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

[elfmotat]

Along with that information, a statement was made to the effect that a photon cannot generate a gravity field. There were no challenge then.

 

Then cosmology really wouldn't work, because cosmological models need to take into account the gravitational effects of radiation.

 

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.

 

So your idea is untestable?

[I-try]

elfmotat

 

Mass results from the amassing of energy, and the energy propagated as a photon results from a reversal of the mass forming process. An eternal cycle throughout the universe. An eternal cycle of energy to mass and a return to energy. There is no requirement for a photon to possess an ability to generate a gravity field to enable its physical reality to constitute a minute active part of the cosmos.

 

I would be intensely interested if you can describe how an entity that is only a unidirectional propagation of energy, can generate a gravity field.

 

With regards to proof of ?. Then an ability to provide a logical explanation of simple anomalies may play a part. I am awaiting the results of the ESA comet orbiting spacecraft Rosetta with much interest.

[elfmotat]

elfmotat

 

Mass results from the amassing of energy, and the energy propagated as a photon results from a reversal of the mass forming process. An eternal cycle throughout the universe. An eternal cycle of energy to mass and a return to energy. There is no requirement for a photon to possess an ability to generate a gravity field to enable its physical reality to constitute a minute active part of the cosmos.

 

I would be intensely interested if you can describe how an entity that is only a unidirectional propagation of energy, can generate a gravity field.

 

With regards to proof of ?. Then an ability to provide a logical explanation of simple anomalies may play a part. I am awaiting the results of the ESA comet orbiting spacecraft Rosetta with much interest.

 

Taking matter into account doesn't automatically include radiation, that's just silly.

 

Photons generate a gravitational field because they have nonzero stress-energy, which tells us by the Einstein field equations that they generate curvature. Cosmological models must include radiation in, for example, the FLRW metric when modeling the expansion of the universe. If radiation did not generate a gravitational effect, cosmology would not work.

[Strange]

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.

 

OK. But ...

 

 

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.

 

If a change is not measured for gravitational mass but is measured for inertial mass, then this is a violation the equivalence principle.

 

 

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.

 

Saying that gravity and acceleration are not identical is a violation of the equivalence principle.

 

You say that the difference should be on the order of 10^-7. However, the equivalence principle has been tested to far, far higher precision than this. This would appear to falsify your theory. (Although you obviously won't accept that.)

 

 

Thereby there is confusion regarding the use of the 9.81 n as an exact measure of the Gravitational effect.

 

This is not an exact measure. It is an average based on the geoid used to model the Earth.

 

By the way, you never did explain what you thought was anomalous about the measurement of the newton, or which experiment you were referring to.

 

 

All I seek is a honest evaluation.

 

You deny you are violating the equivalence principle and then immediately state two ways in which the equivalence principle is violated by your theory. This may be that you are, again, just communicating your ideas in a very confusing way. Or it may be that your idea is fundamentally flawed.

 

Your theory is not based on any evidence or sound theory. It seems to be a series of ad-hoc assumptions based on your flawed "common sense" understanding of how things should work. As seen with the discussion of conservation of angular momentum and your curious notion that this is only accounted for when the Earth returns to its starting point; and the even stranger (and still unexplained) idea that the Earth's orbit should not be stable.

 

That's about as honest as I can be. I know it isn't what you seek but what can I do, I'm not going to lie to you.

[I-try]

elfmotat.

 

Have it your way, I am silly to believe that irrespective of their position in the universe, matter particles will always radiate photons in frequencies proportional to their thermal condition.

 

Before attempting to answer your last statement in post number 103, will you explain why you continue to refer to gravitational force, despite Einstein stating that gravitational force is an illusion. In that regard, according to ?, there is the reality of the gravitational effect that is the precursor of the force currently referred to as gravitational force.

 

In that regard I will ask you the same question that Strange has not answered. Do you believe that gravity and gravitation are one and the same phenomenon viewed under differing circumstances.

[elfmotat]

When did I ever use the word "force"? That's such an odd thing to pick out anyway. "Force of gravity" can refer to a number of things, be it Newton's force law, spacetime geometry, or spin-2 massless fields.

[I-try]

Strange.

You are expert in the introduction of confusion. You discount the word APPEARS whilst placing full emphasis on the remainder of the sentence.

 

As an electrical engineer, you would well know that the mass and therefore inertia of an electron is measured by the amount of path curvature during deflection relative to the strength of a repulsive magnetic field normal to its trajectory. During that acceleration there is no indication of changes to an electron's attributes, as is outlined and required by ?. However, when a body of matter is forced to accelerate, changes to the phenomena resulting from the change of position relative to the original position and “time” become obvious.

I will ignore the other attempts at confusion in your post except for your last statement.

I am in full agreement that the gravitational mass is equal to the inertial mass. With regards to why I state that photons do not possess an ability to generate a gravitational effect, then to obtain an idea of why I hold that belief, I suggest you refer back to the post containing my detailed description of the generation and propagation of a photon.

The above was attempted to be explained previous and was ignored.

 

 

[Strange]

Strange.

You are expert in the introduction of confusion. You discount the word APPEARS whilst placing full emphasis on the remainder of the sentence.

 

Once again you attempt to ignore the substantive issues (and shift the source of confusion). The word "appears" does not appear in the following:

 

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.

 

Here you very clear state that there is a difference between the effect of gravity and the effect of acceleration.

 

Please explain why:

 

1. This is NOT a violation of the equivalence principle.

 

2. Your hypothesis is not falsified by the fact that this has been tested to a precision of about 10^-12. This would easily detect the difference you claim should exist.

[I-try]

Strange.

The statement I referred to that contained the word Perhaps is not contained in the quote you refer to in post number 108. simply because you are referring to a different statement. In the statement you refer to, your attempt to verbal me and that is not appreciated. In the statement quoted by you, I stated that the difference may be, and you claim I stated Quote: Here you very clear state that there IS a difference between the effect of gravity and the effect of acceleration. I am clearly suggesting that there MAY be a difference and challenging you to mathematically prove my suggestion to be incorrect.

 

I refer to my work with a question mark because I have never claimed it to be correct or beyond falsification. Your reference to ? being falsified as you state at the bottom of your post, MAY not be correct for the following reason that has been previously stated.

 

Einstein very correctly attempted to remove the concept of gravitation being a force, by stating that such a concept is an illusion.

 

? agrees with Einstein and supplies the following explanation.

The gravity field of the Earth acting on the gravity field of a kg of matter, cause an interference to the gravity field of the kg of matter such as to produce a gravitational effect possibly equal to 9.81 n.

 

My challenge to you Strange was to explain if gravitation is not a force, from where and from what is the 9.81 n derived; hence the question concerning the difference between vertical acceleration due to the gravitational effect, and horizontal acceleration that requires the application of 9.81 n derived from an external source. An explanation was provided regarding from where the 9,81 n is derived, leaving only the need for a mathematical and perhaps a conceptual interpretation of any difference.

 

I have supplied an approximate estimation of the possible difference, whilst you consistently procrastinate by refusing to provide a numerical answer to that challenge. .

Yes I believe that the gravitational mass is exactly equal to the inertial mass because they represent the equality of the magnitude of energy present in both cases.

And you Strange should stop hiding behind statements that obviously refer to the precision found for the exact equivalence of the gravitational and inertial mass; that is not in doubt.

I have asked you several questions that you refuse to answer. I will ask one of them again: do you still regard gravity and gravitation as one and the same phenomenon?

Also, are you attempting to provide a reason to have this thread closed?

 

 

 

[I-try]

elfmotat

 

My question to you was not intended to confuse. Because you were so convinced that a photon must generate a gravitational field and suggested that thereby ? was falsified, I asked you the same question that Strange refused to answer and that is: do you believe that gravity and gravitation are one and the same phenomenon.

 

If Einstein is correct regarding gravitational force being an illusion, why then should you place so much emphasis on the photon falsifying ?, when gravitation force is regarded as an illusion, and gravity only existing because matter is compelled to follow geodesics pathways in space-time.

[Mordred]

Actually according to GR light or enough photons can in fact generate gravity. Even gravity waves can generate gravity.

 

This is because GR ties energy-density and momentum to gravity unlike Newtonian gravity which is due to mass.

 

[latex]e=\sqrt{p^2c^2+(m_oc^2)^2}[/latex]

Set [latex]m_o=0[/latex]

 

Momentum [latex]p=\frac{h\lambda}{c}[/latex]

 

This ties into the stress energy momentum tensor of the Einstein field equations

This lengthy textbook covers the above he includes a section on cosmology applications of GR

 

http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf

 

"lecture notes on General Relativity" by Mathius Blau.

 

Extremely good book especially since its free.

900+ pages

Edited November 3, 2014 by Mordred

[Strange]

I am clearly suggesting that there MAY be a difference and challenging you to mathematically prove my suggestion to be incorrect.

 

OK. OK. Picky, picky.

 

If there were that then difference then it would violate the equivalence principle. Better?

 

Your hypothesis cannot be disproved mathematically (because it isn't derived mathematically, therefore there is no derivation to be challenged). Similarly, the equivalence principle cannot be proved or disproved mathematically. That is why people continue to create ever more accurate experiments to test it. The equivalence principle is a consequence of GR works, so the hope is that by finding that the equivalence principle does not hold, that this will show an error in GR. So far, no luck.

 

However, like any scientific hypothesis or theory, "?" can be tested by experiment. The equivalence principle has been tested in many different ways. If there is a difference between gravitational and inertial mass then it is far smaller than you suggest. There is no way to prove it is zero or to measure it as exactly zero. But, so far, it appears to be zero, within the limits of current measurements.

 

My challenge to you Strange was to explain if gravitation is not a force, from where and from what is the 9.81 n derived

 

It isn't derived. It is measured. You can calculate it from the mass and radius of the Earth, if you wish. This would use Newton's equation for gravity, which is accurate enough for this purpose. If you want, you can also use the full equations of GR, but I doubt this is necessary.

 

The standard value is: 9.80665 m/s², which is "a nominal midrange value on Earth, originally based on the acceleration of a body in free fall at sea level at a geodetic latitude of 45°. Although the actual acceleration of free fall on Earth varies according to location, the above standard figure is always used for metrological purposes. (The actual average sea-level acceleration on Earth is slightly less.)"

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

 

So, if it is "derived" at all, that is done by modelling the Earth.

 

I have supplied an approximate estimation of the possible difference, whilst you consistently procrastinate by refusing to provide a numerical answer to that challenge.

 

Any possible difference must be less than 1 part in 10^-14, which is about 1/10,000,000th of the value you suggest. Is that not good enough?

 

Yes I believe that the gravitational mass is exactly equal to the inertial mass because they represent the equality of the magnitude of energy present in both cases.

 

Then the difference in acceleration you suggest MAY exist will not exist.

 

I have asked you several questions that you refuse to answer. I will ask one of them again: do you still regard gravity and gravitation as one and the same phenomenon?

 

I don't know what questions I haven't answered. I certainly haven't refused to answer them (as we are getting picky about word choices now). I have answered those I can and those I understand.

 

I don't understand the difference between the words gravity and gravitation. I googled this. There were several different claims made for the difference. For example, "gravity is used for gravity on Earth, while gravitation is used more universally" - that sounds pretty bogus to me, but what do I know. Another suggestion was that gravity is the general principle (the "field") while gravitation is the force felt as a result of that. Hmmmm.... maybe. And then another site gave it the other way round: gravitation is the more general concept and gravity is the force (as described by Newton).

 

So it seems like different people treat these two words as different in different ways. I'm not sure what distinction you are making.

 

There was a question about the "anomaly" in measuring the newton. I have asked for clarification of what this anomaly is, and what experiment you are referring to so that I can attempt to answer it. But I still have no idea what anomaly you are referring to.

 

Also, are you attempting to provide a reason to have this thread closed?

 

Why or how would I do that. I have no such powers.

If Einstein is correct regarding gravitational force being an illusion, why then should you place so much emphasis on the photon falsifying ?, when gravitation force is regarded as an illusion, and gravity only existing because matter is compelled to follow geodesics pathways in space-time.

 

Whatever term you use (gravitation, gravity, gravitational force or anything else) photons produce it. So if your theory says they don't than it is wrong in that respect.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Strange

[I-try]

Mordred.

? is based on a proposed conceptual description of the fundamental dynamic nature of basic physics, that underlies and is proposed by ? as a base for physics at our level of reality.

As stated many times now, ? extends from an idea of basic reality, and up through various levels to conditions at the centre of our galaxy. It is comprehensive due to each physical statement automatically following from the previous and providing support for the next statement.

The provision of a concept of gravity and gravitational effect resulted from the extension from one level to the next level. In that regard the gravity refers to the mass of matter, the fundamental nature of which is presently not known.

 

With regards to gravity waves as now desperately being attempted to provide evidence they may exist by the reference to perturbation to the polarization of CBMR; irrespective of such attempts, ? stated at least 35 years ago that those waves do not exist. The non existent cannot be detected. Yes I know, we will never know if we don't try. Even so, that endeavour has cost a huge amount of brain power and money, and NASA was proposing to send two spacecraft into orbit to form an interferometer in space. Had the money been available it would have been more money wasted.

 

Regarding your reference to Newtonian gravity, I will provide more in another post.

 

[Mordred]

All forms of energy or energy density regardless of type or source in sufficient amounts can exert gravity.

That is according to the Einstien field equations. I have zero interest in your personal model. I will continue to use GR and when its still accurate to a good approximation such as Euclidean non relativistic Newtonian.

[I-try]

Strange

You state : Your hypothesis cannot be disproved mathematically (because it isn't derived mathematically, therefore there is no derivation to be challenged). Similarly, the equivalence principle cannot be proved or disproved mathematically. That is why people continue to create ever more accurate experiments to test it.

 

Answer.

The instant by instant description of the horizontal acceleration of an electron, and the instant by instant acceleration of an electron due to the gravitational effect provided by ?, would help to conceptually vindicate it.

 

You state: If there is a difference between gravitational and inertial mass then it is far smaller than you suggest.

 

Answer

I have consistently stated that ? finds no difference regarding the exact equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass. You make your statements from ignorance of my work

 

You state:

I don't understand the difference between the words gravity and gravitation. I googled this. There were several different claims made for the difference. For example, "gravity is used for gravity on Earth, while gravitation is used more universally" - that sounds pretty bogus to me, but what do I know. Another suggestion was that gravity is the general principle (the "field") while gravitation is the force felt as a result of that. Hmmmm.... maybe. And then another site gave it the other way round: gravitation is the more general concept and gravity is the force (as described by Newton).

So it seems like different people treat these two words as different in different ways. I'm not sure what distinction you are making.

 

Answer.

I have provided my version of the difference several times.

 

Quote

Also, are you attempting to provide a reason to have this thread closed?

You state: Why or how would I do that. I have no such powers.

 

Answer.

You are well aware of the moderator warning regarding condition for the allowance for this thread to remain unlocked. I am required to answer your questions and you are insuring that the debate has become boringly repetitive.

[Strange]

The instant by instant description of the horizontal acceleration of an electron, and the instant by instant acceleration of an electron due to the gravitational effect provided by ?, would help to conceptually vindicate it.

 

The only thing that can vindicate or disprove it is by testing it against experimental data (as with any theory). I have suggested ways that this could be done. You say these are irrelevant because they are based on a misunderstanding of your theory. Fair enough.

 

Maybe you can suggest a way to test your theory?

 

I have consistently stated that ? finds no difference regarding the exact equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass. You make your statements from ignorance of my work

 

But you do say that acceleration caused by gravity will be (may be) different from that caused by a force. (I think.) You suggest that this could be different by a factor of 1 in 30,583,019.

 

That is exactly what would be detected by tests of the "weak equivalence principle". This is actually easier to test than the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass, which is why it has been done to such high accuracy.

 

But again, if you think those tests are not relevant, perhaps you can suggest a test that will potentially disprove your theory? That is how science proceeds.

 

 

You are well aware of the moderator warning regarding condition for the allowance for this thread to remain unlocked.

 

There is a request, on the previous page, for you to provide some sort of testable scenario. That is all I am suggesting, as well.

[I-try]

Strange.

You state: Maybe you can suggest a way to test your theory?

 

Answer.

I have provided a way to test ?. The ESA spacecraft Rosetta in the process of doing so now. I have previously posted the details.

 

You state: But you do say that acceleration caused by gravity will be (may be) different from that caused by a force. (I think.) You suggest that this could be different by a factor of 1 in 30,583,019.

 

Answer.

I am very careful in the use of the words gravity and gravitation because they are different phenomenons. The difference was explained to you in earlier posts. In your statement you say gravity when I said gravitational effect. And yes, the suggested difference could amount to 1 in 30,583,019. Perhaps you may be prepared to use your mathematical ability to check my calculations.

 

[Strange]

I have provided a way to test ?. The ESA spacecraft Rosetta in the process of doing so now. I have previously posted the details.

 

OK. We will have to wait and see.

 

I am very careful in the use of the words gravity and gravitation because they are different phenomenons. The difference was explained to you in earlier posts. In your statement you say gravity when I said gravitational effect. And yes, the suggested difference could amount to 1 in 30,583,019. Perhaps you may be prepared to use your mathematical ability to check my calculations.

 

Your calculation for this was given in post #67:

 

The magnitude of the extra force is derived from the number of newtons (9.81) now believed to be due to the Earth’s gravitational acceleration of the kilogram mass, divided into what I hope is a rough approximation of the theoretical number of newtons (300,000,000) required to accelerate the kilogram of rest mass to the speed of light in one second.

 

I'm not going to try and get to grips with the full reasoning behind this claim, but I will just point out a couple of problems:

 

One is that it is not possible to accelerate something to the speed of light.

 

The other problem is that if you provide that constant force for one second, the final speed will be significantly less than the speed of light (I am too tired to work it out right now). It would require either an infinite time or an infinite force to approach the speed of light.

 

Also, why 1 second? That seems completely arbitrary.

 

But apart from that, your calculation consists of dividing 300,000,000 by 9.81. (I make this 30,581,040 but the difference is insignificant, given the possible range of values for g.) There is nothing to argue about in this calculation. One could argue about the reasoning behind it, but ultimately it comes down to measurement. So far, all measurements are consistent to a high degree of accuracy with existing theory (and therefore not with yours). Take from that what you will.

[I-try]

Mordred.

 

You say: Posted Yesterday, 09:00 PM

All forms of energy or energy density regardless of type or source in sufficient amounts can exert gravity.
That is according to the Einstien field equations. I have zero interest in your personal model. I will continue to use GR and when its still accurate to a good approximation such as Euclidean non relativistic Newtonian.

 

Answer

You mean perhaps an energy density like the Sun or us. However, the Sun does not exert gravity, it exerts a gravitational effect commonly called the pull of gravity or gravitational pull. I will state again that there is no such force as a pulling force. You then continue to state that (and being a scientist or having stated an interest in the advancement in the knowledge of physics) you are content with the present state of the how and the why of physics.

That appears to me to be a self centred attitude, given the possible benefit to humanity if the Gravitational Thermodynamic Effect represents physical reality. .

 

In a previous post to you, there was notification of intention to provide further information regarding gravity and gravitation. That was a reference to my intention to provide the mathematical competent members of this forum with a means of using their ability to perhaps solve the anomaly regarding the excess acceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft during its bypass of Jupiter. The motivation being the benefit to ?. In that regard, your zero interest in ? is also the general attitude of members of this forum, and so that information will be emailed to a friendly mathematician. If he accepts and succeeds, you will hear of the success via the media.

Strange.

I am well aware of the fact that a matter particle or any thing else cannot be accelerated beyond the fastest moving phenomenon in the universe. I have supplied my reason for making that statement.

 

I subscribe to the concept of relativistic momentum and not to relativistic mass. I have posted my reasons for that belief.

 

I referred to one second because that is the time period that a given force is applied to displace a kg of matter a distance of half a meter whilst achieving a velocity of one meter consistent with the final part of the referred to time period.

 

Thanks for providing your calculation for my believed difference between acceleration due to gravitation and horizontal acceleration. And with regards to argument, I stated because the difference was so small, Einstein's belief in his two lift explanation was well within the bounds of a reasonable assumption. Even so, that difference did not violate the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass. It simply implies that the 9.81 n due to the gravitational effect is too high by that amount. ? provided the reason for making that calculation.

[Mordred]

You really have no clue do you. Spacetime curvature is a distibution curve. What is it distributing? It is distributing energy mass. In other words it is exactly the same as a pressure distribution. If you thought about the term stress energy tenser and understood differential geometry you would realize that. A higher energy density per volume is the exact same as a higher pressure. With the correct equation of state applied. Pressure exerts force.

 

Your whole argument is meaningless. As spacetime cuvature is a pressure/energy density distribution.

 

Just like inertia is resistance to momentum. Inertia is a measure of mass

 

mass ie inertial mass is a property whose only influence is solely inertia. It is a resistance to changes in momentum

 

energy is a property of particles it does NOT have its own unique and distinquishable property or essence.

 

 

You sit here and preach to us your model ideas but have spent 40 years of being told "Do the math" and you never bothered.

 

you don't even fully understand the terminology as the terminology reflects the mathematics.

 

 

Learn to listen learn to learn but stop preaching to those that have done the work to learn the terminology and mathematics.

 

The worse insult is that you wrote a book on your ideas which will only cause trouble for any student who buys your book.

I provided the mainstream formulas and provided a peer reviewed professional article in support of my statement. I will listen to those professionals over your misguided opinion. Especially due to the fact you have zero msthematical support

As far as the article goes I found it better written that Walds General Relativity but for the new student I recommend Principles of General Relativity by Bapowell who sticks strictly to Minkowskii. He also has years of experience answering forum posts. On a different forum.

As far as the self centered comment I only listen to those that "Does the math"

 

Am I happy with the current mathematics and terminology? Absolutely. The metrics make extremely accurate predictions when used in the right applications. Newtons force laws work in most peoples everyday existance. All metrics are good approximations at best. Including GR

[Strange]

And with regards to argument, I stated because the difference was so small, Einstein's belief in his two lift explanation was well within the bounds of a reasonable assumption.

 

Although this has now been validated to very high levels of accuracy. Why doesn't this rule out your theory?

 

 

I refer to my work with a question mark because I have never claimed it to be correct or beyond falsification.

 

And yet you reject every piece of evidence that contradicts it, you reject all attempts to explain why it is based on false principles, and you reject all discussion other than people agreeing with you.

[I-try]

Mordred.

Judging from your post number 120, I can well believe you when you state that you have zero interest in ?. Your first statement of that post regarding energy and pressure was subjected to a fundamental dynamic analyses in one of my early post.

 

You state: Just like inertia is resistance to momentum. Inertia is a measure of mass

I would suggest that statement would be improved by stating that the magnitude of the inertia of a matter particle when attempting to resist changes to its momentum, is dependent on the quantity of the amassed energy composing it.

 

You state: energy is a property of particles it does NOT have its own unique and distinquishable property or essence.

 

In my opinion, that statement indicates a sad lack of understanding of the fundamental dynamic nature on which our physics is based.

 

You state: You sit here and preach to us your model ideas but have spent 40 years of being told "Do the math" and you never bothered.

No Mordred, I have spent more than 40 years providing ? to universities without any replies except for two who stated that they would like to do more than glancing through my work but they did not have the spare time. Perhaps the fact that the developing gravity wave detecting adventure was gaining popularity may have something to do with my lack of success.

There were physicists who stated an interest to read ?, there were never any replies.

 

You stated: The worse insult is that you wrote a book on your ideas which will only cause trouble for any student who buys your book.

 

Calm your fears, it is not a text book. It was published with the aid of an American self publishing company, and now lies buried in millions of more popular literature such as fictional novels mainly covering adventures in the sleazy side of humanity. There is also a huge number of fictional science novels. I was not advised to learn mathematics. I was advised to use my power of imagination to write fiction but the gravitation dynamic effect kept me chained to this quest. Yes I know, I followed that advice to write fiction and now I am attempting to impose it on this forum.

 

? was available free of charge for several years via a non peer review Journal. How do I find a peer whom has made a study of the fundamental dynamic nature of matter.

[Strange]

 

except for two who stated that they would like to do more than glancing through my work but they did not have the spare time. ...

There were physicists who stated an interest to read ?, there were never any replies.

 

Having read a few articles by academics about how they respond to this sort of thing (and having been the "nominated person"{because of my patience, believe it or not} to handle the crank calls at an engineering company) I suspect they were just being polite. Most people will just put this sort of thing straight in the bin. A few will send a standard, bland but polite, reply along the lines of "Thank you for your interesting idea ... Unfortunately I don't have time ... I wish you luck in your future endeavours ..."

 

A very few will engage with the respondent and attempt to explain their errors. There is a fantastic article by a mathematician about the various people he was contacted by who thought they had found a way to trisect an angle (despite the fact it has been proved to be impossible). He even went out of his way to meet some of the people. It is a fascinating and quite touching read.

http://web.mst.edu/~lmhall/WhatToDoWhenTrisectorComes.pdf

[Mordred]

The definition is decent on inertia. However not all particles is a form of matter. Only fermions form matter. Bosons do not you can have an infinite number of bosons occupy the same space. Only one fermion can occupy the same volume

 

How would you measure intrinsic energy without measuring its influence on a particle? Ever thought of changing intrinsic energy to potential energy?

Edited November 4, 2014 by Mordred

[I-try]

Strange.

 

Posted Today, 06:00 PM

I-try, on 04 Nov 2014 - 12:43 PM, said:

And with regards to argument, I stated because the difference was so small, Einstein's belief in his two lift explanation was well within the bounds of a reasonable assumption.

 

You stated: Although this has now been validated to very high levels of accuracy. Why doesn't this rule out your theory?

 

Answer.

Because ? agrees with the exact equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass. It is physically impossible for them not to be equal because they are one and the same mass. However, and to enlighten further, I will supply the following information.

 

Presently, Newtonian gravitational effect has been measured to a high degree of accuracy except for a slight over estimation with regards the 9,81 n. Even so, that accuracy only applies to presently known physics; the excess acceleration of Pioneer and other spacecraft is an indication of that fact. ? requires that there are other unrecognised phenomenon involved when dealing with gravitational effect acting on spacecraft. With regards to the two lift explanation, there is a retarding phenomenon acting (I referred to it in an earlier post) during the horizontal acceleration that is not acting during the gravitational induced acceleration.

In that regard, and as stated several times before, ? can supply an instant by instant (time relative to an electron) description of an electron during horizontal and vertical acceleration.

 

I refer to my work with a question mark because I have never claimed it to be correct or beyond falsification.

 

You state: And yet you reject every piece of evidence that contradicts it, you reject all attempts to explain why it is based on false principles, and you reject all discussion other than people agreeing with you.

 

Answer.

You have supplied evidence from presently believed concepts of the nature of matter, and refuse to examine ?. That would be because you consider me to be a self deluding, miss guided, obstinate old fool.

Despite what you may presently believe, if the two lift example has been examined to such high precision, then that is just another example of the ability of ?, because it predicts a discrepancy equal to only 1 in 30,583,019. the difference between the mainstream view and that of ?.

I will refer you to my above answer for the reason for a slight difference.

You have a weird idea of agreement received during this discussion..