GRAVITY EXPLANATION OF WHAT IT ACTUALLY IS!

[Relative]

''Compression isn't a force. It is a consequence of applying a force. What do you think is causing the compression?''

I know compression is not considered a force, but if you were standing in a central point and been forced from all vectors, you would be crushed,

''Also, even if it is the strongest force in the universe, why would it create mass?''

Because two of anything can not occupy the same space, but compression proves that wrong.

''E=mc² has nothing to do with vectors or spheres.''

 

I know, but it should.

''Maybe you need to explain what they are meant to mean. It isn't clear. Are you multiplying force by area? Are you trying to equate "a" (acceleration) to "A" (area)?''

 

 

The area of sphere, a photon is released from the right travelling to the left e=mc2

 

 

The area/volume of a sphere, a photon is released from all vectors/points on the inner of the sphere at the same time, same velocity, travelling centripetal to a central point, that is one big bang.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Relative

[John Cuthber]

"I know compression is not considered a force, but if you were standing in a central point and been forced from all vectors, you would be crushed,"

By what?

What would supply the force that crushed you?

 

At best, you seem to be putting forward a circular argument here.

[Relative]

"I know compression is not considered a force, but if you were standing in a central point and been forced from all vectors, you would be crushed,"

By what?

What would supply the force that crushed you?

 

At best, you seem to be putting forward a circular argument here.

A spherical argument that applies to a black hole.

 

 

Applies to a black hole inside a black hole and so on.

 

 

Try this, change the nothing particles to Higgs if you like.

I imagine a static beginning, the universe was nothing but negative/neutral, and no positive existed.

 

 

Some how, the slightest of vibrations causing the first ever wave/movement/friction, causing positive energy to start the process.

 

 

 

And then because opposites attract, add the formula, firstly we have centripetal pressure that squashes the energy making it rotate.

 

 

Then an implosion that become a explosion of force, that set the universe in motion.

My science may seem a bit gibberish, and i am trying to improve on that.

 

 

I thought to add, I would add this from another forum I am on.

 

 

''Also, what is 'energy volume'? Define it clearly.''

 

 

Energy volume is the properties of all mass. Negative energy to the positive energy ratio.

 

 

Example we heat metal, we increase the metals size, it expands, it as received more positive energy ratio.

 

 

Example 2 - burn a piece of wood, the volume of positive energy is released, the negative amount of energy is left in the form of ash,

 

And through Thermodynamics of heat exchange, and the Frequency dynamics of radiation, all mass can change its ratio.

I am not basing Gravity has been an action of mass attracted to mass, or of a magnetic nature, but has a force of energy ratios contained within that mass.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Relative

[Sensei]

Instead of wasting time making video of nothing, you should better use given you time on actually learning the all three century of science..

[Relative]

Instead of wasting time making video of nothing, you should better use given you time on actually learning the all three century of science..

Making videos of science, whether accurate or not to any facts, gains comments about science. Comments becoming knowledge.

 

 

If you look through my videos you will see me make a coloured spectrum block become transparent by speed of sequencing creating high contrast camouflaging the block.

 

 

It is all science and learning science. I now have CGI software, within one day I self taught myself CGI software,

 

I have a strange learning style , that s all I can say.

[Unity+]

Making videos of science, whether accurate or not to any facts, gains comments about science.

No, it just wastes time if the objective is to dedicate to science.

 

 

It is all science and learning science. I now have CGI software, within one day I self taught myself CGI software,

I have a strange learning style , that s all I can say.

It shouldn't require CGI to demonstrate concepts like these. In fact, most of what we want is the mathematics of it all.

[John Cuthber]

"I now have CGI software, within one day I self taught myself CGI software,"

That's nice.

You can presumably use it to make a video of Elvis riding a unicorn.

But that doesn't make Elvis less dead or unicorns less imaginary.

 

"I have a strange learning style , that s all I can say."

Whatever your learning style, it would be a good idea to apply that style to learning some science.

[Relative]

"I now have CGI software, within one day I self taught myself CGI software,"

That's nice.

You can presumably use it to make a video of Elvis riding a unicorn.

But that doesn't make Elvis less dead or unicorns less imaginary.

 

"I have a strange learning style , that s all I can say."

Whatever your learning style, it would be a good idea to apply that style to learning some science.

I have learnt a lot of science, such as ancient Greeks , Tesla, Newton, Einstein, Faraday, Edison, Maxwell, Some french MIlk drinking guy, a women making a breakthrough , etc.

 

 

I am learning science with every forum I go on.

 

I like practical, I like to participate in my learning and convey curiousness , I have a huge list of book marks to keep refreshing my knowledge of current thought.

 

I am learning, Honey and Mumford styles I could relate to several.

Relative, while posting as 'theorist', has never managed to learn anything he was told.

Define the term learning compared to excepting!.

 

 

You can not tell me to except something that I can not see logically been of 100% exact facts.

 

 

Until I am convinced by better logic, that the facts are true.

 

 

If no one can explain where the inertia comes from to make satellites orbital rotational paths, then Gravity is unsolved and open to scientific attack, even if in relatively speaking terms.

 

 

If no one can explain what happens with EMR in it's transparent state, < what you see between your eyes and your keyboard>,

 

again it is open to debate.

 

 

I am not attacking science and current thought, it is your science that brought me to my conclusions from what I have learnt.

 

You can not or never should expect a person to except something that does not make sense to them.

 

 

If it took a year to explain so what , it took Maxwell about 15 years to fit the maths to Faraday's idea.

 

 

And you think I have not learnt.

 

 

Strange learnt me a lot, and others too.

[Strange]

I have learnt a lot of science, such as ... some french MIlk drinking guy, a women making a breakthrough , etc.

 

[Relative]

Relative thinking.

 

The hammer toss on the Moon.

 

By angular velocity it continued to rotate as it accelerated away.

 

 

My question - How could a less dense tail end of the hammer handle, over take the heavier weight?

 

This sort of thing has been tried with perpetual motion devices.

 

 

Is not that by direction of velocity, compared to the gravity of the moon, that the energy/energies, contained in the hammer head where pivoting back and forth like as in AC power!. Along the shaft of the handle.

 

 

 

In layman's terms by acceleration, in a linear direction, the energy of the mass is directed always towards gravity.

 

 

An arrow with a larger tip is accelerated at x velocity in z= vertical vector.

 

Gaining altitude the weight of the tip is directed down the shaft, back towards the Earth's gravity, <gravity drag>.

 

 

 

When the arrow loses velocity, the balance of weight starts to restore, the arrow flips 180 degrees and the weight is still trying to find gravity.

 

 

When I say weight, I refer to direction of either Electron or Proton flow, but probably been the former.

 

 

The direction of attraction of mass been of energy based contained within that mass compared to the energy contained within the mass with larger gravity.

 

Point taken I should of got his name on and hers.

 

 

I forgot there names with been continental,

Antoine Lavoisier's

[Relative]

Sophie Germain

Same nonsense got you banned at the science forum.

You are in no doubt from the other forum, and again been of a none productive nature in my learning.

 

 

Again trying to cause a debate completely off subject.

 

I am not biting this time I am afraid, this is a good forum.

 

 

Mods who know what the words speculation mean, meaning to speculate.

 

 

Have you any productive answers to my thoughts?

 

Thermodynamics maybe?

[Unity+]

Sophie Germain

You are in no doubt from the other forum, and again been of a none productive nature in my learning.

 

 

Again trying to cause a debate completely off subject.

 

I am not biting this time I am afraid, this is a good forum.

 

 

Mods who know what the words speculation mean, meaning to speculate.

 

 

Have you any productive answers to my thoughts?

 

Thermodynamics maybe?

 

I don't think any of the "theories" that this topic has presented have been productive.

 

Please, we are trying to help you learn. If you refuse, then we might as well not have this topic.

Same nonsense got you banned at the science forum.

If we are going to have Relative follow the rules of Speculation we should do it as well.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Unity+

[Relative]

''I don't think any of the "theories" that this topic has presented have been productive.

Please, we are trying to help you learn. If you refuse, then we might as well not have this topic.''

So if I refuse to except current Gravity theory we might as well not talk?

Can you explain the inertia in satellites then please and the reason gravity works on a satellite to get the rotation of orbital path?

I know current theory on gravity, I have learnt current theory gravity.

I have learnt the current theory is seemingly flawed by unexplained satellites! and to me a planet trying to go straight only seems plausible if they were been pushed away, and the rotation would happen if they were been attracted to at the same time on a balance of equilibrium.

The Earth's mass, of the layers, anything on the surface, is attracted to the center of the Earth, centripetal direction.

The Physics for this would have to be F= A=4πr2 /R? may be x rR or no R

Edited April 5, 2014 by Relative

[Unity+]

 

''I don't think any of the "theories" that this topic has presented have been productive.

Please, we are trying to help you learn. If you refuse, then we might as well not have this topic.''

So if I refuse to except current Gravity theory we might as well not talk?

Can you explain the inertia in satellites then please and the reason gravity works on a satellite to get the rotation of orbital path?

I know current theory on gravity, I have learnt current theory gravity.

I have learnt the current theory is seemingly flawed by unexplained satellites! and to me a planet trying to go straight only seems plausible if they were been pushed away, and the rotation would happen if they were been attracted to at the same time on a balance of equilibrium.

The Earth's mass, of the layers, anything on the surface, is attracted to the center of the Earth, centripetal direction.

The Physics for this would have to be F= A=4πr2 /R? may be x rR or no R

 

I am trying to be as nice as I can to you. You are pulling my strings here.

 

 

 

So if I refuse to except current Gravity theory we might as well not talk?

We might as well not have this topic open.

[Relative]

''I am trying to be as nice as I can to you. You are pulling my strings here.''

 

 

I am trying to learn some maths......no strings been pulled.

 

F= A=4πr2 /R to the Earth's core, and yes I have no idea what it actually means yet. I know that is the formula for a spheres surface.

 

 

So how do I add '' direction'' to a central point in the equation? from all vectors

and what does the double t represent? tt i cant do the symbol.

[davidivad]

@relativity;

 

relax, if you were not here posting your ideas we would have nobody to argue with. i think this is a logical assumption because if you have the answers there is nothing left to argue.

 

you are drawing flies by entering your personal concepts. on this forum, personal concepts are not worth a poop.

my suggestion is that you steer clear of the poop deck until you have been here a while. you will eventually get an idea of what you can do without making a stink.

please consider my humor.

i think it is important to have ideas but it is best to adhere to the unspoken rules here.

[Relative]

TT

@relativity;

 

relax, if you were not here posting your ideas we would have nobody to argue with. i think this is a logical assumption because if you have the answers there is nothing left to argue.

 

you are drawing flies by entering your personal concepts. on this forum, personal concepts are not worth a poop.

my suggestion is that you steer clear of the poop deck until you have been here a while. you will eventually get an idea of what you can do without making a stink.

please consider my humor.

i think it is important to have ideas but it is best to adhere to the unspoken rules here.

 

Thank you, I have checked the speculation requirement , I have the correct understanding of speculations.

 

A speculation can involve no maths etc,

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Everyone

 

Cut out the sniping and attacks. Write about the topic or don't post - do not continue posting personal comments or discussing matters of protocol.

 

Bear in mind this is the speculations forum - posters are allowed to be non-mainstream and espouse unusual views as long as they abide by the rules when it comes to discussion, answering of questions, and production of proof.

 

Do not respond to this moderation.

 

 

[swansont]

 

A speculation can involve no maths etc,

 

Speculation requires testable predictions, which usually involves math. No math is one reason these threads get closed.

[Relative]

 

Speculation requires testable predictions, which usually involves math. No math is one reason these threads get closed.

I am trying to find the maths, I have asked for help with maths.

 

 

What does the twin capital letter T mean in the formula of a sphere surface?

 

And what formula/ algebra letter would represent direction of an accelerating mass?

 

 

What symbol would represent inward pressure?

 

 

I do not know what I am looking for to research the maths.

I do know if any one has done this before,

 

 

 

I put a 5 pence piece inside a plastic tubular transparent tub with a screw on lid.

 

 

I accelerated the tub vertically upwards, the 5 pence stayed at the bottom of the tub. I dropped the tub and the 5 pence still stayed at the bottom?

Edited April 5, 2014 by Relative

[Strange]

What does the twin capital letter T mean in the formula of a sphere surface?

 

I assume you mean [math]\pi[/math]?

 

This is the Greek letter Pi, which is used to represent the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter. It is approximately 3.14159...

Edited April 6, 2014 by Strange

[swansont]

I am trying to find the maths, I have asked for help with maths.

 

 

What does the twin capital letter T mean in the formula of a sphere surface?

 

And what formula/ algebra letter would represent direction of an accelerating mass?

 

 

What symbol would represent inward pressure?

 

 

I do not know what I am looking for to research the maths.

I do know if any one has done this before,

 

 

 

I put a 5 pence piece inside a plastic tubular transparent tub with a screw on lid.

 

 

I accelerated the tub vertically upwards, the 5 pence stayed at the bottom of the tub. I dropped the tub and the 5 pence still stayed at the bottom?

 

I'm sorryto be blunt, but if this is your level of sophistication with math, then you have no hope of developing a model. This has already been figured out — you really need to learn what has already been discovered and why it works before you start off on your own path. Then you will see why your approach won't work.

[Sensei]

I am trying to find the maths, I have asked for help with maths.

 

What does the twin capital letter T mean in the formula of a sphere surface?

OMG.

You don't even have primary school mathematic knowledge..

Have not heard about PI = 3.14159265?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi

 

And what formula/ algebra letter would represent direction of an accelerating mass?

 

Directions are represented by vectors. Letter with little arrow above it.

2d vector has 2 components xy.

3d vector has 3 components xyz.

and so on with further dimensions. (but they're rarely needed and used)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_(mathematics_and_physics)

 

Direction vector is usually normalized.

Which means that all components are divided by length of vector.

In result length of vector is equal to 1.0.

 

In C/C++ normalization of vector look like this:

length = sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2);

x = x/length;

y = y/length;

z = z/length;

(btw you have to check for length != 0 to not divide by 0)

 

After normalization vector length sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2) is equal 1.0

 

 

Normalized vectors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_vector

 

What symbol would represent inward pressure?

 

Pressure has unit N/m^2. Force in Newtons per meter square area.

p=F/area

p=m*a/area

 

Not quite sure why you wrote "inward"..

 

 

 

I do not know what I am looking for to research the maths.

 

Yes, we know.

 

I do know if any one has done this before,

 

Except any kid in primary school in XX-XXI century in western countries?

Edited April 6, 2014 by Sensei

[davidivad]

i am laughing.

i had to look up what a 5 pence was...

[Relative]

Thank you guys for the Help! I can see the learning of the maths may take a while,

 

 

 

I do know PI 3.14 lol....

Lol I know pi, I should of said I know what it is but not the values, so thats what the double T is arrrrrrr,

Ok back to gravity , the coin in the cup may seem a basic experiment that every one knows the results, but to me it was science and showing that all mass falls at the same rate, making gravity an even force of attraction regardless of size or density.

 

 

The hammer drop and the feather drop on the moon shows us this.

 

 

I think I have just stuffed up my own Hypothesis on gravity.

 

 

 

If gravity were based on some sort of electrical displacement/direction of energy/energies, then indeed I would have different free fall velocities.

 

 

Would that be a fair conclusion to my coin drop/tub drop test.?

Edited April 6, 2014 by Relative