Zarkov Posted July 28, 2002 Author Posted July 28, 2002 I run my life by a modern type of Stoicism, yes, do you want me to start a topic, or are you just being cynical?
JaKiri Posted July 28, 2002 Posted July 28, 2002 Originally posted by Zarkov I run my life by a modern type of Stoicism, yes, do you want me to start a topic, or are you just being cynical? The implication was that you are a fool.
Zarkov Posted July 28, 2002 Author Posted July 28, 2002 Fafalone, I have tried to block you, but the game is rigged!! May I ask you again stop stalking me, thanks. If you have something to add to the discussion, then please say it, otherwise you are making it difficult for others WHO MAY BE interested to read the quality of your posts. I will remind you this is your life, and others are looking at YOU!!
fafalone Posted July 28, 2002 Posted July 28, 2002 You can't block me, I'm an administrator. I can block you from posting at all. How's about that you ignorant crackpot?
blike Posted July 28, 2002 Posted July 28, 2002 blike to the rescue. Zarkov, administrators cannot be ignored. However, you are free to ignore him by not replying, or looking at his posts. If someone feels he is disruptive, they'll ignore him as well. Don't respond to faf's post, else a flamewar will ensue.
Zarkov Posted July 28, 2002 Author Posted July 28, 2002 Well this is interesting, you should refer to the Antimetal Antimental topic in this section to understand this unfortunate misunderstanding. Since there has been NO constructive criticism, even though for the sake of discussion I have tolerated derision, but it seems that the people who have responded really do not have any knowledge of physics. This topic has attracted almost 500 viewings, and those up and comming physicists, might as well understand the new theory of gravity, now as later. At the least you can leave this site and realise the problems any person has, when they dare to step outside the hallowed halls of the establishment. Just remember Galileo and Socrates :)
JaKiri Posted July 28, 2002 Posted July 28, 2002 Originally posted by Zarkov the people who have responded really do not have any knowledge of physics. LOLZOR
Radical Edward Posted July 28, 2002 Posted July 28, 2002 no one believed galileo galileo was right no one believes me therefore I am right. hmm...
Zarkov Posted July 28, 2002 Author Posted July 28, 2002 Your track record is questionable MrL, you have contributed nothing to this discussion other than negative criticism, which my dog can do equally as well, so do not complain re my judgemnet of you abilities!
JaKiri Posted July 28, 2002 Posted July 28, 2002 Originally posted by Zarkov Your track record is questionable MrL, you have contributed nothing to this discussion other than negative criticism, which my dog can do equally as well, so do not complain re my judgemnet of you abilities! You are a laugh a minute
fafalone Posted July 28, 2002 Posted July 28, 2002 I don't know how much longer we're going to tolerate your complete and comprehensive ignorance to basic science. You don't provide evidence for your theories because you can't, plain and simple. If you gave a formula you came up with, it would be torn to shreds. Anyone who instantly assumes anything contradicting their theory has no knowledge of physics is a true pseudoscientist, and a hypocrite because you obviously possess no degree of expertise, based on your refusal to post articles, equations, reputable sources (the picture of spiral gravity you gave... if i took a picture of the sky and tinted it purple, and said i have proof the sky is purple and not blue, should we take my word for it?), and anything other than "if you disagree with me you're wrong, but I can't prove it or even explain it, you just have to assume i know everything"
JaKiri Posted July 28, 2002 Posted July 28, 2002 Originally posted by fafalone Dont scare him off, im enjoying this :\
Zarkov Posted July 29, 2002 Author Posted July 29, 2002 An example of centrifugal force in an open system, is satellittes. I know classical physics has another explanation, (the string is gravity), but in spin gravity a satellite has the outward centrifugal force and the inward centripetal forces in balance. A fundamental change in perspective, that does not rely of fantasy.
Morat Posted July 29, 2002 Posted July 29, 2002 Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri Why would greater atmospheric pressure allow larger things to live? Surely the opposite would be true, as there would be less combined force due to gravity/air pressure? Just a minor point, but he's right (sort of) about this at least. Supporting a large organism has never been as much of an issue as getting enough oxygen for it, since you have to use a membrane to exchange gases with the resp. system and its area doesn't go up as fast as the organism's volume. Higher atmos. pressure would hasten gas exchange, hence assisting with this. In practiced the main constraint on such large organisms is usually going to be ecological tho.
Morat Posted July 29, 2002 Posted July 29, 2002 Originally posted by Zarkov An example of centrifugal force in an open system, is satellittes. I know classical physics has another explanation, (the string is gravity), but in spin gravity a satellite has the outward centrifugal force and the inward centripetal forces in balance. A fundamental change in perspective, that does not rely of fantasy. This only highlights a problem with orbiting bodies, that their gravitational effect on one another would be dependent on their rate of rotation, which i have here and they are not proportional to their masses, nor is their any rank correlation between mass and spin rate. As their masses correctly predict orbital motion i conclude your theory cannot be valid. In the case of satellites, by your logic differently spinning satellites could not occupy the same orbit. In reality a satellite's rotational control can be exerted without affecting its orbital path. Secondarily the magnetic fields of the planets show no gravitational effect. However, perhaps i'm wrong. in which case i'd like to observe that the last (only?) case of an alternate perspective not accompanied by a change in predictions was feynman's sum-over-histories. This was because it was a mathematical framework that answered some questionss just as precisely but more easily. Do you have such a framework?
Zarkov Posted July 29, 2002 Author Posted July 29, 2002 Morat, my framework is experimental, and a re-evaluation of existing data. Spin gravity relies on changes to spin rate, in an open field system, as it is on Earth and in Heaven!! I must make a correction. I have used the term "magnetic ether" This is incorrect and the Ether should be referred to as magnetism. Magnetic should be confined to substances that become magnetic when bathed in the ether of magnetism. The phenomena of magnetic substances, proves that the ether is magnetism.....an almost inexhaustable channelling of energy.
Morat Posted July 29, 2002 Posted July 29, 2002 Originally posted by Zarkov Spin gravity relies on changes to spin rate, in an open field system, as it is on Earth and in Heaven!! so you're claiming that reductions in spin rate of massive bodies are the cause rather than consequence of gravity (or 'tidal forces')? That seems workable - since its exactly the same as existing theory in every respect but the other way round. and you haven't explained fully the relationship between gravity and magnetism, which are experimentally seperate forces at energies currently existing naturally. (gravitational and em fields being independent).
JaKiri Posted July 29, 2002 Posted July 29, 2002 Originally posted by Morat Just a minor point, but he's right (sort of) about this at least. Only by coincidence. And I don't go in for this biological nonsense.
Zarkov Posted July 29, 2002 Author Posted July 29, 2002 Well Morat, tis wonderful to meet you! You have an understanding. I expect the field is the ether field, magnetism and the spin is the interaction that produces the resultant, spin-gravity! :) :)
Zarkov Posted July 29, 2002 Author Posted July 29, 2002 Electricity is produced by movement in the ether, magnets are sunstances that chanel this ether energy, all thing channel it but some are extreemly efficient!
Billzilla Posted July 29, 2002 Posted July 29, 2002 The battery in my clock doesn't move, and it makes electricity.
Radical Edward Posted July 29, 2002 Posted July 29, 2002 Originally posted by Morat so you're claiming that reductions in spin rate of massive bodies are the cause rather than consequence of gravity (or 'tidal forces')? That seems workable - since its exactly the same as existing theory in every respect but the other way round. It would be if venus and mercury didn't have any gravity... also he seems to be missing maths, which is somewhat disappointing since it would allow us to actually predict the rates at which the various astronomical bodies are slowing down, for example Jupiter, which has a surface gravity of 254g and mass of 318 earth masses.
Morat Posted July 29, 2002 Posted July 29, 2002 Originally posted by Radical Edward It would be if venus and mercury didn't have any gravity... also he seems to be missing maths, which is somewhat disappointing since it would allow us to actually predict the rates at which the various astronomical bodies are slowing down, for example Jupiter, which has a surface gravity of 254g and mass of 318 earth masses. are mercury and venus already tidally locked with the sun then? this objection can be circumvented by claiming their absolute motion through the ether is slowing i guess; since we only have relativistic tools at our disposal this would be unmeasurable, so we couldn't disprove it.
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