Radical Edward Posted July 31, 2002 Posted July 31, 2002 Originally posted by Sayonara³ Why bother? why bother anything? because I want him to clarify himself. there is no point in him just using any old words to describe something, unless specific meaning is attributed to them. now magnetism and poles already have established meanings, and I don't think he is using them.
Zarkov Posted July 31, 2002 Author Posted July 31, 2002 "now magnetism and poles already have established meanings, and I don't think he is using them." Please explain RadE
Zarkov Posted July 31, 2002 Author Posted July 31, 2002 Ok, RadE , I lost your post....there can not be a monopole, because there really can not be a magnet. A magnet is a substance that focuses the ether (magnetism), without the ether then no magnet! So dipolar magnets are only possible
Sayonara Posted July 31, 2002 Posted July 31, 2002 Originally posted by Radical Edward why bother anything? because I want him to clarify himself. there is no point in him just using any old words to describe something, unless specific meaning is attributed to them. now magnetism and poles already have established meanings, and I don't think he is using them. I understand. I meant "having seen the results of previous, similar enquiries, do you think you'll be satisfied with the result of this one". Ironically that post seemed to provoke the response you wanted...
Zarkov Posted July 31, 2002 Author Posted July 31, 2002 Too cryptic for me guys. This is my theory and yes it does not follow old theories that you may hold. Please refrain from comparing what you have been lead to believe, to this theory. If you wish to comment, comment on the internal consistency. This theory does not break any laws of Physics, but what it does do is answer long unanswered questions. Both Newtonian and Relativity theories break many laws of physics. (a) why things move (b) force at a distance and for Relativity, concepts such as falling / rising accelerating inertial frames of reference are invoked totally contrary to the concept of inertia. So all I can say is, if you do not know physics, then please do not make this topic hard to read for others. Thanks for taking the interest. :)
Radical Edward Posted July 31, 2002 Posted July 31, 2002 Originally posted by Zarkov 1) Both Newtonian and Relativity theories break many laws of physics. (a) why things move (b) force at a distance 2) and for Relativity, concepts such as falling / rising accelerating inertial frames of reference are invoked totally contrary to the concept of inertia. 1) what laws would those be? 2) huh? Special Relativity is based on a) the premise that the laws of physics should be the same in any non accelerating frames of reference and b) the speed of light is constant. General Relativity basically adds the point that you cannot tell whether you are accelerating due to a) some propulsion such as a rocket etc. or b) the gravitational attraction of a planet.
Radical Edward Posted July 31, 2002 Posted July 31, 2002 Originally posted by Sayonara³ I meant "having seen the results of previous, similar enquiries, do you think you'll be satisfied with the result of this one". heh, fair enough then. I though you were getting a bit negative about the whole thing!
aman Posted July 31, 2002 Posted July 31, 2002 There seems to be something microcosmic in the spaces between matter we call vacuum. I even have my own conjectures as to what it is. It seems to be able to carry the propogation of magnetic and gravitational fields. In a magnet we know the magnetic material has an abundance of electrons at one end and majority of protons at the other in any period of time. You can't force and electron to touch a proton at normal energies. Very basic.:zzz: In my opinion the mass causes the field and it is carried in the "ether". A negative poles strength is determined by the amount of the electrons majority in the material. If I wrap a goiled wire around the material and add a current I can drive more electrons to the end and increase the magnetic field. It seems the mass is causing the field and not the ether and you may have it backwards Zarkov. Just aman
Radical Edward Posted July 31, 2002 Posted July 31, 2002 no no, there is no serious charge separation like you suggest. for example a wire with current flowing along it has a magnetic flux around the wire. electromagnets are coils of wire which use this effect. ferromagnetism (ferro being iron) is more complex, and is reliant on the properties of the atoms themselves, but essentially it is the same thing. what is this microcosmic you have mentioned quite a bit, I keep meaning to ask..
Zarkov Posted July 31, 2002 Author Posted July 31, 2002 Electro magnetism, is nothing more than an electric current PUTTING the material in the electric field, in a state where the ether is more permeable.
fafalone Posted July 31, 2002 Posted July 31, 2002 fg = -mg*(upside down delta)*phi Disprove that mathematically or provide documented measurements that contradict it. If you can't, or don't even know what that equation is, than any shred of credibility you might have still had shall be erased. Furthermore, I'll bet good money you couldn't illustrate how the formula (delta*lambda)/(lamba0) = (ag*z)/c^2 would be equivalent to your "spin gravity", I'd love to show they're not equal then list the empiracle evidence and measurements that have proven this formula, BUT YOU WON'T PROVIDE ANY FORMULA.
Zarkov Posted August 1, 2002 Author Posted August 1, 2002 Fafalone, why are we bickering, I have no fight with you. I am a biologicalty trained person, maths as such is not my strong point.. Oh yes I am good at maths if I know the formulae, but I have little background in physics as such. If you would like to join this project and rewrite the theory of gravity, please do, just as Neils Bohr aided your hero Einstein. In a thousand years from now we will all be incorrect.....so why not increase the world's understanding now while we are able .
Zarkov Posted August 1, 2002 Author Posted August 1, 2002 I am investigating De Brogals law! dB (magnetic field) = K dI sine 0/ r^2 where I = electric field o = angle normal to plane
fafalone Posted August 1, 2002 Posted August 1, 2002 You claimed you mathematically worked out your theory of gravity, are you now retracting that claim? By your own admission you are not well versed in physics, yet challenge laws that from your response I take it you've never even heard of?
Zarkov Posted August 1, 2002 Author Posted August 1, 2002 Fafalone, I am looking for the maths to describe a varying spin vector, a magnetic vector and the resultant gravitational force. That formula for red shifts, is I admit interesting! I do not know the maths, if I did I would be of far greater help to you and others! :)
fafalone Posted August 1, 2002 Posted August 1, 2002 How can you assess the validity of a method of describing gravity without knowing the physics behind it, or the currently accepted physics?
Zarkov Posted August 1, 2002 Author Posted August 1, 2002 Because I have studies the phemonena for a long time, I have conducted experiments, I believe matter is equally affected by gravity..you know the feather and the block of lead example....it seem everyone has forgotten the basics...I have worked from the basics up...now I know what I am looking for but I need a roadmap through all the physics equations. I need something like centripetal force, but with varying acceleration! thanks for your interest! >
fafalone Posted August 1, 2002 Posted August 1, 2002 How can anyone who possesses any reasonable knowledge of the basics of physics not know the equation for centripetal force? Fc=mv^2/r Furthermore, given that equation is in every elementary school science book and certainly every book you'd read in college physics, how could anyone who understands the basics of physics not be able to do the derivation for centripetal accleration? F = ma, so divide both sides by m and you get Ac = v^2/r, an equation which in itself constitutes the very basics of physics? How does one work from the basics up when one does not know the basics?
Zarkov Posted August 1, 2002 Author Posted August 1, 2002 Fafalone that is the starting equation Newton used, he then introduced Keplers 3rd Law, and a bit more to get the Universal Gravitation equation. Now this formula is for conatant acceleration, what about varied acceleration?
fafalone Posted August 1, 2002 Posted August 1, 2002 Hows about you tell me? Oh wait, you can't, you don't know much about physics. x = x0 + v0t + 1/2at^2 + 1/6jt^3 + 1/24st^4 + 1/120kt^5 + 1/720pt^6 + ...and so on. I'm not even going to bother wasting my time putting that into ac = v^2/r, you can't even grasp this.
Zarkov Posted August 1, 2002 Author Posted August 1, 2002 Yes, you are right, you have lost me. ! x is?
Zarkov Posted August 1, 2002 Author Posted August 1, 2002 Many thanks, Fafalone, I will have to go back and read my special relativity book again.....
fafalone Posted August 1, 2002 Posted August 1, 2002 I'd reccomend an introductory university physics book, a classical mechanics book, and a quantum mechanics book... then try understanding relativity.
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