Radical Edward Posted July 29, 2002 Posted July 29, 2002 mercury definitely is, locked in a 3/2 pattern - having 3 days for every 2 years, one of the resonances that would be expected. these resonances can also be onserved in the Jovian moons, and of course, our own moon (one day per lunar year) Venus is an oddity, since it's spin is actually counterpropagating (sun rises in the west and sets in the east) and 1 venus day (taking a day as the time it takes to turn on axis, as opposed to the time it takes for the sun to return to it's original position in the sky) is longer than a venus year. I'm still looking into this one though. another interesting point to note, is that there may be a resonance here too - on it's closest approach to earth, the same face of venus is always pointing at the earth (again, 3 Cytherian orbits for every earth 2). However it is not known if this is a coincidence or not. these resonances are predicted from typical classical mechanics, and unless it is an extreme coincidence that they all appear to have slowed to these exact rates at the same time as we observe them, it would indicate something wrong with Zarkov's theory, which requires a continual slowing of the planets revolution.
Zarkov Posted July 29, 2002 Author Posted July 29, 2002 I just want to determine what gravity is first, the Universe is a strange place and there will be plenty of time to find the truth of Venus et al. If spin gravity has any truth, the rest of the picture will unfold.
Radical Edward Posted July 29, 2002 Posted July 29, 2002 lots of people would like to do that. my suggestion at the moment though is string theory - i haven't looked into it much, but it seems pretty promising
Zarkov Posted July 29, 2002 Author Posted July 29, 2002 RadE, a theory can not be right, until force at a distance is overcome, and a reason why things move in the first place is explained by the theory. Spin gravity does this well, ??? maths? Yes I have looked at string theory, I really do not find any joy in it. I will keep seeking and by doing that I will learn, good to talk to you!
Radical Edward Posted July 29, 2002 Posted July 29, 2002 what is your issue with force at a distance?
Zarkov Posted July 29, 2002 Author Posted July 29, 2002 All physicists seem to have an issue with force at a distance. Classical Gravity requires thing to be attracted, pulled. There can be no such force as a pull. All forces act as a push. Any example you present as pull, when analysed is actually a push, or fusion into a single body, which in itself is each bit pushing on the bit behind it. Magnetism would present "attraction", but in effect this is tension in lines of force maintaining their position, thus creating a push. So attractive gravity can not exist from first principles. Spin gravity pushes! So waht is this classical gravity, this is why the boffins are trying to compare it to magnetic lines of force, when they talk of gravity waves.
Radical Edward Posted July 29, 2002 Posted July 29, 2002 what about the attraction between an electron and a proton? then compare this to the repulsion felt between two electrons.
Radical Edward Posted July 29, 2002 Posted July 29, 2002 furthermore, how does this 'push' that you describe not act over distance? there will always be some distance over which a force must act, or it can't get to where it is acting.
Sayonara Posted July 29, 2002 Posted July 29, 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! I very much doubt your dog could give any more of a critique than could a breezeblock. Mrl's track record is not only superior to those of most people I know either on or offline, but it has also been tried and tested time and time again. Although I'm not sure about his opinions on 'biological nonsense'. Perhaps nobody ever got around to telling him that biology is all maths.
Zarkov Posted July 29, 2002 Author Posted July 29, 2002 Good observation Sayonara! I am posting to get help, not derision, I wish for constructive critism, not sniping, and general crackpot name calling. If a poster is just out to smear, then how can I assess their credibility!! I must go by the experience laid out before me. Mrl, if he has expertese, then this could be of great interest to him, if he opened his mind. But absolutely no interest if he remains closed :)
JaKiri Posted July 30, 2002 Posted July 30, 2002 Originally posted by Zarkov Well Morat, tis wonderful to meet you! You have an understanding. He's also a biologist who nearly failed his first year mathematics module. WHAT AN ALLY IN A PHYSICS THREAD. Originally posted by Sayonara³ Although I'm not sure about his opinions on 'biological nonsense'. Perhaps nobody ever got around to telling him that biology is all maths. Statistics doesn't count, boyo. HOHO
JaKiri Posted July 30, 2002 Posted July 30, 2002 Originally posted by Zarkov Mrl, if he has expertese, then this could be of great interest to him, if he opened his mind. Show me empirical evidence and mathematical predictions and it may well be of great interest to me.
aman Posted July 30, 2002 Posted July 30, 2002 An electromagnetic field reaches out to mathematicaly calculatable distances. A gravity field reaches out in the same way. The side of an effected mass closest to a gravity field is being effected more than the side farthest away. Meters or miles it doesn't matter. A lesser force can't push against a larger force of equal nature. The mass is being pulled by a proven force and not pushed by a lesser force in the same direction. Just aman.
Zarkov Posted July 30, 2002 Author Posted July 30, 2002 I have made an error!! Magnetic substances are substances permeable to the ether of magnetism. I referred to the ether as a "magnetic ether". This is incorrect, it is NOT magnetic, it is a field force, an ETHER of MAGNETISM. Aman, no matter which way you look at it there is no such force as a pull!! Magnetic phemonena exert their "attraction" by application of magnetic field line pressure (tension), and push opposite pole together and push same poles apart!
Sayonara Posted July 30, 2002 Posted July 30, 2002 Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri Statistics doesn't count, boyo. HOHO I don't refer to statistics. Statistics were invented and back-dated in a global conspiracy to give the graph wizard in MS Excel a function.
Sayonara Posted July 30, 2002 Posted July 30, 2002 Originally posted by Zarkov Aman, no matter which way you look at it there is no such force as a pull!! Quiet you. You aren't allowed to make factual statements.
Zarkov Posted July 30, 2002 Author Posted July 30, 2002 23) Materials highly permeable to the ether are termed magnetic, and the source of magnetic energy is drawn from the ether. This may explain it.. I had left this out by accident. Magnetic energy is a concentration, (like a lens for light), where the energy of the ether flows through highly permeable matter and is exhibited as magnetic fields.
JaKiri Posted July 31, 2002 Posted July 31, 2002 Originally posted by Sayonara³ I don't refer to statistics. Statistics were invented and back-dated in a global conspiracy to give the graph wizard in MS Excel a function. AFAIK, there are very very few numerically predictable things in biology. Physics and stamp collecting. Originally posted by Sayonara³ Quiet you. You aren't allowed to make factual statements. Where?
Zarkov Posted July 31, 2002 Author Posted July 31, 2002 Sorry Sayonara, I just forgot, no facts here ! I am a pseudoscientist. I am a pscientist. I am a scientist! Yes I am!!
Radical Edward Posted July 31, 2002 Posted July 31, 2002 it sounds nothing like magnetism, either do me a favour and call it something else, or explain it in terms of the magnetism that we know.. I ask again, what is a magnetic pole?
Zarkov Posted July 31, 2002 Author Posted July 31, 2002 This is a dilema RadE, the ether exists, it gives substances magnetic properties. A magnetic pole exists at one end of the dipole induced in permeable materials! This is because the ether is a vortex in it's own right. Now is this ether magnetism?? I think so, but it is not magnetic as such, because it is pure without a matter. Now matter could just be stable vortexes in the ether, just as light is a vibration in the ether. I can not think of the ether as a new force (it is not gravity, as accepted theory would have it to be), so to keep it simple. I say it is magnetism
Radical Edward Posted July 31, 2002 Posted July 31, 2002 I'm going to ask again, what is a magnetic pole. the reason I feel compelled to ask this, is because a dipole is two poles.
Sayonara Posted July 31, 2002 Posted July 31, 2002 Originally posted by Radical Edward I'm going to ask again Why bother?
Sayonara Posted July 31, 2002 Posted July 31, 2002 Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri AFAIK, there are very very few numerically predictable things in biology. Anyone who tells you life can't be predicted, it's too random, blah blah blah, is an idiot. Physics and stamp collecting? What? The factual thingy was Zarkov stating there is no such thing as 'pulling', but he's now sort of apologised for stating a fact in this thread so that's ok.
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