Gravity (Split from Exact scientific definition of weight)

[ja7tdo]

hi,

There are two mistakes in Newton's universal gravity.

1. The gravity of the universe and the earth is different.
2. Mass does not produce gravity.

If you need further consideration, let's do it later.And let's explain how mass is born.

Substances are made of atoms. Neutrons decay into protons and electrons in 15 minutes. Thus, an atom consists of protons and electrons.When a force is applied to the proton, a magnetic field is generated behind. The magnetic field is a resistance that tries to pull the protons.This is an electromagnetic mass.The electromagnetic mass is the mass itself.

Earth's gravity causes an electric field on one side when Schumann resonance is applied to matter. The Schumann resonance is applied to all matter on the ground. It is difficult to shield.

The gravity of space is the Coulomb force by the charge of the plasma that each planet has. The planets do not collide because they have repulsive force to each other.

If you are seeking the wrong definition of modern physics, please forget this answer. If you are curious about nature, I will write more detailed answers.

[Ghideon]

(One of several issues highlighted, bold by me)

41 minutes ago, ja7tdo said:

hi,

There are two mistakes in Newton's universal gravity.

1. The gravity of the universe and the earth is different.
2. Mass does not produce gravity.

If you need further consideration, let's do it later.And let's explain how mass is born.

Substances are made of atoms. Neutrons decay into protons and electrons in 15 minutes. Thus, an atom consists of protons and electrons.When a force is applied to the proton, a magnetic field is generated behind. The magnetic field is a resistance that tries to pull the protons.This is an electromagnetic mass.The electromagnetic mass is the mass itself.

Earth's gravity causes an electric field on one side when Schumann resonance is applied to matter. The Schumann resonance is applied to all matter on the ground. It is difficult to shield.

The gravity of space is the Coulomb force by the charge of the plasma that each planet has. The planets do not collide because they have repulsive force to each other.

If you are seeking the wrong definition of modern physics, please forget this answer. If you are curious about nature, I will write more detailed answers.

Have you seen impact craters? 

 

(I'll suggest this post being moved to an appropriate place)

[ja7tdo]

2 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

(One of several issues highlighted, bold by me)

Have you seen impact craters? 

 

(I'll suggest this post being moved to an appropriate place)

no, I saw discharge crater.

[Bufofrog]

5 hours ago, ja7tdo said:

hi,

There are two mistakes in Newton's universal gravity.

1. The gravity of the universe and the earth is different.
2. Mass does not produce gravity.

If you need further consideration, let's do it later.And let's explain how mass is born.

Substances are made of atoms. Neutrons decay into protons and electrons in 15 minutes. Thus, an atom consists of protons and electrons.When a force is applied to the proton, a magnetic field is generated behind. The magnetic field is a resistance that tries to pull the protons.This is an electromagnetic mass.The electromagnetic mass is the mass itself.

Earth's gravity causes an electric field on one side when Schumann resonance is applied to matter. The Schumann resonance is applied to all matter on the ground. It is difficult to shield.

The gravity of space is the Coulomb force by the charge of the plasma that each planet has. The planets do not collide because they have repulsive force to each other.

If you are seeking the wrong definition of modern physics, please forget this answer. If you are curious about nature, I will write more detailed answers.

Please don't hijack threads.  If you have a speculative idea start your own thread in the speculation section.

[swansont]

7 hours ago, ja7tdo said:

 If you are seeking the wrong definition of modern physics, please forget this answer. If you are curious about nature, I will write more detailed answers.

!

Moderator Note

If you want this to remain unlocked, you need to be forthcoming with your details: a model and evidence.

 

[beecee]

13 hours ago, ja7tdo said:

no, I saw discharge crater.

No not at all. You saw impact craters, and we have observational evidence that collisions like this sometimes occur, more frequent in the past then today.

The following is evidence of a collision occurring before our very eyes.

https://www.space.com/26562-jupiter-comet-crash-pictures-shoemaker-levy-9-1994.html

I did some research on your "discharge crater" claim, and while probably valid in some circumstances, it appears to be a pseudoscientific proposal of Plasma/Electric universe proponents. This hypothetical though was totally debunked many years ago.

14 hours ago, ja7tdo said:

If you are seeking the wrong definition of modern physics, please forget this answer. If you are curious about nature, I will write more detailed answers.

Will you? I find that hard to believe. My first observation concerns honesty. I would seriously ask why so many proponents of alternative ideas like yours, will inevitably post that alternative hypothetical in the mainstream sciences. I mean surely it is clear enough that this is what the speculative section is for? Perhaps an attempt to give previously debunked ideas some sort of legitimacy? 

As a reader of a book entitled "The BB Never Happened" by Eric J Lerner, the fitst question I asked was it does not explain how the first planets and stars form.The claim that stars then give birth to other stars that 'pop out"is also totally ludicrous and invalidated by the many accretion disk formation processes that we have now observed.  I also had the book and its pseudoscientific claims, totally debunked by a professional astronomer. 

The following also gives a great account as to how the Electric/Plasma universe and its claims, is full of holes.

 https://archive.briankoberlein.com/2014/02/25/testing-electric-universe/

"So never let it be said that an astro-scientist has never considered the electric universe model with an open mind.  The Electric Universe model is wrong.  Provably, clearly and ridiculously wrong.

We’ve put the Electric Universe to the test.  Final Grade:  F-"

Edited March 30, 2019 by beecee

[John Cuthber]

On 3/30/2019 at 5:57 AM, ja7tdo said:

Substances are made of atoms. Neutrons decay into protons and electrons in 15 minutes. Thus, an atom consists of protons and electrons.

That is inconsistent with the real world - specifically it is inconsistent with the existence of isotopes.

[koti]

On 3/30/2019 at 6:57 AM, ja7tdo said:

 

...The gravity of space is the Coulomb force by the charge of the plasma that each planet has...

 

This is a good contender for winning a contest for sticking most wrong in a single sentence.

[Sensei]

On 3/30/2019 at 6:57 AM, ja7tdo said:

Neutrons decay into protons and electrons in 15 minutes.

You missed essential information. Fixed version is:

"Free neutrons decay into protons, electrons and antineutrino with mean-life approximately 15 minutes."

 

On 3/30/2019 at 6:57 AM, ja7tdo said:

Thus, an atom consists of protons and electrons.

..and bound neutrons..

Sometimes they are ejected. And this feature is useful in nuclear physics, nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons..

 

External electric field and external magnetic field have specific influences on e.g. charged particles, and atoms and molecules with unpaired electrons, and other magnetized particles. Observation of this influence is essential tool in learning internal properties of particles. After shutting down external electric/magnetic fields (by e.g. shutting down electromagnet), we are observing normal gravitational influence (like in example oil drop experiment).

 

[Bufofrog]

On 3/30/2019 at 1:57 AM, ja7tdo said:

Substances are made of atoms. Neutrons decay into protons and electrons in 15 minutes. Thus, an atom consists of protons and electrons.

So you read that a free neutron decays to a proton and an electron in 15 minutes.

You have also read that the nucleus of an atom is made up of protons and neutrons.

Now for some reason you say you believe the first statement but you reject the second statement.  You could have just as easily said you believe the second and not the first.  Seems rather arbitrary to me.  Why don't you investigate a little as to why these 2 seemingly contradictory statements are true instead of just arbitrarily picking one of the statements as true and the other as false based on nothing?

[MigL]

We have a Political Humor subforum.
Why not a Science or Physics Humor one also?

Some of these ideas are laughable.

[Phi for All]

On 3/29/2019 at 11:57 PM, ja7tdo said:

If you are seeking the wrong definition of modern physics, please forget this answer. If you are curious about nature, I will write more detailed answers.

The biggest problem with your answer, besides being observably false in multiple instances, is that you made it up to fill the gaps in your knowledge, your ignorance, if you will. We're all ignorant about a LOT, but hopefully we fill those gaps with trustworthy information. What you've done here is to cherry-pick things you think you understand to fill the gaps in what you don't. The result is you have an answer that makes absolute PERFECT sense only to you, because you designed the answer to fit your level of knowledge, rather than actually learn what many others have formally observed. 

It's caused you to join a science forum with the idea of teaching others, that's how strong and misleading this type of guesswork can be. You've become convinced that everybody else has it wrong, except you. I sincerely hope you'll do some formal study in physics, maybe through Khan Academy or something. Stop studying popular science as if it's a textbook. It's rotting your brain.

[ja7tdo]

Think from the history of science about gravity.

At the end of the 16 th century the telescope was invented in Europe. In the 17th century Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and others, the age of celestial observation developed rapidly. In 1543, Copernicus advocated the theory of revolution in "About the rotation of the earth". But yet the times were before the dawn of science, the church did not admit the theory of the theory. Kepler announced Kepler's law in 1609 "Astronomia nova ", the next year Galileo will publish "Sidereus Nunciu". In nearly a century from Copernicus, the pressure of the church could not suppress the quest for inquiry. There, in 1637, Descartes appeared, introducing 'Discours de la méthode'. It was an epoch-making idea of seeing phenomena in the natural world in relation to things and things. The idea of revolutionizing the church 's authoritarianism, metaphysical nature' s perspective from the ground up shone. The era will push forward to the scientific revolution at once. Descartes' Mechanism thought was accepted by astronomers and scientific noblemen of those days.

Astronomical observations were performed vigorously, but since the telescope was not on the market as it is now, astronomers had only to assemble themselves. It was the first step towards observation of astronomical observation that self-made telescope which can be seen well. Galileo built a telescope about twenty times as much as I made himself and made astronomical observations. In the observation of Galileo, the orbit of the planet was thought to be drawing a circle almost. It seems that Galileo thought that the planet was operating under the support of a stick. When Kepler calculated the orbit of Mars, it turned out to draw an ellipse instead of a circle. Kepler also thought that the planet was at the top of the polyhedron at the beginning, and it was moving with certain rules. It is different from the image that spinning around the sun as it is now. Kepler clearly handled gravity and repulsion when the two planets moved. However, when this becomes Newton, the repulsion disappears somewhere.

Newton's gravitation was two groundbreaking discoveries: gravity equally acts in all places, gravity is a force proportional to the quantity of things. But the former had no grounds. Applying the ground attraction to the moon trajectory calculation, it was only by chance that close numbers were obtained. Gravity acts equally in all places, the influence of God Newton has believed is great. It was reasoning from Kepler's law that gravity is proportional to the quantity of things. It is said that this will produce gravity later on. Newton seems to have known the gravity idea by exchanging letters with Hook. It is pointed out that the idea is stolen from Hook.

Newton announces the universal gravitation is criticized by German Leibniz. This was due to the controversial interest of the integral method, but Newton's attraction is a remote effect that is transmitted instantaneously, contradicting the Descartes methodology at the time, meaning the introduction of the power of God. The power that is transmitted instantaneously without intervention was an unacceptable idea at that time. This criticism leads further to Kant.

Kant describes the formation of the universe in the "Philosophische Bibliothek", but criticizes Newton's universal gravitation which is told only by attraction in a theory which later becomes the theory of nebula. If it is only gravitation, the universe will become one chunk. He pointed out the drawback of universal gravitation as repulsive force is not a distant force.

For Kant, gravity and repulsion occupied the same position in the universe. Perhaps it was considered common sense of philosophers and astronomers in the first half of the 18th and 17th centuries. In the early nineteenth century, Hegel wrote that criticism of Kant 's Newton in' Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften im Grundrisse 'was due to Kant' s lack of understanding. In the era of Hegel, the repulsive force had already disappeared from the universe.

It was the experiment that Cavendish did in 1798 that erased the repulsive force. The experiment of Cavendish was to weigh the earth, but it was assumed that the mass would produce gravity. The force with which 700 grams and 160 kg of lead balls attracted was measured with a torsion balance. As a result, the weight of the earth was set to 5.4 times the specific gravity of water. This was later used to determine the gravitational constant. The experiment of Cavendish is said to have proved that mass produces gravity. He strongly affirmed Newton's universal gravitation. Because Hegel knew this experiment, he probably criticized Kant. Even without knowing, common sense of the world might have changed.

Prior to the creation of electromagnetism in the 19th century Newton's universal gravitation was common sense. The gravity of the earth and the universe are the same, the mass produces gravity, these two are embedded in the root of modern science. In the nineteenth century was also the century in which geoscience rapidly developed from geology. Lyel, a foundation from Sir Kelvin to Wegener of Continental Movement Theory was created.

In the 19th century, a great experimenter Faraday appears. Faraday was a bookbinding craftworker, but he began to engage in scientific research as an experimental assistant at the Royal Society. Because he did not receive higher education, almost no mathematical formula came out in the paper written by Faraday. But Faraday laid the foundation for current electromagnetism, including electromagnetic induction. Maxwell was the mathematical expression of the achievements of Faraday's experiments.

The difference in age between Maxwell and Faraday is 40 years old. When Faraday is 64 years old, Maxwell 24 years old formulated Faraday's electric lines of force for the first time. However, this mathematical electric line of force was quite different from the image of Faraday. Faraday's electric lines of force were images of the power that plus and minus force exerts straightforward power. Maxwell, however, had positive and negative lines of force containing the effect of neutralizing each other halfway. In other words, Faraday's electric lines of force act separately on objects as plus and minus, and the resultant forces inside the object appear as a result, but Maxwell neutralizes the lines of electric force and adds and subtracts them I tried to do it. For the resultant force in the object, it may be because the mathematical formula becomes complicated. It is the same reason Newton eliminated the repulsive force.

Actually, Maxwell was doing the task of sorting experiment notes of Cavendish at that time. Whether Cavendish's experiment was told from Maxwell to Faraday is unknown. But Faraday suddenly begins gravity experiment after meeting Maxwell. The aim was to drop the specially made coil from top to bottom and ascertain the existence of the current that should be making gravity. Faraday realized that gravity is electromagnetic force.

Lead used in the experiment of Cavendish was diamagnetic. Paramagnetic materials such as iron and diamagnetic substances have properties that they can bounce magnetic field lines when placed in a magnetic field. Also, if the S pole of the magnet is brought closer to it, it is magnetized to the same S pole. It has properties opposite to those of paramagnetic substances. Faraday discovered that lead is diamagnetic. Perhaps when I learned about the experiment of Cavendish, did not Faraday notice the effect of lead placed in the earth's magnetic field? In this experiment I felt that a strong electromagnetic force of 10 ^ 40 of gravity is acting. The experiment of Cavendish is wrong, the mass does not produce gravity.

Faraday tried to prove by gravitational force that the gravity is electromagnetism many times, but it eventually failed. But "This is the end of my present attempt, the result is negative. These results do not shake my strong premonition that there is a relationship between gravity and electricity, but that We have not given any evidence that such relationship exists. " The current Faraday tried to detect existed. At the present time, very weak current called atmospheric current has been discovered. Atmospheric current is only 1 picoamperes per square meter. It is a weak current that can not be detected by instruments at that time. Faraday's premonition was not wrong.

Let's summarize the main points. There are three unproven laws mixed in the foundation that made the present science.

1. The ground attraction and the universe's gravity are the same (elimination of repulsive force)
2. Mass produces gravity
3. Neutralize electric flux lines

These three are complicatedly intertwined and continue to exert a huge influence on physics and earth science. From 1 and 2, the theory of relativity was born. Current mainstream Big Bang cosmology is under its influence. The experiment of Cavendish 2 is the foundation of earth science as it is. The electric line of force 3 made Bohr's atomic model, and it gave birth to quantum mechanics.

Modern science is established on Newton's mistake, Maxwell's misunderstanding

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, ja7tdo said:

Think from the history of science about gravity.

In other words, you have no model and therefore no evidence for your crackpot “theory”

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

I didn’t see a model, nor did I see evidence.