Theory of Everything by illuusio

[Klaynos]

My point is you are contradicting yourself and are falling for a common mistake people have when their ideas are not derived soundly that you hit a situation you've not happened across before so you just say what seems like a good idea wt the time. An excellent example of my physics needs mathematical derivations. You're also cherry picking your results which is always a bad sign.

[illuusio]

The "theory" failed: it is dead.

How long are you going to carry its corpse around asking people to look at it?

 

Actually one experiment failed due to known reasons. I have done numerous tests of my own and I haven't failed yet. Next step is test run in vacuum.

 

My point is you are contradicting yourself and are falling for a common mistake people have when their ideas are not derived soundly that you hit a situation you've not happened across before so you just say what seems like a good idea wt the time. An excellent example of my physics needs mathematical derivations. You're also cherry picking your results which is always a bad sign.

 

Contradicting in what way? What kind of mathematical derivation you do have for Newton's II law? In YOUR physics there is derivation for it, right?

 

Cherry picking, right. What will you say after test ran in vacuum?

[Mellinia]

Actually one experiment failed due to known reasons. I have done numerous tests of my own and I haven't failed yet. Next step is test run in vacuum.

 

 

 

Contradicting in what way? What kind of mathematical derivation you do have for Newton's II law? In YOUR physics there is derivation for it, right?

 

Cherry picking, right. What will you say after test ran in vacuum?

 

Derivation of Newtonian mechanics--

http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/newton_mechanics.html

[illuusio]

Derivation of Newtonian mechanics--

http://www.eftaylor...._mechanics.html

 

And this is currently approved in science world? Keep on rocking!

[Mellinia]

And this is currently approved in science world? Keep on rocking!

 

Have you read it?

It's published in a journal, subject to even harsher critics than in this forum.

Though this is the special case of conservative forces(e.g. gravitational forces). Law of physics can be derived. That's why our resident experts keep on asking you how are your 'equations' derived.

Edited August 26, 2012 by Mellinia

[John Cuthber]

Actually one experiment failed due to known reasons. I have done numerous tests of my own and I haven't failed yet. Next step is test run in vacuum.

 

 

 

Well, we know that it wasn't due to air currents- they simply are not strong enough to overcome a 15 N force.

So what "known reasons" caused it to fail?

[illuusio]

Have you read it?

It's published in a journal, subject to even harsher critics than in this forum.

Though this is the special case of conservative forces(e.g. gravitational forces). Law of physics can be derived. That's why our resident experts keep on asking you how are your 'equations' derived.

 

What ever, I add you to ignore list.

 

Well, we know that it wasn't due to air currents- they simply are not strong enough to overcome a 15 N force.

So what "known reasons" caused it to fail?

 

Air flow is very strong. With smoother object there is smaller problem with air flow as you saw in my video. Why you are ignoring facts? I also posted a link where relative slow rotation frequence created pulling force. You can even google what rotation does for objects near each other.

[John Cuthber]

"Air flow is very strong. With smoother object there is smaller problem with air flow as you saw in my video. Why you are ignoring facts? "

Nope it isn't, and nope, I'm not the one ignoring facts here.

 

Let's do some actual maths.

Ok in the test we had the back wheel is turning at 5 rotations per second, it's radius is .350m;and a test object 2 mm away from it.

The object looked to be about 5cm in diameter. That's an area of about 2E-3 square metres.

The most force the air could apply would be if it was travelling at the same speed as the wheel (about 11 m/s) and transfered all that momentum to the weight.

 

So. imagine a "block" of air, travelling at 11 m/s and the same cross section as the weight. It runs into the weight and transfers all its momentum to it.

How much is that?

The density of air is about 1.2 kg/m^3 and the swept volume is 0.002 X 11 i.e 0.021 m^3

which will have a mass of about 0.025 Kg and , since it's travelling at 11 m/s it will impart about 0.3 kgm/s of momentum to the test weight each second which is a force of 0.3 kgm/s/s or 0.3 N (in practice it will be less than that)

Since the maximum force that the air could exert is 0.3 newtons there's no way it is responsible for the fact that your proposed 15N is not observed.

If there were a 15N force then a 0.3 N force from air currents wouldn't affect it.

 

Now do you realise that your "theory" is dead?

Edited August 26, 2012 by John Cuthber

[Phi for All]

 

What ever, I add you to ignore list.

!

Moderator Note

A very dangerous precedent for anyone serious about learning through discussion.

[illuusio]

!

Moderator Note

A very dangerous precedent for anyone serious about learning through discussion.

 

mm.. that statement is interesting.

 

"Air flow is very strong. With smoother object there is smaller problem with air flow as you saw in my video. Why you are ignoring facts? "

Nope it isn't, and nope, I'm not the one ignoring facts here.

 

Let's do some actual maths.

Ok in the test we had the back wheel is turning at 5 rotations per second, it's radius is .350m;and a test object 2 mm away from it.

The object looked to be about 5cm in diameter. That's an area of about 2E-3 square metres.

The most force the air could apply would be if it was travelling at the same speed as the wheel (about 11 m/s) and transfered all that momentum to the weight.

 

So. imagine a "block" of air, travelling at 11 m/s and the same cross section as the weight. It runs into the weight and transfers all its momentum to it.

How much is that?

The density of air is about 1.2 kg/m^3 and the swept volume is 0.002 X 11 i.e 0.021 m^3

which will have a mass of about 0.025 Kg and , since it's travelling at 11 m/s it will impart about 0.3 kgm/s of momentum to the test weight each second which is a force of 0.3 kgm/s/s or 0.3 N (in practice it will be less than that)

Since the maximum force that the air could exert is 0.3 newtons there's no way it is responsible for the fact that your proposed 15N is not observed.

If there were a 15N force then a 0.3 N force from air currents wouldn't affect it.

 

Now do you realise that your "theory" is dead?

 

Did you or did you not watch the video of mine? Did you or did you not read the link I posted? And your opinion about them?

[John Cuthber]

I didn't watch your videos because I only need to watch one experiment that shows your "theory" is wrong, to know that it is wrong.

 

How many times it worked isn't the issue. It's the fact that it failed that matters.

 

Do you understand that?

[illuusio]

I didn't watch your videos because I only need to watch one experiment that shows your "theory" is wrong, to know that it is wrong.

 

How many times it worked isn't the issue. It's the fact that it failed that matters.

 

Do you understand that?

 

LOL I like you!

[Klaynos]

Falsification is a pillar of science.

[illuusio]

Falsification is a pillar of science.

 

Sure it is! But you must understand what you are measuring and factors involved. I just wonder why you haven't watch my video. Could you give me some kind of reason?

[John Cuthber]

If I put forward the suggestion that all crows are black and I post a video of some black crows, that's not proof that my theory is correct.

If I post lots of pictures of black crows then it's circumstantial evidence supporting the suggestion, - but its not proof.

If someone posts a picture of a crow that isn't black then my suggestion is plainly wrong. Just one solitary counter example is all it needs.

 

At that point, there's nothing to gain from looking at pictures of black crows is there?

 

Now, why would I watch your video?

Edited August 26, 2012 by John Cuthber

[Klaynos]

I have it doesn't add anything.

 

You've failed to explain the failed experiment. The idea is wrong. It fails on orbits as well of course. And dimensional analysis. It's wrong on lots of levels.

[illuusio]

 

Now, why would I watch your video?

 

Any comment on this one? -> http://www.sea3000.net/zhuyonghuan/20081009181348.php

[swansont]

Wow! You are very eager to close this thread Haven't you read my theory? If you have, you know that there is math involved.

Then why haven't you made any specific predictions with it? You've been given plenty of opportunity to do so.

 

If I remember correctly, even in this Speculations area, there is conversation concerning of existence of ether. I think you can't say that it's proven that there is no ether.

But you can say there is no viable aether theory, i.e. one that meets the standards of science.

 

No motion with Cavendish experiment? Que? There is motion alright, incoming larger ball, right? That movement generates activity in ether for sure.

I specifically stated the equilibrium state. There is no motion when the system has damped and the torsional force and gravitational force are equal.

[John Cuthber]

Then why haven't you made any specific predictions with it? You've been given plenty of opportunity to do so.

 

 

To be fair, he did.

He calculated the force on a test mass near a bike wheel.

And the "theory" was shown to be wrong by experiment.

[swansont]

To be fair, he did.

He calculated the force on a test mass near a bike wheel.

And the "theory" was shown to be wrong by experiment.

Yes. Consider my objection modified: With the exception of the failed experiment.

 

All this discussion of planets and the moon, and no calculations involving them. Just hand-waving.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

illuusio, while we very much appreciate the opportunity to re-open your thread in order to test the math you were able to give, the results of the test show your idea to be false. Now you're simply falling back into the behavior that got the thread closed in the first place.

It's clear you are not considering reality when you continue to defend ideas that have been tested and shown false. You have been shown ample evidence why the idea is wrong, and have not been able to provide any evidence to support it. Our rules call for evidence, and it would be a disservice to the rest of the membership to spend more pages of discussion without it.

Thread closed. Again.