illuusio Posted August 4, 2012 Author Posted August 4, 2012 Still not what was required to substantiate the claims you've made. G was kind of teaser. Best part is yet to come!
Klaynos Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 G was kind of teaser. Best part is yet to come! You're yet to show anything so it won't be that hard to beat. Do you understand why we're asking you for what we are and why science requires such things?
Phi for All Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 ! Moderator Note illuusio, the Speculations forum has specific rules you are failing to follow. You have been asked for information multiple times and are not providing it. Each time you are asked for something specific, you reply with something vague. This thread is on it's 6th page and it's clear that the people interested in helping you are getting very frustrated. You need to provide what is being asked, or you need to tell why you can't provide it.Please comply with the rules or the thread will be closed. If you have a problem with this modnote, please report this post and state your reasons why, or PM a staff member. Do NOT discuss this modnote in this thread.
ACG52 Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 The last time I expressed my opinion of this 'theory', I was cited by a moderator for rudness. Let me simply say that nothing has changed, other than my opinion intensifying.
mooeypoo Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 The last time I expressed my opinion of this 'theory', I was cited by a moderator for rudness. Let me simply say that nothing has changed, other than my opinion intensifying. One wrong does not make a wrong reply right. We still require civility and patience in this forum, and quite honestly it makes moderator's lives a lot harder when more than one person is at fault of not following the rules. If you see something that upsets you, report it. It will make handling the situation a lot easier. ~mooey
Greg H. Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 Still not what was required to substantiate the claims you've made. That's an understatement.
illuusio Posted August 5, 2012 Author Posted August 5, 2012 (edited) I'm deeply sorry because my failure to deliver understandable idea. Anyway, in ToEbi, there is multiple tests which can be explained by my idea and also theory itself predicts few phenomenon. I have VERY limited time resources so math is lagging, obviously. I do better job in future. New version is on its way. Edited August 5, 2012 by illuusio
Klaynos Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 I understand you don't have much time. But do you understand why what you have isn't enough to be considered a theory by physics?
illuusio Posted August 5, 2012 Author Posted August 5, 2012 I understand you don't have much time. But do you understand why what you have isn't enough to be considered a theory by physics? Yes I do. Next version is on new level.
illuusio Posted August 5, 2012 Author Posted August 5, 2012 Ok guys! Here is latest version. From the first law of ToEbi you can calculate for example strong interaction. -1
John Cuthber Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 This assertion "If two large masses are close together and both are non-rotating and masses are not in motion related to each other there won't be any gravitation. One proof is Cavendish experiment." from your text is clearly wrong on two counts. Firstly there is a gravitational effect and secondly the Cavendish experiment demonstrates the presence of a force (with non- moving masses) which is exactly the opposite of what you have said. I don't honestly recommend that you spend time trying again. 1
Klaynos Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 Again you don't have any derivations. Your conclusion that G is universal is STILL incorrect. And to add to that your force equation for the strong interaction isn't even dimensionally sound, it is therefore wrong. Are you familiar with dimensional analysis? And again I ask why we should bother giving you any time? You have consistently ignored our comments, criticism and evidence?
illuusio Posted August 5, 2012 Author Posted August 5, 2012 Again you don't have any derivations. Your conclusion that G is universal is STILL incorrect. And to add to that your force equation for the strong interaction isn't even dimensionally sound, it is therefore wrong. Are you familiar with dimensional analysis? And again I ask why we should bother giving you any time? You have consistently ignored our comments, criticism and evidence? G is NOT universal. It's powerful when you can calculate strong interaction. -1
John Cuthber Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 G is NOT universal. It's powerful when you can calculate strong interaction. Conceivably, but, as has been pointed out, you can't calculate it. Your equation is plain wrong.
Klaynos Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 G is NOT universal. It's powerful when you can calculate strong interaction. You would therefore need to explain how Newtonian gravity works for the orbits observed throughout the solar system. How did the moon landings works? Your statement does not fit with observations, the universe wins your idea is wrong.
swansont Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 The premise that gravity requires motion and that this is shown by the Cavendish experiment fails. Why does the system reach equilibrium of torsion and gravity if the gravity ceases when the motion stops?
Greg H. Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 Ok guys! Here is latest version. From the first law of ToEbi you can calculate for example strong interaction. Look: the same crap in a new wrapper. Illuusio, I hate to break it to you, but this isn't science. This isn't even pseudoscience. Your equations do not follow observed results, nor do your two axioms. You still haven't even shown us why those two equations matter at all, much less why they are the correct ones to use. Your equations fail at explaining even the simplest actually observed interaction, such as why the moon would stay in place around the earth, or how we would actually land a space craft there, and the whole idea feels like a fever dream you slapped down paper. We have given you multiple chances to present actual evidence for your idea, to provide derivations for your equations, to explain those equations, and to explain how your idea would account for already observed phenomena and experimental results. You have failed, repeatedly, to do so. I am reporting this thread, and asking the moderators to close it, as per the rules of the speculations forum.
illuusio Posted August 6, 2012 Author Posted August 6, 2012 The premise that gravity requires motion and that this is shown by the Cavendish experiment fails. Why does the system reach equilibrium of torsion and gravity if the gravity ceases when the motion stops? Well if you have those Cavendishs balls side by side say 1 cm distance. What happens? nothing. In Cavendish experiment larger ball is coming towards smaller ball and then smaller ball is "pulled" towards larger ball. Ok, there is motion involved. One variation of Cavendish experiment is put those balls at first side by side say 1 cm. Then by rotating larger (there must be axle attached between ball and motor) ball next to smaller ball there will be "pulling effect" again. Again motion is involved. I didn't understand that last part, give me an example. Look: the same crap in a new wrapper. Illuusio, I hate to break it to you, but this isn't science. This isn't even pseudoscience. Your equations do not follow observed results, nor do your two axioms. You still haven't even shown us why those two equations matter at all, much less why they are the correct ones to use. Your equations fail at explaining even the simplest actually observed interaction, such as why the moon would stay in place around the earth, or how we would actually land a space craft there, and the whole idea feels like a fever dream you slapped down paper. The first equation is The First law of ToEbi. Second equation, it can be ignored at the moment. Well, If we think about space traveling. Taking off from Earth and entering Moon. Scientists calculate (based on measured G) gravitation force on both ends and how much energy is needed in order to succeed. Calculated G is somewhat bigger than measured G, but we live in Universe (in our solar system) so measured G is perfectly ok to be used. Besides there is always left some margin in calculations related to energy consumption of space craft. Moon stays (not forever) with us because of pulling force (gravitation) and it's kinetic energy are more or less in balance. And don't be so hostile! Let's be civilized Conceivably, but, as has been pointed out, you can't calculate it. Your equation is plain wrong. From plain wrong equation I can calculate strong interaction in simple case. And in future also electromagnetism can be derived based on The First law of ToEbi.
Klaynos Posted August 6, 2012 Posted August 6, 2012 You are still wrong due to the reasons I detail above. You have adressed nothing, are not doing science; you are just pulling vague ideas out of the air and claiming them to be correct.
illuusio Posted August 6, 2012 Author Posted August 6, 2012 (edited) You are still wrong due to the reasons I detail above. You have adressed nothing, are not doing science; you are just pulling vague ideas out of the air and claiming them to be correct. My theory can be verified easily and measurement can be calculated before. I'm refering modified Cavendish experiment. That I call science. Edited August 6, 2012 by illuusio
Klaynos Posted August 6, 2012 Posted August 6, 2012 Your proposal has been falsified without further investigation required. Science is not just making stories up, no matter what you may think.
John Cuthber Posted August 6, 2012 Posted August 6, 2012 Well if you have those Cavendishs balls side by side say 1 cm distance. What happens? nothing. From plain wrong equation I can calculate strong interaction in simple case. And in future also electromagnetism can be derived based on The First law of ToEbi. What happens in fact (rather than in your imagination) is that there is an attractive force between them which keeps the torsion wire twisted. I can calculate your mental age by taking the number of words in the last sentence I quoted and halving it. "Mental age = number of words /2 " is an equation; I can calculate with it. But the important thing to realise is that: It Is Wrong. Your equations are not plausible because of the failure of the units to tally up. Your assertions about gravity are false because they don't agree with observation. How wrong are you prepared to be?
swansont Posted August 6, 2012 Posted August 6, 2012 Well if you have those Cavendishs balls side by side say 1 cm distance. What happens? nothing. In Cavendish experiment larger ball is coming towards smaller ball and then smaller ball is "pulled" towards larger ball. Ok, there is motion involved. One variation of Cavendish experiment is put those balls at first side by side say 1 cm. Then by rotating larger (there must be axle attached between ball and motor) ball next to smaller ball there will be "pulling effect" again. Again motion is involved. I didn't understand that last part, give me an example. At some point the motion ceases, and you have (using standard physics) an equilibrium between the torsion of the wire suspending one set of masses and the gravitational attraction. In that analysis, no motion is expected and consistent with the description. But if there's no gravity, then there now must be a net force because the wire is still twisted. Why is there no subsequent motion? You can't have the force be velocity-dependent and behave the way you describe. If you have a velocity-dependent force in equilibrium with some other force that's independent of v, then v cannot be zero.
illuusio Posted August 6, 2012 Author Posted August 6, 2012 Your equations are not plausible because of the failure of the units to tally up. Your assertions about gravity are false because they don't agree with observation. How wrong are you prepared to be? Units can be fixed just like with G constant at present. At some point the motion ceases, and you have (using standard physics) an equilibrium between the torsion of the wire suspending one set of masses and the gravitational attraction. In that analysis, no motion is expected and consistent with the description. But if there's no gravity, then there now must be a net force because the wire is still twisted. Why is there no subsequent motion? You can't have the force be velocity-dependent and behave the way you describe. If you have a velocity-dependent force in equilibrium with some other force that's independent of v, then v cannot be zero. G is velocity-dependent but pure G does nothing by itself, it's just scaling things, mass and distance create the effect (through GEPs).
Recommended Posts