If gravity is a separate force then how can it exist without the other 3?

[swansont]

3) the unified field model can be easily decoupled to study an individual interaction

How can this be, if the interactions are intertwined as you claim?

[Tom O'Neil]

@inside the paper:

http://www.aimspress.com/article/10.3934/Math.2016.2.137/pdf

3) the unified field model can be easily decoupled to study an individual interaction

 

 

 

@swansont

How can this be, if the interactions are intertwined as you claim?

 

This question you pose swansont is no less then an oxymoron! But, I will try an answer anyway. For example, Super Colliders are needed to study tiny particles associated with the atom by separating them. The article indicates that the four forces are unified, but each one is studied individually to see how they are intertwined.

Hi I update my unified theory:

 

[swansont]

@inside the paper:

http://www.aimspress.com/article/10.3934/Math.2016.2.137/pdf

3) the unified field model can be easily decoupled to study an individual interaction

 

 

 

This question you pose swansont is no less then an oxymoron! But, I will try an answer anyway. For example, Super Colliders are needed to study tiny particles associated with the atom by separating them. The article indicates that the four forces are unified, but each one is studied individually to see how they are intertwined.

 

 

If they can be decoupled they are not intertwined. Also, the article does not actually put forth a unified theory.

 

Hi I update my unified theory:

 

 

 

Please use your unified theory to predict the orbit of a geostationary satellite. Show your work.

[Tom O'Neil]

 

 

If they can be decoupled they are not intertwined. Also, the article does not actually put forth a unified theory.

 

 

Please use your unified theory to predict the orbit of a geostationary satellite. Show your work.

swansont can you give me the mass of the satellite please? You give me that and if the equation shows balance then I have achieved something.

 

What you are asking for is already known otherwise it would not work; so lets just see if the equation shows balance first.

 

 

A geostationary orbit, geostationary Earth orbit or geosynchronous equatorial orbit^[1](GEO) is a circular orbit 35,786 kilometres (22,236 mi) above the Earth's equator and following the direction of the Earth's rotation.^[2] An object in such an orbit has an orbital period equal to the Earth's rotational period (one sidereal day) and thus appears motionless, at a fixed position in the sky, to ground observers. Communications satellites and weather satellites are often placed in geostationary orbits, so that the satellite antennas (located on Earth) that communicate with them do not have to rotate to track them, but can be pointed permanently at the position in the sky where the satellites are located. Using this characteristic, ocean color satellites with visible and near-infrared light sensors (e.g. the Geostationary Ocean Color Imager (GOCI)) can also be operated in geostationary orbit in order to monitor sensitive changes of ocean environments.

A geostationary orbit is a particular type of geosynchronous orbit, the distinction being that while an object in geosynchronous orbit returns to the same point in the sky at the same time each day, an object in geostationary orbit never leaves that position.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit#Derivation_of_geostationary_altitude

 

Edited March 13, 2017 by Tom O'Neil

[swansont]

swansont can you give me the mass of the satellite please? You give me that and if the equation shows balance then I have achieved something.

 

What you are asking for is already known otherwise it would not work; so lets just see if the equation shows balance first.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit#Derivation_of_geostationary_altitude

 

 

 

Using mainstream physics the mass of the satellite doesn't matter. Why does it matter for your "unified" theory?

[Tom O'Neil]

 

 

Using mainstream physics the mass of the satellite doesn't matter. Why does it matter for your "unified" theory?

So its ok if I make up a mass for the satellite and if the equation shows balance will you be satisfied. One question I may have to amend the infinity symbol to another figure, if first go around does not work and would that satisfy you?

 

I suppose it does not matter for unity, you make sense swansont:)

[John Cuthber]

OK, the satellite has a mass of 70Kg- the same as me.

What's the orbital radius and period

(show your working)

Also show what they would be for a blue whale with a mass of 140 tonnes (you may ignore the fact that blue whales boil in space).

For additional credit, please how the orbital characteristics of the whale which is tied to a pallet of 170 tonnes of lead bricks.

Edited March 13, 2017 by John Cuthber

[Tom O'Neil]

OK, the satellite has a mass of 70Kg- the same as me.

What's the orbital radius and period

(show your working)

Also show what they would be for a blue whale with a mass of 140 tonnes (you may ignore the fact that blue whales boil in space).

For additional credit, please how the orbital characteristics of the whale which is tied to a pallet of 170 tonnes of lead bricks.

geostationary satellite orbital radius and period 70kg:

Radius = 42,164.14 Kilometers

Period = 24 hours

 

For 140 ton metallic whale lol geostationary

Radius = 390 Km

Period = 24 hours

Edited March 13, 2017 by Tom O'Neil

[Strange]

geostationary satellite orbital radius and period 70kg:

Radius = 42,164.14 Kilometers

Period = 24 hours

 

For 140 ton metallic whale lol geostationary

Radius = 390 Km

Period = 24 hours

 

 

Well, there you go. You can consider your theory falsified. Well done. You have done some science.

[swansont]

geostationary satellite orbital radius and period 70kg:

Radius = 42,164.14 Kilometers

Period = 24 hours

 

For 140 ton metallic whale lol geostationary

Radius = 390 Km

Period = 24 hours

You didn't show how you got this from your "theory"