Without rotation we are not here, nothing would exists

[Phantom5]

Think about, when all things that are in moving, work only by rotation.

When not all things rotate it would fly all in all directions!

What was correct, how the gravity is working?

The Sentence is unbreakable.

Motors are rotating, stars rotate, galaxies rotate, the planets rotate, joints are rotating, the trees in the wind rotates about degrees, the walls of your heart are rotating at degrees too. And and and...

It goes absolutely nothing without a rotation, all things would be fly away in the universe, and nothing would exist.

What was the correct conclusion when all movement work only by a rotation, how will the gravity then work?

Its only pressure, when you think about a comet you have over pressure and under pressure and when you think at an object that rotates you have under pressure in the middle and it blast with over pressure all away.

Or another sentence from me, when gravity is a thing that holds all elements together, what is the most element in the universe? The nothing or vacuum.

And what we have then in the middle of the planet?

I hope the thread was not deleted, because its correct and the truth.

When all things that in movement all working by a rotation how must the gravity work?

Edited November 29, 2018 by Phantom5

[swansont]

This is so full of wrong, it's hard to pick where to start.

There's also almost no science in it. You are expected to present models and evidence, not just make assertions. Can you back up any of these claims?

[Phantom5]

Look here, i have align atoms by vacuum... Sorry, but you must look the last video from it, when you want to see the proof of it. And sorry for my bad english.

 

 

[beecee]

19 minutes ago, Phantom5 said:

Look here, i have align atoms by vacuum... Sorry, but you must look the last video from it, when you want to see the proof of it. And sorry for my bad english.

Your English is not the problem. It's actually very good pseudoscience. 

[Phantom5]

yes, its new and not proof at its best, and when i have the time and the money i would proof it with a mikrocontroller and sensors

[Strange]

2 hours ago, Phantom5 said:

the walls of your heart are rotating at degrees too

I certainly hope not.

2 hours ago, Phantom5 said:

I hope the thread was not deleted, because its correct and the truth.

You would need to provide some evidence for anyone to reach that conclusion.

2 hours ago, Phantom5 said:

When all things that in movement all working by a rotation how must the gravity work?

I don't any connection between gravity and rotation. Look at Newton's law: where does rotation appear in it?

[Phantom5]

11 minutes ago, Strange said:

I certainly hope not.

Think about it, what do a tree when it moves in the wind? When it goes left and right? It rotates, not with 360 degrees, but with 1, 2 or 3. Its the same with the walls of your heart.

Quote

You would need to provide some evidence for anyone to reach that conclusion.

Look at the last video from the thread, align atoms per vacuum, the first one was very bad, please.

Quote

I don't any connection between gravity and rotation. Look at Newton's law: where does rotation appear in it?

The thing with mass is wrong, it cant be correct, the correct answer is a vacuum, how i told, look the last video! You can make a electric force force with vacuum. In this thing a magnetic.

Im not sure maybe its a electrostatic force, im not sure, if the magnetometer measures it.

In one case i have reached 17µT.

Here are the video, too....

 

 

Edited November 29, 2018 by Phantom5

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Phantom5 said:

Think about it, what do a tree when it moves in the wind? When it goes left and right? It rotates, not with 360 degrees, but with 1, 2 or 3. Its the same with the walls of your heart.

Well, if you are going to redefine all movement as rotation then inevitably you are correct. But that is pretty pointless, because now you need a new word to distinguish "what we used to call rotation" from other types of motion.

4 minutes ago, Phantom5 said:

The thing with mass is wrong, it cant be correct

And yet it works. Why is that?

Do you have an alternative mathematical model that doesn't involve mass but that still gives the correct results?

 

[Phantom5]

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

Well, if you are going to redefine all movement as rotation then inevitably you are correct. But that is pretty pointless, because now you need a new word to distinguish "what we used to call rotation" from other types of motion.

And yet it works. Why is that?

No, it does not work, nobody has make it working. Mass has no function. It works only with mathematic models and the models are not incorrect but wrong. A simple example is, 1 + x + x = 10, you can take different numbers for reach the correct answer and so it is with the model of math for the gravitation. I have in an example, i have take other numbers, when you show it easy, i have make it down under.

Quote

Do you have an alternative mathematical model that doesn't involve mass but that still gives the correct results?

 

No, i dont have an alternative mathematic model, but mathematicians can easy made one.

Edited November 29, 2018 by Phantom5

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Phantom5 said:

No, it does not work, nobody has make it working.

Of course it works. It is used to calculate the falling of apples and the orbits of planets.

1 hour ago, Phantom5 said:

It works only with mathematic models and the models are not incorrect but wrong.

What? That doesn't make sense. Either the model is correct or wrong. It can't be both.

1 hour ago, Phantom5 said:

A simple example is, 1 + x + x = 10, you can take different numbers for reach the correct answer and so it is with the model of math for the gravitation.

Nonsense.

x=4.5

1 hour ago, Phantom5 said:

No, i dont have an alternative mathematic model, but mathematicians can easy made one.

They don't need to. We have a model that works. (Actually, we have two.)

[Phantom5]

11 minutes ago, Strange said:

Of course it works. It is used to calculate the falling of apples and the orbits of planets.

What? That doesn't make sense. Either the model is correct or wrong. It can't be both.

Nonsense.

x=4.5

No, no, no , no , no, you can use many numbers. And yes that works, but we have the wrong start of the problem, but the same result. You can use 4 and 5 or 8 and 1 and so and so....

Quote

They don't need to. We have a model that works. (Actually, we have two.)

It gives options in mathematics that you have the same result but an another start. And thats the same with this model.

Edited November 30, 2018 by Phantom5

[swansont]

36 minutes ago, Phantom5 said:

No, no, no , no , no, you can use many numbers. And yes that works, but we have the wrong start of the problem, but the same result. You can use 4 and 5 or 8 and 1 and so and so....

It gives options in mathematics that you have the same result but an another start. And thats the same with this model.

No, you can’t. x cannot have two different values simultaneously 

[Phantom5]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, you can’t. x cannot have two different values simultaneously 

Who says it, dont you know about problems that have another start but the same result, i have made so things in school. You can have another start and the same result.

 

Think about the formula one when you have a bad start, that dont says that you cant win. But it gives in the formula one more factors then one and two. And that i want to told with the two x. You have there, when you look in the future, more x then two.Its only an example.

Edited November 30, 2018 by Phantom5

[Strange]

8 hours ago, Phantom5 said:

No, no, no , no , no, you can use many numbers. And yes that works, but we have the wrong start of the problem, but the same result. You can use 4 and 5 or 8 and 1 and so and so....

Let’s try 8:

1 + 8 + 8 = 10

Nope.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with gravity. But it does seem to show that you don’t understand basic mathematics.

So I think we can ignore your claims about problems in existing theory

 

[swansont]

12 hours ago, Phantom5 said:

Who says it, dont you know about problems that have another start but the same result, i have made so things in school. You can have another start and the same result.

It's basic math. The equation you gave has only one answer.

 

[Phantom5]

12 hours ago, Strange said:

Let’s try 8:

1 + 8 + 8 = 10

Nope.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with gravity. But it does seem to show that you don’t understand basic mathematics.

So I think we can ignore your claims about problems in existing theory

 

Lets try, 4 and 5 or other numbers

1+4+5=10

1+2+7=10

1+3+6=10

Its like formula one, it gives there more than one factor, its not the reality when you only can take 4.5.

7+x=10

Its a to primitive example, better is 1+x+x=10. And we have the same result with the mathematics model of gravity but the wrong numbers.

Look at a winner at the formula one, one factor are the tires, another one are the motor or the aerodynamic and much other things.

And with the gravity, we stay on the ground and must look in the core of our planet and in atoms.

Think the winner of formula one is the gravity and you must look at the factors.

We don't have a real look at the graviton and can only think about it and must find the correct answer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

Edited November 30, 2018 by Phantom5

[Ghideon]

15 minutes ago, Phantom5 said:

1+4+5=10

That is maybe 1+x+y=10, but not 1+x+x=10

 

Edited November 30, 2018 by Ghideon

[Phantom5]

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

That is maybe 1+x+y=10, but not 1+x+x=10

 

Ok, im was everytime good in mathematics, but i have not so much knowledge.

And another example for the question, when you cant look in the thing where the gasoline in it(sorry i don't have the correct word for it), who say that the cars don't drive with anti matter as energy.

The car then drives and has the same function, and has the option to win the race.

And on this thoughts,  how has told that the gravity works with mass and not a strong vacuum?

And the good thing is you can explain the vacuum very easy, only with rotation. In the middle you have then a vacuum. When all rotates and fly away from the middle.

I have much more models, as an example for this...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covalent_bond

I have worked at the TOE and i think i have it...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

I have found the correct "particle"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Particle

Because explain to me, what is in the Higgs Boson? With vacuum and rotation it is very easy.

And with the sentence, when gravity is a field that pulls all elements in the middle, what is the most element in the universe?

I mean you can not bond every element with another, but the gravity of the planet pulls all in the middle.

And what is the most thing of the universe, the element that it gives at the most? Nothing.

Or when you say the element that gives at it most? Nothing.

Nothing is not nothing.

Nothing can kills you.

 

When anybody means other things, then go in here...

 

Take a video camera with you because your dead and can told nobody nothing.

And when no one accept this, its not my problem when all dead, when we don't come away from the planet. We can not live for all times on this planet.

It gives only two options by this, live or dead?

Who wants to live must accept it, and who one not, is dead, its not my problem.

 

Its important to understand the correct functions of the universe.

 

Who knows it, comes another man with these things?

It gives millions of scientist that don't know the truth. Look about the people of Cern. They knows not much.

Stephen Hawking Says Humans Have 100 Years to Move to Another Planet

http://time.com/4767595/stephen-hawking-100-years-new-planet/

 

Hundred years are only one human live.

Edited November 30, 2018 by Phantom5

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Phantom5 said:

And we have the same result with the mathematics model of gravity but the wrong numbers.

Do we? Example please.

The rest of your post is so nonsensical, I am going to suggest this thread is closed.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Instead of backing up your claims, you have gotten out a nonsense grenade and scattered shrapnel everywhere.

Next time, focus on one subject, and bring the science with you.