Spin Gravity- Magnetism

[Zarkov]

I did Rad E, his comments were posted from an in correct poit of view. I am still working on point (12)? not listed.

 

He was not aware of point (13) so his understanding of what I was implying was flawed.

 

I see little point confusing him further :)

[Radical Edward]

I'll let him deal with you in his own way then.

 

explain this 'The rate of degredation of a spinning field system is proportional to the resultant, spin gravity' are you saying that the rate at which an object slows down spinning is proportional to the gravity, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the mass of an object? how would you account for the cavendish experiment? how would you account for the fact that the gravitational force experienced between two bodies is actually proportional to the masses of the objects?

[Radical Edward]

and what is point 12. I don't care if you are still working on it, post it.

[Zarkov]

Good insights, RadE, this is what I am working on. Yes spin gravity has nothing to with mass, but then what is mass??

 

The force pushing objects down (on Earth say) is produced as a result of SLOWING field spin, and it is the perpendicular resultant. ( in the case of slowing towards the centre)

 

Now this could be implied as electrical moment, but I know it isn't!!!

 

I really need some maths!! before I can get a good handle on it. If anyone has a math formulae for determining the resultant from the change to field spin speed (angular momentum) then please post it, even if is obscure. Thanks

 

And as for Newtonian gravity extensions to other objects, that is based upon the premis that similar masses will have similar gravities!

 

Then there is magnetism, detailed as per my points, which is not quite the same as classical explanations!

[Radical Edward]

Yo didn't answer my questions, so I will just repeat them:

 

how would you account for the cavendish experiment?

 

how would you account for the fact that the gravitational force experienced between two bodies is actually proportional to the masses of the objects?

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by Zarkov

Here is the one of the two assertions I left out.

 

 

14) The rate of degredation of a spinning field system is proportional to the resultant, spin gravity.

 

Well, it appears you think that this is the point version of the Sword of Truth, but given that I'm in general appraising the points on an individual basis, and that most are flawed by this approach, I don't think it really matters.

 

 

Originally posted by Zarkov

Discussion of MrL, critique :_

 

The above will clarify, the "gravity" produced is not due to spin as such, but due to a change in spin.

 

Cavendish experiment?

 

Originally posted by Zarkov

The spiral lines of force have been photographer (see earlier post), and I will link another link showing a couple of atmospheric temperature variations plots which show the same imprinting. You can also verify this yourself by allowing a stream of water to spiral to Earth. This spiralling is mirrored by plant growth etc.

 

In which case, when you drop, say, fine sand why doesn't it spiral instead of falling straight down?

 

There is an explanation for the spiraling of water already. Find another example if you want to actually use something as a 'prediction'. Otherwise I could invent a theory where the gravity gnomes are pulling everything towards the ground because they want to put it in their secret hideaways at the centre of the earth (and so on), and create the model around what has already been observed and claim it to be valid. (Any similarities between the critique of this obviously stupid theory and any that may have been placed upon this board is, of course, 'entirely coincidental')

 

Originally posted by Zarkov

As the planets are slowly pushed away from the Sun, (a high pressure source, creating a spherical pressure system) they expand, and volatiles are lost to space, in this way our atmospheric pressure is lost with time. Evidence of this is the large, Dinasours. that roamed this planet not so long ago (cf large animals now only exist in the sea, a dense atmosphere)

 

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?

 

And that doesn't say why the atmosphere escapes given you said it was all acting as orbiting particles.

 

Originally posted by Zarkov

Centrifugal and centripetal forces are BOTH real. They can only be demonstrated in an open system, and the reasons why they are real is supplied in (14) above.

 

1. There is no such thing as centrifugal force. I don't care where you've heard it from, but there isn't. I have rather fine sources for this information.

2. Centripetal force exists, but its not A FORCE IN ITS OWN RIGHT. Centripetal force is the force required to allow an object to move in a circular path around a point, and is the result of OTHER FORCES. Eg, when spinning a mass around your head on a piece of string the centripetal force is provided by the tension in the string.

 

Originally posted by Zarkov

It is only when an object is free to go it's own way, that centrifugal force can be shown, they are both a resultant to the changes in angular momentum due to angular velocity in a spinning field, ( constant speed, increasing speed, and decreasing speed).

 

There is no such thing as centrifugal force.

 

Originally posted by Zarkov

Some of the other objections will be cleared up once this new information in (13) is digested.

 

Not really, no. And it was 14 you posted.

 

Originally posted by Zarkov

Just note the moon of a planet is still within the planets field system and as such is a true satellite, not just held there on a string!!!

 

?

 

Originally posted by Zarkov

From Cambridge Cosmology.

 

Just because there are problems with the current model doesn't mean that any old tosh can replace it; it has to be better.

 

Originally posted by Zarkov

I did Rad E, his comments were posted from an in correct poit of view. I am still working on point (12)? not listed.

 

He was not aware of point (13) so his understanding of what I was implying was flawed.

 

I see little point confusing him further :)

 

Lets have a little example shall we?

 

From my thing

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Zarkov

31) The speed of light is constrained by wave mechanics, and is constant for various materials.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

You do understand that wave mechanics depends upon Special Relativity, which you decried earlier?

 

I don't see how point 14 in any way alters the fact that you are inconsistent.

 

Similar for other points.

 

Originally posted by Zarkov

I really need some maths!! before I can get a good handle on it. If anyone has a math formulae for determining the resultant from the change to field spin speed (angular momentum) then please post it, even if is obscure. Thanks

 

The maths comes before the qualatative observations you know.

[Zarkov]

Well MrL, shame that your will not allow centrifugal force.

 

Yes I know the protestrations of the physicists that think it is ficticious, and yes it is in a closed system such as a circling weight on a string. But these same physicists claim that it is possible to have falling / rising accelerating INERTIAL FRAMES, when applied to gravitational wells!

 

BUT I am afraid they are incorrect on both counts!!!

 

Next Einstein had at least on good handle, and that was he thought gravity created tensor wells, and he thought there was an ether.

 

I instead have magnetism wells (no not magnetic wells), and magnetism is my ether. Light is a wave in this ether, and as such is constrained by wave mechanics in this ether>

 

But until you can allow centrifugal force in an open system you will not be able to understand spin gravity.

 

Without this there can be no extensions into the other Cosmological explanations.

 

Maths always comes after the observations, and the formulation of the theory. I must post those pics of gravity waves.....

 

Thanks, for you criticism. Nice to type with you !

:)

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by Zarkov

Well MrL, shame that your will not allow centrifugal force.

 

Well, strictly speaking it's not me, its the head of natural sciences at christ's college cambridge etc.

 

Originally posted by Zarkov

Maths always comes after the observations, and the formulation of the theory. I must post those pics of gravity waves.....

 

It's observations --> Mathematics --> predictions, not

observations --> predictions --> mathematics.

[Zarkov]

http://www.sprl.umich.edu/GCL/paper_to_html/evolut_clim.html

 

Shows temperature relationships in the atmosphere, reflecting the spin gravity lines of force.

[Zarkov]

Thanks, MrL, yes it is not you of course, but all is opinion and your opinion is in your power!

 

If there is a force pushing in there is a force pushing out. Just because the boffins have failed to demonstrate it, or at least thought they could not in a special case example, does not mean it is ficticious in all cases.

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by Zarkov

Thanks, MrL, yes it is not you of course, but all is opinion and your opinion is in your power!

 

The meaning of words in a scientific content is not 'just opinion'.

 

Originally posted by Zarkov

If there is a force pushing in there is a force pushing out. Just because the boffins have failed to demonstrate it, or at least thought they could not in a special case example, does not mean it is ficticious in all cases.

 

This reminds me so much of a simpsons quote;

 

Homer - 'Eggheads pphf. What do they know?'

[blike]

Someone has finally met their match

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by blike

Someone has finally met their match

 

I don't know whether to be insulted or not heh

[blike]

LOL. Take that as a compliment, although I see how it could be an insult

 

I mean, Zarkov finally has someone that can answer to almost all of his "theories".

[JaKiri]

Almost?

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Zarkov

http://www.sprl.umich.edu/GCL/paper_to_html/evolut_clim.html

 

Shows temperature relationships in the atmosphere, reflecting the spin gravity lines of force.

 

I fail to see the link....

[fafalone]

I can answer them, in extremely technical detail too, but it's a waste of my time with theories flagrantly off-base.

[blike]

Zarkov - :flame: - MrL

 

Fine, ALL

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by fafalone

I can answer them, in extremely technical detail too, but it's a waste of my time with theories flagrantly off-base.

 

Heh

 

It's a bit of a laugh really

[Zarkov]

Looks like we can not do business.

 

MrL, do you think all scientific opinion is correct. I am using opinion here to include well accepted theory, you know like the flat Earth, the Sun rotating around the Earth, and the rest of the Universe as well........mmmmh not much room to move in such a situation.

 

Maybe when you have a bit more experience re the scientific method, you may not be so quick to judge.

 

Re centrifugal force, try out a few experiments using spinning fields, and then pass judgement.

 

BUT

 

in between times, assume what I say is bourn out in fact, just suspend judgement, can you suggest maths that could be appropriate to determine as an example,

 

the relationship between the centripetal force changes of an object in a spinning system undergoing negative acceleration.

 

[fafalone]

:toilet: <-Zarkov's theories-> :bs:

 

:adminowns:

 

:owned:

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by Zarkov

MrL, do you think all scientific opinion is correct. I am using opinion here to include well accepted theory, you know like the flat Earth, the Sun rotating around the Earth, and the rest of the Universe as well........mmmmh not much room to move in such a situation.

 

Maybe when you have a bit more experience re the scientific method, you may not be so quick to judge.

 

I know about scientific method.

 

You on the other hand appear to be working by some bastardisation of Thomas Aquinas.

[Zarkov]

Thanks for you input.

 

A fool you can neither bend nor break... Stoic philosophy.

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by Zarkov

A fool you can neither bend nor break... Stoic philosophy.

 

Do you run your life by it?

[fafalone]

I think his arguments are comparable to Lamark... sounds good, but really isn't supported.