The Way I-try Views Energy [Split from The Essence of Energy]

[Strange]

Then as stated in my post number 73 regarding measurement by electromagnetic energy, and if that dyne force has not been measured, its measurement is capable of supplying a reasonable accurate indication of the amount of rest energy of a Kg mass.

 

The dyne force has been accurately measured. The effect of a dyne (or newton) force on a given mass has been accurately measured.

 

However, you still seem to be confusing energy and force. You can't expect to get very far if you can't correctly manipulate these basic concepts.

 

The magnitude of the energy removed by the Earth gravity effect per Kg mass could also thereby be provided.

An opportunity is thereby provided to check accuracy of the above statement and the equation E = MC^2

 

This takes us back to where I said "I'll leave it there" in post 70. I stopped there because I wanted to be sure I understood what you were saying. You seem to have confirmed that.

 

You predict a decrease in effective mass with greater acceleration.

SR predicts an increase in effective mass with greater velocity.

 

So, if we can find one or more observations which involve large accelerations and large velocities we should be able to compatre what happens and test whether your theory or SR is more accurate. This should be simple as the two theories make opposite results.

 

Your theory suggests that acceleration for a given force should increase (because mass decreases).

SR suggests that acceleration for a given force should decrease (because mass increases).

 

So, one obvious source of suitable data is the acceleration of particles in accelerators such as the LHC. This involves large values of acceleration to high velocities. This should be a perfect place to test these predictions.

 

It turns out that particle accelerators have to make adjustments to the expected acceleration and velocity that are exactly in line with SR. And therefore opposite to the predictions of your theory.

 

The accuracy of the measurement could be much improved by the use of the smallest measured amount of matter, subjected to proportional equivalent conditions to that of the gram of matter.

 

And as some particle accelerators work with electrons (as well as the protons and heavy ions used in the LHC) they are working with the smallest amount of matter - according to your theory.

 

Which brings us to:

? answer to your last question is yes and yes.

 

So mass is quantized and the unit of mass is the electron mass. This is falsified by (at least) two observations:

1. There are particles with less mass than the electron.

2. There are particles with masses that are not integer multiples of the electron mass.

 

I honestly don't think there is any point discussing the idea further as it is clearly falsified by the existing evidence. (And this is not surprising as you clearly have a very weak grasp of even schoolboy physics.)

[I-try]

Strange.

A review of your posts reveals a constant refusal to answer questions or statements by adhering to the concept that the best form of defence is to attack, thereby keep your opponent answering irrelevant questions such as the use of the word force in relation to the acceleration of matter or any other phenomena requiring the expenditure of that which we call energy. I wholeheartedly agree that a quantity of expended energy we refer to as a force, is necessary to change the relative state of rest or velocity of a body of matter, is found by the equation, Force = mass times the acceleration. Even so you prefer to pretend that the word force does not basically requires the expenditure of energy by refusing to acknowledge the connection between the two words. You do so despite the experimenters finding that the magnitude of force regarding the specified acceleration of a gram of matter, is found by measuring the total energy expended. To you the word force and energy are one and the same phenomenon with no attempt at explaining the difference. The word force represents the magnitude of energy expended to achieve a given acceleration, whilst energy is a phenomenon.

Relative to the above comments, in an earlier post you chose to challenge me regarding the mainstream reference to the pull of gravity or to gravitational pull. You in your usual manner implied that my statement was not correct and as a result I challenged you to provide a description of a pulling force. You have made no attempt to reply. Also, you have disregarded my statement regarding the slight difference between the horizontal acceleration of a kilogram mass by the application of a specified amount of force, a newton, and the 9,81 n stated to be the gravitational force acting on a kg of mass near sea level. Gravitational force despite Einstein correctly stating that gravitational force is an illusion. You appear to be unaware of why Einstein was able to correctly claim that the gravitational mass is exactly similar to the inertial mass. Also why his illustration using elevators under the two differing conditions was close to, but not exactly correct. ? supplies the difference between horizontal and vertical acceleration.

Whilst on the subject of the definition of words such as acceleration and subsequent resulting change to velocity, are you aware that there is an anomaly associated with the experiment to measure the magnitude of energy expended and represented as a newton. If you are aware of said anomaly, then define it, and can you supply a logical answer for same. I expect that so like my other questions to you, this question will also be ignored.

With regards my yes yes answers to your question Quote : Is mass (quantized in your model)? (A simple yes or no should suffice)

If yes, is the quantum of mass equal to the mass of the electron?

My answer.

Your ridiculous reference to the quarks especially the t quark as debunking my statement concerning the electron representing a unit of charge and mass, is an indication of your debunking tactics. Electrons are the least massive of all stable particles, and cannot be reasonably compared to artificially created virtual particles, especially the t quark with a supposed mass comparable with an atom of tungsten, and virtual because its mean lifetime is calculated to be roughly 5×10−25 part of a second. To compare the t quark to the relative stability of charge and mass of an electron is physically and logically preposterous

 

And yes, I agree that further attempts at a debate with you would be a waste of my time. However, I would be interested in any replies you are able to post regarding my questions to you.

 

 

[Strange]

A review of your posts reveals a constant refusal to answer questions or statements by adhering to the concept that the best form of defence is to attack

 

I did what you requested by taking your claims seriously and analysing the consequences. The only reason this comes across as an "attack" is that it clearly shows that your idea is wrong. It is sad that you are unwilling to consider that possibility.

 

, thereby keep your opponent answering irrelevant questions

 

None of my questions have been irrelevant. They have been very carefully thought about and precisely worded to try and extract specific information from you. (Which is normally very hard because of your rambling style with important information buried in a wall of words.)

 

I wholeheartedly agree that a quantity of expended energy we refer to as a force

 

I do not understand why you think anyone will take you seriously when you make statements like this.

 

Force is not energy.

 

Even so you prefer to pretend that the word force does not basically requires the expenditure of energy by refusing to acknowledge the connection between the two words.

 

I never said that. I explicitly explained how force relates to energy. But you chose to ignore that and keep referring to force as energy.

 

To you the word force and energy are one and the same phenomenon with no attempt at explaining the difference.

 

 

I keep trying to explain to YOU what the difference between force and energy is. You keep equating force and energy.

 

Also, you have disregarded my statement regarding the slight difference between the horizontal acceleration of a kilogram mass by the application of a specified amount of force, a newton, and the 9,81 n stated to be the gravitational force acting on a kg of mass near sea level.

 

I did NOT ignore it.

 

I used this as the basis of a proposed test to determine whether your theory is more or less accurate than existing theory. Do you remember? It was only a couple of posts ago.

 

are you aware that there is an anomaly associated with the experiment to measure the magnitude of energy expended and represented as a newton.

 

Once again: a newton is NOT a measure of energy.

 

But, no, I am not aware of any such anomaly. Can you provide a reference to a description of it?

 

Your ridiculous reference to the quarks especially the t quark as debunking my statement concerning the electron representing a unit of charge and mass, is an indication of your debunking tactics.

 

Huh? I didn't mention quarks at. Did I? If so, can you say which post.

 

Electrons are the least massive of all stable particles

 

No they aren't. But even if they were, they are not a quantum of mass as other particles masses are not integer multiples of the electron mass. Therefore it is not the "unit of mass".

 

, and cannot be reasonably compared to artificially created virtual particles

 

I never mentioned virtual particles either.

 

To compare the t quark to the relative stability of charge and mass of an electron is physically and logically preposterous

 

I suppose it is a good thing I didn't do it then.

 

You have totally failed to address the fact that the predictions made by your theory are contradicted by experiment. Instead, you launch into an incoherent attack, full of straw man arguments and repeated errors, instead of a clear and rational defence of your theory.

 

Goodbye.

[I-try]

Strange.

No you did not refer to quarks in your replies. However, by many of the statements you have made concerning ?, you consistently presume to have an understanding. Therefore, when you stated: . There are particles with masses that are not integer multiples of the electron mass. Then, because according to ?, the quoted statement was also a reference to their charge, hence the statements regarding quarks. And no, I don't expect that you will understand that statement.

Regarding the anomaly referred to; there is no record in the literature that I can find that explains why during the experiment regarding the defining of a newton, the kilogram of matter was only displaced one half meter whilst achieving a velocity of one meter per second etc. Because you consider that your knowledge of physics far exceeds my lack of even a school child's knowledge of physics, you should have no trouble providing an explanation. By the way, ? automatically supplies an answer.

[Strange]

Therefore, when you stated: . There are particles with masses that are not integer multiples of the electron mass. Then, because according to ?, the quoted statement was also a reference to their charge, hence the statements regarding quarks. And no, I don't expect that you will understand that statement.

 

You are right. I don't understand.

 

It is quite simple. You claim that the electron is the quantum of mass. In which case the mass of a muon, for example, should be some integer multiple of the mass of the electron. It isn't. Therefore your hypothesis is wrong. It is as simple as that.

 

Bringing quarks into the matter is just bizarre.

 

Regarding the anomaly referred to; there is no record in the literature that I can find that explains why during the experiment regarding the defining of a newton, the kilogram of matter was only displaced one half meter whilst achieving a velocity of one meter per second etc. Because you consider that your knowledge of physics far exceeds my lack of even a school child's knowledge of physics, you should have no trouble providing an explanation.

 

I have no idea what you are talking about. You will have to be more specific.

 

By the way, ? automatically supplies an answer.

 

Except that two of its predictions have shown to be wrong. So why would anyone put any faith in more of your wild and, frankly, ignorant guesses.

 

OK. Thinking about this a bit more...

 

Regarding the anomaly referred to; there is no record in the literature that I can find that explains why during the experiment regarding the defining of a newton, the kilogram of matter was only displaced one half meter whilst achieving a velocity of one meter per second etc.

 

I don't know what "experiment" you are referring to, but I see nothing anomalous in what you say here. You realise, of course, that accelerating a 1kg mass with 1 newton will mean that, by definition, it achieves a speed of 1m/s after 1 second.

 

The distance travelled by an object under uniform acceleration is given by [math]s = v t + \frac{1}{2} a t^2[/math]

 

In this example, v = 0 m/s, a= 1 m/s², and t = 1 s and so the distance travelled is 0.5 m.

 

I realise this is pretty advanced stuff but perhaps you could make an effort to understand it.

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-calculate-time-and-distance-from-accelerati.html

https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=116

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/acceleration-velocity-d_1769.html

http://formulas.tutorvista.com/physics/acceleration-formula.html

 

The anomaly appears to be in your level of understanding rather than the definition of the newton. Instead of making up pseudo-science to fill the gaps in your knowledge, why not learn a little bit.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Strange

[elfmotat]

I-try, a lot of members have been very patient with you. Everyone has tried to explain that what you're saying is ill-defined, at best. (And deep down, I'm sure you already know this.) Your responses consist of pseudo-technobabble, and you're very confrontational to anyone who points out (obvious) flaws with your "theory." Why bother posting to a science forum then? If you're not interested in learning real science then why are you here? It seems like you just want praise and validation - finding out whether or not your ideas make sense and actually apply to reality appears to be a secondary concern. Just think of all the stuff you could have learned while you were busy writing all of these nonsense responses!

[I-try]

Elfmotat.

I will answer your post sentence by sentence.

First sentence. I-try, a lot of members have been very patient with you.

Answer. If you read my posts and subsequent answers from the beginning, you would find that you have been deceive because the overall attitude has been confrontation except for that of Hoola's posts. Your post is a mild example of uninformed confrontation.

Second sentence. Everyone has tried to explain that what you're saying is ill-defined, at best. (And deep down, I'm sure you already know this.)

Answer. Please supply an example where there has been an attempt at an understanding of my work. Frustration is part answer to your statement enclosed in brackets.

Frustration because there needs to be at least a part understanding of ?, and not assume that the lack of university education or of mathematics ensures that I am self deluded in the belief that ? has some value.

Third sentence. Why bother posting to a science forum then? If you're not interested in learning real science then why are you here.

Answer. I came to this forum due to a belief there may be somebody with a desire and interest to examine ?. That belief was centred on the fact that as a postulated foundation for physics, ? has to be able to provide logically based information starting from the fundamental dynamic lever of reality, up to conditions pertaining at the centre of our galaxy.

Forth sentence. It seems like you just want praise and validation

Answer. Yes please, I would much appreciate an honest evaluation of ?. However from the past attitude here, that hope is no longer there. By praise, do you mean the thrill of being told I am arrogant or have less knowledge of physics than a school child.

Fifth sentence, - finding out whether or not your ideas make sense and actually apply to reality appears to be a secondary concern.

Answer. Not correct. I would much appreciate if you would supply an answer to the controversial statements I have made on this forum. Will you supply an answer regarding the need to teach the concept of relativistic momentum instead of relativistic mass. If you don't agree, will you supply your reasons.

With regards Strange and his attitude to my work, I will supply you with the following example from post 14.

His question. Also, when you refer to "units of mass" are you thinking that mass should be quantised in the same way that charge is?

My answer. According to ?, the elementary charge exist only because the elementary mass particle in the form of an electron or a positron exists and their magnitude of mass is quantified in direct proportion to the magnitude of the parameters responsible either for their creation or for enabling their continued existence.

His response. That doesn't really answer the question.

 

Is mass (quantized in your model)? (A simple yes or no should suffice)

 

If yes, is the quantum of mass equal to the mass of the electron? End of quote

Now I will point out his method of diverting the debate back to his desired outcome. Without any questions regarding the part of my statement that he doesn't understand, he states that doesn't answer the question without providing reasons. Then proceeds to set the trap in the last two lines of his statement above by requesting a simple yes or no

My yes answer to his questions were based on ?, regarding the amount of energy needed to be amassed to an elementary matter particle state. In that case, represented by an electron of a positron.

By skim reading his last question, I read an a for a the and so he very elatedly proceeded with his demolition that included his assessment of my knowledge of physics. I have underlined the relevant part of my statement that he would not have had any knowledge of because it is not a part of mainstream knowledge. That underlined statement has relevance to why SR is so accurate. .

[Strange]

Please supply an example where there has been an attempt at an understanding of my work.

Because you often make this claim (even after people have spent time trying to discuss your idea) I deliberately set aside my “prejudices” for several posts in order to make sure I understood what you were claiming.

 

Unfortunately, as soon as this led me to pointing out some basic flaws in your argument, you simply reverted to calling this an “attack” and a “trap”.

 

Now I will point out his method of diverting the debate back to his desired outcome. Without any questions regarding the part of my statement that he doesn't understand, he states that doesn't answer the question without providing reasons. Then proceeds to set the trap in the last two lines of his statement above by requesting a simple yes or no

I had no “desired outcome”. I simply wanted to make sure I understood your idea so we could investigate the consequences.

 

The reason I did not dive in to the convoluted answer you gave is because past experience has shown me that leads to ever more complex and hard to follow responses.

 

I don’t see how asking for a yes/no answer to a binary question can be considered a “trap”. A property is either quantised or it isn’t. It can’t a be “slightly quantised” any more than you can be “slightly pregnant”.

 

I simply wanted to make sure I understood what you mean with you repeated references to “unit of mass”. So are you now saying that mass is not quantised? Or maybe that it is quantised but the electron mass is not the quantum of mass? Either way, that makes my objection to that point invalid.

 

However, you could have replied with “no, that is not what I mean by quantised” or some other explanation of where I had misunderstood. Instead you went off on a bizarre and irrelevant rant about quarks.

 

But lets forget that and move on.

 

There is still the substantial point that your theory predicts a decreasing effective mass with increasing acceleration, while SR predicts an increase in effective mass with increasing velocity. These are clearly contradictory and, sadly, experiment supports SR and not you. <shrug> Not much we can do to help you in that case.

 

Also, can you clarify what "experiment" you are referring to with respect to the "anomaly" in the measurement of the newton?

 

[I-try]

Strange.

 

I would advise you not to refer to your paste experiences regarding me. You may not appreciate my response.

 

Also stop trying to play the aggrieve tutor dealing with a recalcitrant student, and actually answer one of my questions: especially regarding the provided slight numerical difference between horizontal acceleration and gravitational acceleration as indicated in my challenge to you.

 

The implications of your opinion of my knowledge of theoretical physics contained in your posts, are mainly directed to other members of this forum, including the moderators, and your intention is glaringly obvious. You have eloquently provided your opinion of me.

 

In the final section of your post 83, you stated: But lets forget that and move on.

There is still the substantial point that your theory predicts a decreasing effective mass with increasing acceleration, while SR predicts an increase in effective mass with increasing velocity. These are clearly contradictory and, sadly, experiment supports SR and not you. <shrug> Not much we can do to help you in that case.

 

Also, can you clarify what "experiment" you are referring to with respect to the "anomaly" in the measurement of the newton?

 

Answer. Are you playing games by referring to acceleration in one instance and velocity in the other. I am well aware that velocity contains a directional component as well as speed.

Nevertheless, congratulations for at least making the effort to indicate the difference between ? and GR. Yes, the first part of your statement concerning ? is perhaps correct. ? can provide an instant by instant conceptual description regarding changes to parameters acting on an electron whilst it is undergoing acceleration due to an unbalanced externally applied force; also instant by instant acceleration due to the gravitational effect of the Earth's gravity. The time referred to is relative to the rate of oscillations of an electron.

In the process several anomalies are attempted to be answered such as: How does the electron know regarding the magnitude of past accelerations etceteras. Robin Pike made that query on a post in Classical Physics regarding gravitational acceleration of an electron.

 

As for relativistic mass that Einstein derived from his study of the slowly accelerated electron, that question has been answered and reasons given on several previous posts.

 

As for your last question, you appear to have forgotten that I gave you an answer in a recent previous post, and you replied by merely supplying the equation for calculating distance displaced relative to time. I have indicated to you that an anomaly exist, and therefore perhaps you can utilise your mathematical ability to provide an answer without the assistance of logic or further conceptual explanation. Remember your statements regarding the unnecessary need for logic and imagination or conceptual explanation regarding the advancement in the knowledge of physics.

[Strange]

answer one of my questions: especially regarding the provided slight numerical difference between horizontal acceleration and gravitational acceleration as indicated in my challenge to you.

 

This is what I have been trying to do. Let's just go through this again...

 

The only way of testing your theory (as with any theory) is by experimental data.

 

Unless you can think of an existing or new experiment that could detect the changed acceleration for a given force caused by gravity (I can't), then we need to find an alternative scenario where we can use the data to compare theories.

 

My reasoning was as follows:

 

You say that the difference in horizontal acceleration is due to a change in the effective mass due to its acceleration due to gravity.

 

(Please correct me if I am wrong.)

 

We therefore need to find a case where large enough accelerations are involved so that the effects of the decreased mass that you propose can be easily detected.

 

(Do you agree with that?)

 

Answer. Are you playing games by referring to acceleration in one instance and velocity in the other.

 

Not at all. Unless I have misunderstood, your theory predicts a change in effective mass caused by acceleration. Please correct me if I have misunderstood.

 

On the other hand, the theory we wish to compare this with (the currently accepted theory) is SR. This predicts a change in mass caused by velocity.

 

That is the only reason for mentioning both acceleration (the critical factor in your theory) and velocity (the critical factor in SR).

 

So we need an experiment where we can compare the effects of acceleration (your theory's predictions) and the effects of velocity (SR's predictions).

 

I have indicated to you that an anomaly exist, and therefore perhaps you can utilise your mathematical ability to provide an answer without the assistance of logic or further conceptual explanation.

 

I know you gave an answer before, but I'm afraid I am still not sure what anomaly you are referring to. (My reference to the equation for distance was just a guess about what you might have been describing. Apparently I guessed wrong. Sorry.)

 

Can you please explain exactly what anomaly you are referring to? Is this anomaly described anywhere (e.g. in a science magazine or web site or on Wikipedia)? Also, you mentioned an experiment for measuring the newton. Can you say exactly what experiment you are referring to? (Who did it, when, etc.)

Edited October 26, 2014 by Strange

[I-try]

hypervalent_iodine

I am aware that you will remove this post.

Your sudden closing of thread Gravity by I-try was far from even a pretence of fairness. Therefore if that is your attitude, you can also close this thread because I will not be posting further information on this forum; there are others where there may be persons interested in the fundamental nature of physics.

The following was my reply to Swansont that was gagged by your closing of that thread. And you should also look at the posts referred to.

 

Swansont said; In Newtonian physics, gravity is a force. There's nothing going on here that I have seen that suggest relativity needs to be invoked, especially in a manner so trivial as saying since gravity is not a force, therefore momentum is not conserved.

Answer to: In Newtonian physics, gravity is a force.

 

According to ?, gravity is also a force, and attempts to provide the following fundamental conceptual description of gravity in post numbers 21and 32.

The postulated fundamental difference between gravity and gravitation has been supplied in other posts.

 

With regards to the last part of your reply; a careful rereading of post number 47 leaves me wondering how you came to your stated conclusion.

[Mordred]

40 years and not once trying to apply mathematics to a model Are you kidding me?

 

Suddenly I don't feel so bad wasting a mere two years trying to get my model idea on dark energy to fit the well proven FLRW metric and related thermodynamic formulas. Just glad I learned my idea won't work.

 

thanks for making me feel better about myself

[I-try]

40 years and not once trying to apply mathematics to a model Are you kidding me?

 

Suddenly I don't feel so bad wasting a mere two years trying to get my model idea on dark energy to fit the well proven FLRW metric and related thermodynamic formulas. Just glad I learned my idea won't work.

 

thanks for making me feel better about myself

 

 

Mordred.

Had you bothered to examine my work, you would have found three examples of calculations derived from the application of logic, arithmetic and a calculator.

One introduced the idea that an electron undergoes a cycle that provides a time relative to an electron. The maximum rate of oscillation was provided.

 

The second calculation also provided a conceptual description why the electric force of an electron was so vastly superior to its gravitation effect.

 

The third calculation gave the very slight difference between acceleration of a kg of matter by gravitational effect, as opposed to horizontal acceleration of a kg of matter where the accelerating force has to be supplied from an external source. That challenge to Strange remains unanswered.

 

With regards to assisting you to feel good: Glad to be of assistance. Even so, I would advise that you were attempting to detect the nonexistent, because all energy is dark before enforcing an affect.

 

 

Strange. You haven't answered one of my questions to you, and appear to be now taking a more conciliatory attitude. Therefore, will you answer this question; a yes or now answer will also suffice.

 

Do you still hold to your previous stated belief that I am an idiot with regards to my knowledge of physics, based on my stated long term belief that gravity and gravitation are two differing phenomenons.

 

[Strange]

Do you still hold to your previous stated belief that I am an idiot with regards to my knowledge of physics, based on my stated long term belief that gravity and gravitation are two differing phenomenons.

 

I do not think you are an idiot. And if I ever said that, I apologise.

 

I do think your knowledge of physics is limited. (But so is mine.)

 

I have never managed to understand what you mean by the difference between gravity and gravitation.

[Mordred]

Your right I have no interest in studying your ideas. I prefer to study the ideas of ppl that can show the metrics behind their models.

 

Anything less is a waste of my time as it is like listening to a 10 year old who played the "Doctor" game give advise on how to perform a heart transplant

You recall the one with the bright red nose that went off everytime you touched the sides of the opening

PS I know precisely why my model idea doesn't work I performed the various mathematics on it and could not get it to match observational evidence regardless of what theory paradigm I used. LCDM, MOND, ADS/CFT,QFT or string. I tested it numerous theories. None if them would allow me to explain why the cosmological constant remains constant under my models premise but then again no model can answer that question. So my model doesn't improve our understanding of the cosmological constant therefore its useless

Edited October 30, 2014 by Mordred

[Strange]

The third calculation gave the very slight difference between acceleration of a kg of matter by gravitational effect, as opposed to horizontal acceleration of a kg of matter where the accelerating force has to be supplied from an external source. That challenge to Strange remains unanswered..

 

I have tried to address this multiple times. You either ignore it or accuse me of trying to trick you. You could explain why my analysis is wrong: have I misunderstood what you are claiming? have I deduced the wrong results?

 

Or perhaps you could propose an experiment where this could be tested if you don't like mine.

 

Now, reading what you have written above, it seems to say something very different from what you appeared to be saying earlier. So let's try again. Just to help you understand why I am confused by this:

 

1. I originally thought you meant that the acceleration due to gravity caused the object to lose mass. You didn't say this was wrong, so I am not sure if I misunderstood or not.

 

2. I have never been sure whether the horizontal versus vertical acceleration is significant or not.

 

3. Now it seems that you are saying that the acceleration produced by a given force of gravity is different from the acceleration produced by the same magnitude of force from some other source. Is that correct, or have I failed to understand again?

 

If it is that last one, then you would seem to be saying that gravitational mass and inertial mass are not equal. Is that the case?

[elfmotat]

Do you still hold to your previous stated belief that I am an idiot with regards to my knowledge of physics, based on my stated long term belief that gravity and gravitation are two differing phenomenons.

 

I think you're willfully ignorant, which I find infinitely more frustrating. I can get along with an idiot, but not with the willfully ignorant.

 

Regardless, your assertion that inertia in the direction normal to the gravitational field is dependent on the gravitational field strength violates the equivalence principle. So either the effect is so tiny that we haven't (or maybe can't) observed it and the equivalence principle is violated, or you're just wrong. Since your model is an ad-hoc assumption that doesn't really serve any explanatory purpose, it's safe to assume it's just plain wrong given a century's worth of data and convincing theoretical arguments in support of the equivalence principle.

[I-try]

Strange.

 

Thanks for your reassessment of my mentality and the other statement. I accept your statements in the same manner and spirit in which they are given.

 

My ability to apply physics in an industrial manner is non-existent. However, I do believe that ? possesses an ability to assist a better understanding of the fundamental dynamic nature underlying physics than that now prevailing.

 

You were exposed several times now to the manner in which I view the difference between gravity and gravitation. An explanation was provided on previous posts. However and since you state that you are trying to understand my work, ? and a comparison to that of GR is herein provided.

 

 

Gr is able to account for the rotation of Mercury's aphelion

 

GR states that gravitation is not a force, and gravity only results because matter is compelled to follow geodesic pathways through space. GR also states that matter warps space/time.

 

GR requires and provides measurements regarding the deflecting of light rays by the warping of space/time.

 

The concept of relativistic mass was derived from the idea of a slowly accelerated electron supposed to prevent it from radiating, and so enable the accelerating force to be constantly added to increase the mass of the accelerating electron. You know how GR accounts for matters inability to exceed the speed of light.

 

 

? attempts to provide a logical fundamental dynamic base for physics.

 

? requires that matters mass and charge plus outgoing electric field was created originally by the establishment of its gravity field. Originally gravity created matter particles and eternally assists to maintain their continued existence.

 

? requires that light rays are deflected in proportion to the strength of the gravity field they travel through, and explains why.

 

? states that gravitation is not a force, and the warping of space results from the eternal interaction between gravity and matter.

 

Gravitation results from the reduction in the mass of competing bodies in proportion to the inverse of the square of the distance between them, and resulting from a proportional reduction of the gravity field strength between them.

 

According to ?, gravitation does not produce a field. There is no such field as a Gravitational field.

 

There is the act of pulling, but no possibility of a pulling force.

 

? proposes and explains why science should refer to relativistic momentum and not relativistic mass.

Etcetera and so on.

 

[Strange]

OK. But could you explain which of these interpretations of your statement is correct (or neither). Then we can discuss what it means in more detail.

 

1. I originally thought you meant that the acceleration due to gravity caused the object to lose mass. You didn't say this was wrong, so I am not sure if I misunderstood or not.

 

...

 

3. Now it seems that you are saying that the acceleration produced by a given force of gravity is different from the acceleration produced by the same magnitude of force from some other source. Is that correct, or have I failed to understand again?

 

If it is that last one, then you would seem to be saying that gravitational mass and inertial mass are not equal. Is that the case?

[I-try]

Mordred.

Don't be downhearted. Try explaining something closer to home that may have an effect on our society.

Ilfmotat.

 

Like everybody on this format you are entitled to your opinion.

 

With regards to the remainder of your post, I can now see why you have such a low opinion of me. Why not try to understand something of ? by reading my posts, before attributing such a weird statement to ?.

[Strange]

Why not try to understand something of ? by reading my posts, before attributing such a weird statement to ?.

 

As you will see, that was one of my interpretations of what you meant. Perhaps you could clarify, as it appears that is incorrect.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Either the thread moves on to a more concrete discussion (ie with no discussion of personality and characteristics of the membership) or it gets locked.

 

A full mathematical model might be beyond our reach but could we at least attempt to think of testable scenarios. the op has intimated - or at least the membership has inferred - that this would violate equivalence principle; surely some progress towards a conclusion or at least a prediction could be made from here

 

[elfmotat]

With regards to the remainder of your post, I can now see why you have such a low opinion of me. Why not try to understand something of ? by reading my posts, before attributing such a weird statement to ?.

 

Let me show you what you said:

 

Also stop trying to play the aggrieve tutor dealing with a recalcitrant student, and actually answer one of my questions: especially regarding the provided slight numerical difference between horizontal acceleration and gravitational acceleration as indicated in my challenge to you.

 

Strange interpreted this to mean:

 

You say that the difference in horizontal acceleration is due to a change in the effective mass due to its acceleration due to gravity.

 

(Please correct me if I am wrong.)

 

You did not correct him. Instead, the only relevant reply you gave was this:

 

Gravitation results from the reduction in the mass of competing bodies in proportion to the inverse of the square of the distance between them, and resulting from a proportional reduction of the gravity field strength between them.

 

And since I have no idea what that means, I assumed that Strange's interpretation was correct. I merely restated Strange's interpretation, albeit with slightly different wording. So if that's not what you meant, then perhaps now would be a good time to clarify.

 

I think this is an issue of communication. You're using convoluted nonstandard language and it's causing confusion.

[Mordred]

Don't worry I'm not downhearted having the ability to disprove my own model simply means I learned from it.

Solving the cosmological problem would have had a huge effect on our scientific society lol

I was fully aware of how challenging it is when I started so I am not surprised of the results. However the effort of trying taught me far more than mere study of textbooks.

[I-try]

Strange.

Your post number 96 indicates you are unable to understand my posts for whatever reason you may state.

 

When you refer to acceleration, then there is a lot of differences between acceleration of an electron due to the gravitational effect, and the horizontal acceleration of an electron by the application of a force originating from another source. We have a long way to go before you would be aware of the difference. The parameters acting in each case are the same except for one, and the changes and sequence in which the differing phenomena change are fundamentally different. The magnitude of instantaneous changing relates to the creation of an electron's magnetic field, radiation to the normal to direction of motion, the electrical effect, gravity field, kinetic energy, longitudinal and transverse changes to mass distribution within the electron, etceteras, and that which enables uniform motion of a particle or body when accelerating force no longer acts. Your question regarding your idea of effective mass may probably be contained therein.

 

I fail to understand why members are attempting to prove ? to be wrong by violation of the principle of equivalence. I have posted information regarding the amassing of energy to form virtual particles and provided reasons for the propagation of photons in the form mainly of waves and fleeting partial amassing to form a virtual particle nature. Along with that information, a statement was made to the effect that a photon cannot generate a gravity field. There were no challenge then.

 

Although I have already provided you with an assurance that the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass is not being questioned, you and others appear to believe that it is. Please take note of the following statements.

 

The gravitational mass always appears to remain unchanged during experiments, however the moment an experiment is performed on the inertial mass there is immediate noticeable change.

 

According to ?, the exact equivalence of gravitational mass and inertial mass ranks with the laws of the conservation of energy and of momentum. Irrespective of wherever mankind may wander in the universe, that equivalence will always be found to be correct, simply because they are one and the same mass, the energy content of which is given by E=MC^2.

 

Nowhere in this universe is it possible to perform an experiment that can violate the exact equivalence of the gravitational and inertial mass because the magnitude of a particle or body's mass is precisely dictated by the magnitude of the prevailing local parameters.

 

With regards to Einstein's reference to a person in a lift in a gravitational field, and the same person and lift accelerating in a volume of space void of gravity, then that is a good analogy because according to my challenge, the approximate difference may be only one divided by 30,583,019. The difference between the acceleration of one kg of matter by the gravitational effect due to Earth's gravity field, and the need to apply energy from an external source to achieve identical horizontal acceleration to that of gravitational acceleration. Therefore Einstein had every reason to believe that his analogy was exactly correct.

 

With regards to the referred to differing methods of acceleration, the same magnitudes of force is believed to be involved in both cases, and according to ?, there is a difference due to the presence of a parameter acting in the case of the horizontal acceleration and absent in the gravitational acceleration. Thereby there is confusion regarding the use of the 9.81 n as an exact measure of the Gravitational effect.

 

Again I ask; is my above calculation approximately correct.

Strange before you ask me how that calculation was derived, please check back to the posts where that information was provided to you.

And again I state that I do not claim that ? is correct in every detail, and I am well aware that it requires the help of physicists and mathematicians to make it more understandable, and eliminate any mistakes. All I seek is a honest evaluation. I will leave it to a fair minded viewer to assess whether that has occurred,