Alpha-137 Posted August 15, 2006 Author Share Posted August 15, 2006 So, fluff and nonsense aside, you are saying that thermal transfer causes the four fundemental forces of the universe, the Weak Nuclear, the Strong Nuclear, the Electromagnetic, and Gravity? Is this correct? What I am saying is that this thermal transfer resistance is the action that takes place in the ouer-core area is what forces the the polerization of the nuclei strong forces and froms the gravitational fields. Iron in the case of the Earth and [H] in the case of Jupiter. In my eyes, if a singulaity was the cause of gravity then all of the heaver elements would be at the earth's core insted of Iron #27 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anjruu Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 What I am saying is that this thermal transfer resistance is the action that takes place in the ouer-core area is what forces the the polerization of the nuclei strong forces and froms the gravitational fields. Ok. Now, define "thermal transfer resistance," and "polerization of the nuclei strong forces and froms the gravitational fields." I might be being slow, I often am, but I would like to take your theory step by step. In my eyes, if a singulaity was the cause of gravity then all of the heaver elements would be at the earth's core insted of Iron #27 IIRC, the current explanation for this is diffrent. It says that the heavier elements take more energy and more chance to form, and thus are rarer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 now i might be wrong here only studying chemical engineering and all but could you please look up element 26 and tell me what it is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpha-137 Posted August 15, 2006 Author Share Posted August 15, 2006 Dear Angruu, Swansont, & Yt2095 Look this is an observation that I made as I was doing undercover investigating back in 1991 at an iron forging plant. It was about 28 degrees and had been below 32 degrees for about three days and the ground was very cold. The sand started from about a foot away and came up at a 45% angle ,but never made it all of the way to the hot iron before it fall back .I observed this event 6 times out of 23 pieces hot iron that I saw brought out that day. And only one time it happened under the hot iron. And none ever made it to the hot iron that I could see. I drew a cycle around the sand that was in the first event and went to my car and got a large magnetic base of one of my antennas and none of the sand was attracted to the magnet. This event was like a bushel of Newton’s apples hitting me! I had just saw mass defying gravity! Was this a temperary poleration of the strong forces into gravitational fields???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anjruu Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 Ok, besides diagrams that, to me, make no sense, and experiment you say you have designed but never performed, and anecdotal evidence. What support? Do you have? For your theory? For example, would this theory solve the problem between QM and relativity? How does this take into effect gluons and gauge bosons? What about the bending of light by gravity? How about a video of you preforming the expirement? Oh lord who art in heaven hallowed be thy name don't give us more of the same stuff we have heard before, such as diagrams and anecdotes. Also, I observed this event 6 times out of 23 pieces hot iron that I saw brought out that day. Why not all the time? Look this is an observation that I made as I was doing undercover investigating back in 1991 at an iron forging plant. It was about 28 degrees and had been below 32 degrees for about three days and the ground was very cold. That’s not much of a difference, when compared to the difference between the moon and the core of the earth... and only one time it happened under the hot iron. Why not? And none ever made it to the hot iron that I could see. Why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpha-137 Posted August 15, 2006 Author Share Posted August 15, 2006 now i might be wrong here only studying chemical engineering and all but could you please look up element 26 and tell me what it is? Dear insane-alien; I do not all was remember numbers, I am an aged man, but I will agree when i am wrong. Thanks for the correction. But did you get the point of what I was saying, neirther fe or H should be at the center if a singularty was the source og gravity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anjruu Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 But did you get the point of what I was saying, neirther fe or H should be at the center if a singularty was the source og gravity. Not really, no, not since the mass is the source of the singularity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 gravity is not caused by singularities. nobody has evey said that a singularity exists at the centre of the earth.(excluding the numerous crackpots). I think with the hydrogen and iron at the centre you are talking about denser elements sinking and less dense elements floating. well, iron is pretty dense and it is one of the more common elements on the planet, why shouldn't it be found at the centre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anjruu Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 gravity is not caused by singularities. I don't think he meant singularity in the classic (read, correct) sense. I think he meant it as a monopole versus a dipole (is this correct usage?). He means that gravity is like magnetism, with two poles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 ahh. well that makes a bit more sense. alpha-137, if thats what you mean by singularity could you please use monopole instead. standard definitions make things much easier to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpha-137 Posted August 15, 2006 Author Share Posted August 15, 2006 Dear Augruu; To start with, here we are talking about the energy differences between masses. In this case the very hot Iron and the somewhat cold ground. “NOT” the Earth and the Moon In this case the Heat was trying to rush to the colder cooling edges of the iron And in doing so some of the iron’s nuclei strong forces temporarily polarized and propagated out as gravitational fields. YOU ASKED WHAT IS POLERIZING; This is how we force the weak-electromagnetic fields of a conductor to polarize. This meaning that we force them into a donut shape that has two poles that we call north and south. YOU ASKED ABOUT PROPAGATION; Well, as we add coils of the conductor to our coil we add a layer of weak- electromagnetic fields know as fields of flux / lines of force. The propagation is due to the fact that the fields of flux / lines of force are charged they can NOT touch each other. PROPAGATION THIS THE LAYERING OF THESE FIELDS OF FLUX / LINES OF FORCE. By the way, did or do you understand that in polarizing and propagating this fields of flux / lines of force out that they create an accelerating field of force. Yes a man made accelerating fields of force. And can you understand that this is the pattern of fields that we should be looking in gravitational accelerating fields of forces and that when we understand finely understand them each level of propagation should and will mach up with Newton’s rate of acceleration of [g]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anjruu Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 Ok. I understand what you have been attempting to say. By the way, I understood about the polarization of electromagnetism, I was asking about the polarization of gravity. Now, on to the proof. EDIT e propagation is due to the fact that the fields of flux / lines of force are charged they can NOT touch each other. I don't think this is right. I think the propogation is because the force particles which transfers the force, ie, the photon, is moving. The reason it gets weaker as you go out is because the photons get further and further away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpha-137 Posted August 15, 2006 Author Share Posted August 15, 2006 Dear Augruu; Polarized Iron nuclei; End view; The iron atomic system and it’s nuclei being polarized; Thus we have the fields of the nuclei polarized and propagated out as gravitational fields. These fields have the same pattern as magnetic accelerating fields But these fields start out only as wide as the nuclei and propagate out well past the moon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 the field will also not propagate at 9.81ms^-2 either. it will propagate at c. i have a hard time imagining the mechanisms for a force to propagate at an accelerating rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 please post evidence that an iron atom will polarize. you need to back this claim up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anjruu Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 You know, just posting the SAME ******* IMAGE of something you made out of tinker toys does not prove your theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpha-137 Posted August 15, 2006 Author Share Posted August 15, 2006 Dear insane_alien; Quote; the field will also not propagate at 9.81ms^-2 either. it will propagate at c. i have a hard time imagining the mechanisms for a force to propagate at an accelerating rate. __________________ YES the gravity fields of flux move @c! Actually all fields of flux move @c! PROPAGATETION; This is the layering of the gravity fields, and it is this layering that causes the acceleration rate of [g]. ACCELERATION; The incoming mass is accelerated as it moves down into the propagated gravitational fields and they get denser, [Closer together!---thicker!!] [Q] have you ever seen a drawing of a railgun or a maglift train. Or can you understand that a command electromagnet fields are an accelerating levels to its’ field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 yes i understand how a railgun works. i've built one infact. it seems here has been a misunderstanding on my part. you made it sound like you were claiming the fields propagated at g instead of c. sorry. what layering of gravity fields? to all intents and purposes there is one field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaAotS Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 cool! you built a rail gun? *runs to Amazon.com to get "Rail Gun Building For Dummies"* lol. I have a question. Your theory pretty much states that gravity is dipolar... well then how come we have never come across any kind of source of "anti-gravity" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 well, i say gun but it doesn't fire anything at great speeds. *hangs his head in shame for only reaching 3ms^-1* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaAotS Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 er... 3ms^-1? what do you mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 3 meters per second was the muzzel velocity. oh come on its SI units. ahh just read you like imperial units. thats roughly 3 yards per second or 9 feet per second Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaAotS Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 just say 3 m/s, the -1 and all that threw me off lol and 3 m/s isnt bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 its the engineer in me. we always use the negative power notations so there is absolutely no dispute about where the letters go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaAotS Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 I just got it by the way... s^-1 I guess my brain wasnt clicking at the moment when I just read it lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now