ACG52 Posted August 6, 2013 Posted August 6, 2013 I asked a specific question about satellites can your method not work for that? Why? Because it's not a method.
roger4464 Posted August 6, 2013 Author Posted August 6, 2013 (edited) I asked a specific question about satellites can your method not work for that? Why? I REALY!~ DO NOT GRASP THAT QUESTION; SORRY! I REALY!~ DO NOT GRASP THAT QUESTION; SORRY! Which body in the model, would be the Satellite. Specified !.... please.!.......... Edited August 6, 2013 by roger4464
swansont Posted August 6, 2013 Posted August 6, 2013 I REALY!~ DO NOT GRASP THAT QUESTION; SORRY! Which body in the model, would be the Satellite. Specified !.... please.!.......... Can you model a satellite orbiting the earth with one of your models?
roger4464 Posted August 6, 2013 Author Posted August 6, 2013 (edited) When the word ''Satellite'' is, the mentioned element, in the question ; i must refer to, ''Space motion Concept''... because ,no absolute contract is needed with the surface of the earth, as to , Earth motion concept , do: << Yes a Space motion model ,SATELLITE can be put in orbit , and keeps its spin angulare velocity, and, its roundabout journey around the earth, which is; inescapable ..naturally :........................Roger dynamic motion Edited August 6, 2013 by roger4464
swansont Posted August 6, 2013 Posted August 6, 2013 Yes? Then show how you can calculate the altitude of a geosynchronous orbit with your model, as Klaynos asked.
roger4464 Posted August 6, 2013 Author Posted August 6, 2013 (edited) Yes? Then show how you can calculate the altitude of a geosynchronous orbit with your model, as Klaynos asked. Giving the model # 39 that you posted ; which ''body'' would you identified, as to be, a G.o satellite ? Edited August 6, 2013 by roger4464
ACG52 Posted August 6, 2013 Posted August 6, 2013 Let's ask again, simply. Maybe it's a language problem. Can any of your 'models, whatever number you want to give it, calculate the altitude needed for a geosynchronous orbit? (Do you know what a geosynchronous orbit is?)
roger4464 Posted August 6, 2013 Author Posted August 6, 2013 (edited) Let's ask again, simply. Maybe it's a language problem. Can any of your 'models, whatever number you want to give it, calculate the altitude needed for a geosynchronous orbit? (Do you know what a geosynchronous orbit is?) A body that is positioned at the equator ring (satellite).... and i can look AT it..... ''24-7 WITH MY EYES'' sort of speech and never loose site of it ''BECAUSE'' we are both synchronize with the rotation of the earth ( that is not something relevant with my work ''building models'' . SO ! what can i say ? Edited August 6, 2013 by roger4464
ACG52 Posted August 6, 2013 Posted August 6, 2013 A body that is positioned at the equator ring (satellite).... and i can look AT it..... ''24-7 WITH MY EYES'' sort of speech and never loose site of it ''BECAUSE'' we are both synchronize with the rotation of the earth ( that is not something relevant with my work ''building models'' . SO ! what can i say ? So the answer is no. Your model is nonsense. It can't make any predictions regarding the real world.
swansont Posted August 6, 2013 Posted August 6, 2013 Giving the model # 39 that you posted ; which ''body'' would you identified, as to be, a G.o satellite ? I don't know. These are your models. Are they of any predictive use at all?
roger4464 Posted August 7, 2013 Author Posted August 7, 2013 (edited) So the answer is no. Your model is nonsense. It can't make any predictions regarding the real world. You Sir ! are fishing for knowledge, i congratulate you for so doing; as to predictions about the real world you may have learned from physics literature, and been directed to a certain comprehension, but to state that my models do not open the door to new outcome tells me what i know is not going to be easy to be understood by any one, yet , with out the proper questions.. I don't know. These are your models. Are they of any predictive use at all? I do not drink and do not smoke; been working, ''building dynamic model'', since 1976, so i understand dynamic energy from its base . You Sir ! are fishing for knowledge, i congratulate you for so doing; as to predictions about the real world you may have learned from physics literature, and been directed to a certain comprehension, but to state that my models do not open the door to new outcome tells me what i know is not going to be easy to be understood by any one, yet , with out the proper questions.. I do not drink and do not smoke; been working, ''building dynamic model'', since 1976, so i understand dynamic energy from its base . Lets start with ''Earth Motion'' the~ Relativity Phenomenon ~ does not predict, ''Earth Motion'' to be possible ! You Sir ! are fishing for knowledge, i congratulate you for so doing; as to predictions about the real world you may have learned from physics literature, and been directed to a certain comprehension, but to state that my models do not open the door to new outcome tells me what i know is not going to be easy to be understood by any one, yet , with out the proper questions.. I do not drink and do not smoke; been working, ''building dynamic model'', since 1976, so i understand dynamic energy from its base . Lets start with ''Earth Motion'' the~ Relativity Phenomenon ~ does not predict, ''Earth Motion'' to be possible ! Edited August 7, 2013 by roger4464
ACG52 Posted August 7, 2013 Posted August 7, 2013 You Sir ! are fishing for knowledge, i congratulate you for so doing; as to predictions about the real world you may have learned from physics literature, and been directed to a certain comprehension, but to state that my models do not open the door to new outcome tells me what i know is not going to be easy to be understood by any one, yet , with out the proper questions.. I do not drink and do not smoke; been working, ''building dynamic model'', since 1976, so i understand dynamic energy from its base . Lets start with ''Earth Motion'' the~ Relativity Phenomenon ~ does not predict, ''Earth Motion'' to be possible ! None of this makes any sense at all. This thread doesn't seem to qualify for the speculations, as there are no answers to any questions asked, and nothing supporting the 'models' except gibberish.
Bignose Posted August 7, 2013 Posted August 7, 2013 but to state that my models do not open the door to new outcome I think we all would be very interested in new outcomes. But you have wholeheartedly failed to actually present any outcomes. You didn't reach any meaningful outcome when asked about the altitude of geosynchronous orbits, for example. If there aren't any outcomes, I don't think you should be chastising people. But it is good that you recognize that you are not being understood. I, for one, don't understand why you can't present a straightforward answer to the altitude question.
hyperion1is Posted August 7, 2013 Posted August 7, 2013 I think we all would be very interested in new outcomes. But you have wholeheartedly failed to actually present any outcomes. You didn't reach any meaningful outcome when asked about the altitude of geosynchronous orbits, for example. If there aren't any outcomes, I don't think you should be chastising people. But it is good that you recognize that you are not being understood. I, for one, don't understand why you can't present a straightforward answer to the altitude question. Maybe the person wasn't ever interested in altitude or orbit. You have only one question for him, really? -1
Klaynos Posted August 7, 2013 Posted August 7, 2013 Maybe the person wasn't ever interested in altitude or orbit. You have only one question for him, really? It's a starting point. Whether his ideas are applicable in this regime or not has not been answered yet so we cannot really move on. It's a simple falsifiable prediction that motion methods should be able to easily work through. 1
swansont Posted August 7, 2013 Posted August 7, 2013 I do not drink and do not smoke; been working, ''building dynamic model'', since 1976, so i understand dynamic energy from its base . That's a non-response response. Can you do any predictive calculations with your model(s)? It's a yes or no question. If the answer is yes, then the followup is what can you predict? Obviously, the dynamic motion of a satellite is not part of your toolbox.
imatfaal Posted August 7, 2013 Posted August 7, 2013 should we try a simpler question? What about a ball rolling (pure roll ie no slipping no skidding) down an incline of say 30 degrees (all nicely idealized) - can you provide the acceleration of that ball? It's a simple and cute mechanics problem involving linear and rotational motion - if you cannot do it then you do not have a system, if the method is the same as we already use then what is the point of your system, or if you can do it in a new way then pony up the details.
roger4464 Posted August 7, 2013 Author Posted August 7, 2013 (edited) should we try a simpler question? What about a ball rolling (pure roll ie no slipping no skidding) down an incline of say 30 degrees (all nicely idealized) - can you provide the acceleration of that ball? It's a simple and cute mechanics problem involving linear and rotational motion - if you cannot do it then you do not have a system, if the method is the same as we already use then what is the point of your system, or if you can do it in a new way then pony up the details. look up Model # 35 or others ; the answer to your questions ,can be found, in the first year ''physic college book'' << Please do not ask me any more questions pretending to my knowledge and understanding about ???? ;its a wasted time to you and me. Edited August 7, 2013 by roger4464 -1
Bignose Posted August 7, 2013 Posted August 7, 2013 look up Model # 35 or others ; the answer to your questions ,can be found, in the first year ''physic college book'' << Please do not ask me any more questions pretending to my knowledge and understanding about ???? ;its a wasted time to you and me. Do you really think that this reply above coincides with what you've stated before: i know is not going to be easy to be understood by any one, yet , with out the proper questions.. If you know your idea is good to be not easily understood, then quit telling us to ask you questions. Or maybe try to give better answers to your questions. Yes, the answer to the question is found in 1st year physics texts, that was the whole point. You claim to have a different (better?) system of solving these problems. Please present, in excruciating explicit detail, how your system solves this same problem. We want to be able to compare and contrast solution methods. Presenting this will help us better understand your model. In other words, we are asking you to show us how good your model is. Why the continued diffidence in doing so?
imatfaal Posted August 7, 2013 Posted August 7, 2013 I just watched model #35! At least it is only 36 seconds - so I wasted very little time. It is bizarre nonsense that seems to be advocating some form of perp-mot. From first glance I am not even sure the geometry works let alone the concept. You said you had a new system of dynamics - not some pipedream; poor show!
swansont Posted August 7, 2013 Posted August 7, 2013 look up Model # 35 or others ; the answer to your questions ,can be found, in the first year ''physic college book'' << Please do not ask me any more questions pretending to my knowledge and understanding about ???? ;its a wasted time to you and me. Then what is the point of this discussion?
roger4464 Posted August 7, 2013 Author Posted August 7, 2013 (edited) OK ! FIRST, question from your preamble; wanting to know ? It can be used for transportation , build like ....''same as~Segway'' . It can be build, as rides for amusement parks or circus. with a different technique and model.___ 2e question ''any theory''?...... First. No such force! call force of attraction in the Universe acting between planets. All my working models would not work if it wasn't from that comprehension. to understand this, one must live trough the birth of matter at the beginning of the Universe and understand the elements needed to achieve this process, and to understand where the particles are originating from, and understand their shape and (size?) ;like the smallest particles existing and why? that small. _____ ''Creation of matter''= The Noting versus Matter. You are some thing when i see you and noting when i don't~~take ''NOTICE'', that the word ''NOTING'' is the name of the smallest particles existing ... More later in time. Edited August 7, 2013 by roger4464
roger4464 Posted August 7, 2013 Author Posted August 7, 2013 (edited) OK ! FIRST, question from your preamble; wanting to know ? It can be used for transportation , build like ....''same as~Segway'' . It can be build, as rides for amusement parks or circus. with a different technique and model.___ 2e question ''any theory''?...... First. No such force! call force of attraction in the Universe acting between planets. All my working models would not work if it wasn't from that comprehension. to understand this, one must live trough the birth of matter at the beginning of the Universe and understand the elements needed to achieve this process, and to understand where the particles are originating from, and understand their shape and (size?) ;like the smallest particles existing and why? that small. _____ ''Creation of matter''= The Noting versus Matter. You are some thing when i see you and noting when i don't~~take ''NOTICE'', that the word ''NOTING'' is the name of the smallest particles existing ... More later in time. So to follow on, with my theory of the transformation of the particles, call ''Noting' the smallest one existing,is the cube with it's 8 corners at the center, so,at that size, can not be detected be any means, till they meet at the center, adding up to each other to become some thing, and finally be seen and so on, to become bigger taking space and rebelling the on forcing their way in ; so fare no presence ,of attracting force......More later in time Edited August 7, 2013 by roger4464
Bignose Posted August 8, 2013 Posted August 8, 2013 So, seriously, why should anyone believe claims about being able to use your ideas for cheap transportation if you can't even demonstrate how it solves known physics problems? And there is no amount of money that you could give me to get on an amusement ride designed based on your unproven ideas. Are you going to give us any reason to actually entertain the notion of believing in your idea? Or are you just going to keep telling us how great they are and we're supposed to take it on your word. (Word of advice, if you continue to do the second, you'll probably not welcome for much longer on this forum. When you post your ideas, you are required to answer questions about them.)
roger4464 Posted August 8, 2013 Author Posted August 8, 2013 (edited) So, seriously, why should anyone believe claims about being able to use your ideas for cheap transportation if you can't even demonstrate how it solves known physics problems? And there is no amount of money that you could give me to get on an amusement ride designed based on your unproven ideas. Are you going to give us any reason to actually entertain the notion of believing in your idea? Or are you just going to keep telling us how great they are and we're supposed to take it on your word. (Word of advice, if you continue to do the second, you'll probably not welcome for much longer on this forum. When you post your ideas, you are required to answer questions about them.) NOT so fast ! I'm getting there and i will be happy to take questions once i am done elaborating my understanding that fits in with my concept and technical approach. Edited August 8, 2013 by roger4464
Recommended Posts