You all misunderstand, if you consider I am preaching with any activist tendencies, I share my thoughts and ask about those thoughts. I am asking you if it is possible, relying on your knowledge to put me straight, or the possible chance I may be correct on something, then I am in the best place with the correct type persons whom know what to do with new ideas that have any merit. I have looked at basic science for several years, forces, laws , etc, I do diagrams showing them forces in action, and you all say no , its garbage, when it is your own science. So I am really confused , you agree with all the actions of the force, but I put several forces together and you then deny it. I mentioned magnetic fields, because of classical mechanics, and the belief that what is now known has Gravity in modern Physics, before, was forces of magnetism at work. I mentioned Venus, because that was the planet that killed magnetic theory of orbit. ''Rule 10: Keep alternative science and your own personal conjecture to the appropriate forum (Speculations).'' The mods closed that one remember, it was my speculation, but I was not aloud to speculate, even though I have started to produce some primitive type maths with basic explanation. I speculate, and instantly, no its not that way its this way.......I know that , i know which way science see's it, that is why I am speculating in the first place. Members do not point out problems with what I say, they redirect me back to science of now, and nothing in science can be wrong can it. I head off has you put it to try and get you understand my idea of speculation compared to current.

Ok mods, although I never strayed from gravity in my last thread, never speculated and asked questions, you still closed it down, so is there any point trying to discusss anything? This section according to your rules I can discuss anything? So here you go lets talk weapons technology and the design for an electro pulse rifle. Perhaps if the cultured society does not want listen, I should go find an extremest site to listen? Do i breach your rules in this section? anything (not comparable) In any way, any extent or any degree. That isn't anything like a car. ''''in philosophy, ideas are usually construed as mental representational images of some object. Ideas can also be abstract concepts that do not present as mental images.[1] Many philosophers have considered ideas to be a fundamental ontological category of being. The capacity to create and understand the meaning of ideas is considered to be an essential and defining feature of human beings. In a popular sense, an idea arises in a reflexive, spontaneous manner, even without thinking or serious reflection, for example, when we talk about the idea of a person or a place.'' Ideas, do I need to remind science of what an idea actually is? I do not even break your rules speculation ˌspɛkjʊˈleɪʃn/ noun 1. the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence. "there has been widespread speculation that he plans to quit" synonyms: conjecture, theorizing, hypothesizing, supposition, guesswork; More I accuse this forum of breaking its own rules and closing threads when the forum rules are not been broken?

Thank you and I do understand friction,'' A force, by itself, does not cause friction'', I am not saying a force by itself , I am saying two forces acting upon each other. Can two forces create friction? I am sorry , I feel I can't even ask the questions I need to ask with diagrams, in fear of thread closure. sunshaker-''If it is the centrifugal force of a planet that stops it falling into the sun, When in a planets history was this force first brought into being, Is it possible that planets formed further away from our sun/star, Until our sun gravity started acting upon said planet giving its initial speed to maintain their closer stable orbits? '' My original thoughts a while back when considering gravity, but after further consideration I changed my mind, I am sorry mods I really need to ask about my homework diagram, You consider centrifugal force has the force involved , why are the other forces not accounted for in stopping the collision of the sun and the earth? ''Magnetic lines do not cross each other. it is natural phenomenon. Answer Magnetic 'lines of force' do not actually exist. They simply represent a 'model' which is used to explain the behaviour of a magnetic field through the use of something we can easily understand. In this case, one of the conditions for this model to apply is that these imaginary lines of force cannot intersect. The lines do not cross because the field can not have two values at one point. There is a basic equation that says that the lines always form closed loops: div B = 0, one of Maxwell's equations describing a property of the magnetic flux density B.''

sorry and i did not mean you mentioned magnets, You say about Fn, this is what I am trying to show and ask about. I understand the ground pushing back now, I get what you are saying. If fn is used on earth why not considered in space by invisible forces? and venus reached its curie point, the magnetic field would not even break the surface.

You say the planet wants travel linear, away from the sun, a straight line, I understand the gravity part well, that mass is attracted to mass, so with no centrifugal added, we would make contact and collide with the sun yes? Gravity pulls, centripetal, how can the pulling not slow it down, the static friction of the forces involved?

Yes , I understand this, I have always understood this from when I first studied the subject material, and I still say there is something missing. I understand Newtons first law of motion, and something that is accelerated in space will maintain velocity until it hits something or is slowed down by other force. I spin a magnet around a piece of wood making an orbit, at velocity 5 rpm, revolutions per minute, I then spin another magnet around another magnet making an orbit, also at 5 rpm, Are you telling me that I need the same force to make 5 rpm although the magnets will be attracted to each other or repel each other, taking away energy from the cycle? Something that pulls another something has force yes? Because something that pulls has a stopping force. you explained to me in another thread about Fn, why is the diagram got no Fn on it?

I thought Newtons first law was going to be replied, so what initial force started it moving then? And if there is force of gravity, does the gravity attraction not cause a ''friction'', a gravity drag has such taking away energy from the motion? The Earth in the diagram, has force applied to it from gravity, the force trying to make The Earth travel linear movement also towards the Sun, if the Sun is pulling the Earth , that surely would take away energy out of the motion?

I do not understand , how can the force be towards the Sun, gravity pulls us to the sun, and pulls the sun towards earth, The orbit around the Sun at X velocity, there must be some pushing force from my arrow point? I hit a ball around a pole on a string, the force has come from me, so what force makes the orbital velocity if not f=ma?

Thank you Strange that is how I understand current gravity explanation, but it still does not answer my question. I have downloaded your diagram and done a slight edit to ask the same question, what force is involved to make matter F=ma from my red arrow point, and directional with the arrow, what force drives the planet ''forward''?

In the subject of Gravity in Physics, it is said that all Physical bodies are attracted to one another by gravity, all matter attracted matter!. It is also explained that the Earth wants to travel linear, but is held by gravity in its orbit around the Sun. My question is, what Force, stops expansion or contraction of the orbit, the ? mark on the diagram , shows the area I am talking about?

straw man Physics , no , F=ma two forces meeting create twice the force, so two energies meeting , which you already state have force, when they meet they will create force that will create acceleration. The stronger energy force, will push back the weaker energy force, The Fn you explain, is what I am saying,'' the ground does not push back'', the energy from the core pushes back energy of matter, the energy in any matter can not oppose direction to the energy flow, it breaks all the laws if it did. I understand your Fn now, and this is what it is, the direction of its energies. Yes or no to the diagram, this is basic, and yes confirms what I am saying..

This is the misconception, I now have basic knowledge, by heating air you increase the kinetic energy, you say it and don't see it sorry. You increase the energy, the energy has to follow the flow of energy. Heat rises, Yes or no to this diagram- Every action has an opposite reaction

I use your basic Physical concepts, how can you say no, that over rules your own basic Physics, every action has an opposite reaction, I heat air, the reaction is lift, the opposite action to gravity. So therefore by heating air, we create anti-gravity. Heat is energy, by adding energy to air, it becomes more buoyant, opposed to gravity. Energy v Energy there is opposing force. Energy in a flow of energy will always follow the flow. So by increasing the energy of the air, it compensates for the mass of the basket, and the basket and the air , has to follow the energy flow? Please consider this with an open mind.....

To be honest , to learn all the maths you write and to understand them correctly I would need tutoring, a cm is a lot on a universal scale? and over time it will be greater? And I have a new model for you, and would appreciate opinion, I have no ideas where or why I get these brain farts, but I just see it . It does fit into this thread, and adds to my ideas, I hope someone see's something, and understands me for my own mind sake. I have a feeling scientists go a bit crazy , like Einstein, because it is really annoying when no one understands you. Can you please forget what you know, and consider this model as if we were in the 17th century in Prague, and know very little.

I was trying to make a simple formula that says in a period of time, by energy increase, increasing mass of either of the objects, that the distance/radius, will change between the objects .

? Distance over time will change by energy?

An object with more energy than an identical object has more mass, yes, therefore more weight? An object in an equilibrium state of distance, created by opposing and attractive F, an increase in energy will increase the mass and change the position of the object in accordance to gravity, until it finds its new equilibrium of distance/gravity binding?

I just looked at that thread, that looks seriously complex, good luck.

The Sun replaces its own mass by the Proton-Proton chain?