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

[I-try]

Strange.

On several earlier posts sufficient to inform those interested, the use of ? in future was to be read as referring to my work. Those new to the thread would be informed if they started with post number 1.

 

Inatfaal.

Thank you for your reply to my question regarding the lack of replies or questions concerning my posts, and I note the reason you provided. If that is the general attitude, then why don't they quickly demolish the provided concepts by the use of questions and statements concerning physical accuracy, instead of repeated references to my previous admitted lack of mathematical ability.

I asked the question because most posters are generally quite generous with the provision of physics backed criticism of most threads. Even so, there were no replies or questions resulting from my posts 34,35.36, 37 and 46 where information concerning ? was provided.

My comments made on early posts such as the need to refer to relativist momentum instead of relativistic mass received no comment or question despite the fact that a reason for that statement was provided. Also, there were no comments or questions concerning my comments such as the scientific community would be more accurate if they referred to the gravitational effect rather than to gravitation pull or the pull of gravity. I have what I consider to be valid physical reasons for providing those comments.

Your reference to my attitude regarding the ability of the youth of today leaves me wondering why you made that statement, and why you felt the need to refer to yourself.

[I-try]

Physica.

Your statement: You clearly didn't understand my point about entanglement. The point wasn't about entanglement mechanics is was about what constitutes science. Because entanglement couldn't be tested it was classed as philosophy until the maths was completed and an experiment could be done.

 

Answer: I have no trouble understanding the difference. I preferred to take the opportunity you provided to provide information from ?, that attempts to remove the need to refer to the spin of a photon, and further provide a physical backed reason for believing that measurement is the cause of that anomaly. I stated the following that you chose to ignore. Quote: Your statements regarding entanglement are noted, and in reply I would suggest that post number 36 may be of interest because despite the deliberate mistake, a photon can be propagated in any single direction and oscillates between having a wave nature to that of a more dense energy state. Irrespective of the deliberately incorrect information supplied, electromagnetic generated photons have either a quasi positive or negative nature. A photon split into two parts would both be either quasi positive or negative in nature; interference to one by magnetic measurement would have a high potential to retard, accelerate or deflect, and therefore could change its nature. According to ?, when generated, a photon has only a uni-directional nature, and unlike a massive particle, a photon cannot generate a gravity field to cause the gravitational effect.

According to ?, at the fundamental level of reality and universe wide, there are only the above referred to equal but opposite two time-like periods.

With regards to the problems you set in what you imagine is a test of ?; either your logic is suspect (I could have easily obtained an answer) or your sense of fairness is. I have stated on many occasions that I have never studied mathematics; being only interested in the fundamental dynamic nature essentially underlying physics. The calculations in ? pertaining to such as the maximum rate that an electron can oscillate were derived from the nominal radius of an electron, the speed of light, arithmetic and a calculator, plus ? requires an electron to oscillate.

Your question regarding the elastic collision (elastic only supposes no mass transformation) of two ridiculously excessive massive particles requires an understanding of Cartesian Coordinates, the equation for momentum and apparently high school mathematics. Because you stated they collided, body B could not have started to move from the centre of usually drawn coordinates that provide both positive and negative coordinates; and body A would have to have started to move ahead of B. Also to provide a reasonable accurate answer, there would be a need to state that it was a centre of mass collision. With regards your other question requiring the kinetic energy, a student could use the equation, kinetic energy equals one half MV^2 after finding the velocity obtained from the ratio of 2 is to 9.81 metres a body falls in one second.

I issue the following challenge to you because of your statements regard my knowledge of basic physics, and for no other reason. Would you be prepared to debate me regarding the accuracy of the gravitational effect of the Earth being exactly equal to 9.81 newtons for a kilogram of mass, and as derived from the force necessary to horizontally accelerate a kilogram of mass to a velocity of one metre during a period of one second. Also how is the velocity of one metre per second per second achievable when the kilogram mass is only displaced half a metre during the first second.

With regards to me being arrogant, then with regards to the mainstream community ever obtaining a knowledge of gravity and gravitation, (excepting with regards to the prevention of unnecessary wasting of human endeavour and large cost to the community) I couldn't care less because of the shabby attitude displayed by mainstream science regarding ? over more than 40 years. Also, it is obvious that the world community have concerns other than thinking about physics.

It is the hope of being able to establish a belief in the Gravitational Thermodynamic Effect that enables me to persist for so long. A large body such as our moon rapidly approaching Earth to close passing distance, would cause catastrophic rapid heating to all of Earth's mass. Unfortunately, an understanding of the GTE requires an understanding of the fundamental dynamic nature of matter, that has to be capable of describing gravity, gravitation, and all other phenomena.

[physica]

Your question regarding the elastic collision (elastic only supposes no mass transformation) of two ridiculously excessive massive particles requires an understanding of Cartesian Coordinates, the equation for momentum and apparently high school mathematics. Because you stated they collided, body B could not have started to move from the centre of usually drawn coordinates that provide both positive and negative coordinates; and body A would have to have started to move ahead of B. Also to provide a reasonable accurate answer, there would be a need to state that it was a centre of mass collision.

I made no bones about the problems being easy. I even stated that they were simple. You've tried to be pedantic about them but they are just questions. Your point about the axis is pedantic and incorrect. stating that a particle travelling along the negative y axis collides with a particle travelling along the x axis is a fine question. The term particle means you treat it as a particle meaning you don't worry about the centre of mass (this is very basic physics terminology). Your problem with this question just shows how limited you are at answering simple questions. You also simply hinted at classical answers. The point of these problems was for you to demonstrate how YOUR theory predicts these two situations.

 

Also another note for the future. I am in my final year of a physics degree, there are plenty of people smarter than me in this forum who have phds in physics etc. We already know that the questions are easy. The questions are kept simple to keep us from straying from the main point: YOUR THEORY and if it's consistent with simple situations. You just look silly when you bumble along, don't give an answer and fail to comprehend the basic question. The icing on the cake is when you then say it's easy.

 

 

With regards to me being arrogant, then with regards to the mainstream community ever obtaining a knowledge of gravity and gravitation, (excepting with regards to the prevention of unnecessary wasting of human endeavour and large cost to the community) I couldn't care less because of the shabby attitude displayed by mainstream science regarding ? over more than 40 years. Also, it is obvious that the world community have concerns other than thinking about physics.

This is dripping with arrogance. Mainstream science has developed computers, medicine, scanning machines and pioneered space travel and satellites.... you've achieved nothing to date.

 

You clearly do not understand what science is. I'm going to have to repeat myself if you can't offer testable predictions then it cannot be tested to see if it is true therefore you cannot apply the scientific method so it isn't science.

 

Let's do something more your caliber. What predictions does YOUR THEORY give on the following:

 

A pulsar, which is 1019 m from Earth,emits pulses of electromagnetic radiation across a 14 broad spectrum. The pulses travel to Earth through the interstellar medium, which can be regarded as a dilute plasma within which the number density of electrons and ions is about 3 × 104 m−3. What is the difference in arrival time at Earth of the pulse detected with a radio telescope sensitive to frequencies around 100 MHz and the corresponding pulse detected with an optical telescope with a red filter?

How does the magnitude of the force of gravity acting on the Earth due to the Sun compare with the magnitude of the force of gravity acting on

the Earth due to Jupiter? Calculate the ratio of the magnitudes of the two forces when the Earth is at its closest to Jupiter. For simplicity, you may assume that the orbits of the Earth and Jupiter are circular, with a⊕ = 1 AU and aJ = 5 AU, respectively, and that M⊕ ∼ 3 × 10−6 M% and MJ ∼ 10−3 M%.

YOUR THEORY has give predictions to these questions that are consistent with previous experiments and observations.

[I-try]

Physica.

 

I would suggest that for your sake in your final exams, you take more care and note of words as well as statements. I stated as here quoted: With regards to the problems you set in what you imagine is a test of ?; either your logic is suspect (I could have easily obtained an answer) or your sense of fairness is.

The easily obtained referred to in brackets indicates I could have cheated by requesting answers from friends well qualified to provide an answer. With regards to fairness, I have made it clear that I an not able to adapt mathematics to my work because of a lack of knowledge of mathematics.

With regards the statement you made to set another problem for me, you should perhaps revise the underlined; A pulsar, which is 1019 m from Earth …. even so, you are wasting your time and effort because those questions are well beyond my ability to answer. Also, you have not the slightest idea of my profound admiration of the achievements of mainstream science.

You stated: He has spent decades on this but he hasn't bothered to apply maths to it as if his brain is so amazing that it doesn't need maths to guide him.

No Physica, just a lifelong intense interest in science in general with an abiding love of physics, plus an ability to attempt by imagination and logic, to understand the microscopic reasons underlying that we refer to as reality. I have never claimed ? is correct, or referred to it as being a theory. I only request and hope that ? is subjected to criticism that is physically based and logically correct.

I note that you are in your final year of a physics degree and I wish you every success. With regards to my formal education, (previously declared) I was compelled by circumstances during the so called Great Depression, to leave school at age 13 , whilst in grade 7 of primary school.

It is unfortunate and regrettable that my enforced defence of ? has annoyed you.

[Strange]

 

just a lifelong intense interest in science in general with an abiding love of physics,

 

These things are barely compatible with an inability to do basic mathematics.

 

 

plus an ability to attempt by imagination and logic, to understand the microscopic reasons underlying that we refer to as reality

 

There is no such ability. It is self-delusion of the highest order to think there is.

 

 

I only request and hope that ? is subjected to criticism that is physically based and logically correct.

 

No one can tell you whether it is "physically based" because you do not have a mathematical model, therefore it is not science. "Logically correct" is a term favoured by people with their own peat theories; as far as I can tell all it means is ("I thought of it and it makes sense to me".

 

 

I was compelled by circumstances during the so called Great Depression, to leave school at age 13 , whilst in grade 7 of primary school.

 

That is very sad. I think it is even sadder that you have wasted your time since then making up fairy stories rather than making up for your earlier missed opportunities. There are many excellent on-line courses available where you could learn the basics of mathematics and physics that you need. This would enable you to test your idea yourself. And find it doesn't work ... but it would also allow you to explore the fantastically interesting and exciting world of real science.

[I-try]

Strange,

Your post number 55 is typical of your attitude on several forums. Knock knock continual knocker, who's there, its good old Strange valiantly defending the concept that mathematical ability is essentially required (it would be a valuable asset) by any person attempting an increase in knowledge regarding the advancement of physics. Thereby implying that mathematicians are incapable of mathematically explaining physical concepts proposed by others.

If your belief as stated above is correct, then you would be better able to attempt to explain anomalies extant in our knowledge of physics than I am. In that regard, you being an electrical engineer should better qualify you to attempt to provide presently unknown information concerning an electron's nature and attributes.

The facts are, you have or had an applicative ability to use electrical knowledge in an industrial capacity, and so you were able to support your lifestyle. I am involved simply because I believe physics is based on a rudimentary electrical phenomenon that may assist to further our knowledge of the proposed existence of a Gravitational Thermodynamic Effect.

Despite my lack of mathematical ability, I will withdraw my challenge to Physica and extend it to you Strange. ? states that despite the fact that the Earth's gravitational effect has the ability to accelerate a kilogram mass by 9.81 meters per second per second, the measurement of the accelerating force referred to is slightly less than 9.81 newtons now accepted by the mainstream to be correct. The challenge is for you to use your mathematical ability to prove that ? backing that statement to be incorrect. I would advise that you have no less a person as Einstein (the exact equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass as conceptually explained by the use of two elevators) on your side in such a debate. Stating that it would be a waste of your time to debate me, would not be consistent with the large amount of your time spent on this and other forums demolishing other people's ideas. After all, meter, second, acceleration. and newton are measurable as demanded by you.

[Strange]

Strange,

Your post number 55 is typical of your attitude on several forums.

 

I am remarkably unembarrassed about being consistent in trying to get people to understand what science is and how it works.

 

(And ocassionally, pointing out the value of brevity and paragraph breaks.)

 

mathematical ability is essentially required

 

Yep. Without it you are not doing science.

 

(it would be a valuable asset) by any person attempting an increase in knowledge regarding the advancement of physics.

 

If you attempting to increase your own knowledge, then you can get a very limited, crude and flawed understanding if you only have basic mathematical ability. (That is me, by the way).

 

If you are attempting to increase human knowledge, make breakthroughs in new physics, then to say that mathematics is absolutely essential and indispensable would be an understatement. It would also be essential to have a very solid understanding of current theory.

 

Thereby implying that mathematicians are incapable of mathematically explaining physical concepts proposed by others.

 

I guess you are thinking of something like Faraday and Maxwell, here?

 

The point about that example is that Faraday was an extremely good experimentalist who collected large quantities of data. He demonstrated a number of phenomena which were then formalised mathematically by Maxwell.

 

I haven't seen you presenting any quantitative data that could form the basis of any such work.

 

If your belief as stated above is correct, then you would be better able to attempt to explain anomalies extant in our knowledge of physics than I am. In that regard, you being an electrical engineer should better qualify you to attempt to provide presently unknown information concerning an electron's nature and attributes.

 

Not at all. I have a limited knowledge of physics and math. I rely on people with the appropriate expertise to make the necessary breakthroughs.

 

Would you expect your plumber to do brain surgery, just because he knows a little more basic first-aid than you?

 

I am involved simply because I believe physics is based on a rudimentary electrical phenomenon that may assist to further our knowledge of the proposed existence of a Gravitational Thermodynamic Effect.

 

And yet you are unable to provide any support for this idea. I have seen the various flaws explained in great detail on various forums, just for you to dismiss them.

We have quantitative experimental data and useful predictive theories for our current models. You have some vague qualitative ideas with no reason for anyone to take them seriously.

 

? states that despite the fact that the Earth's gravitational effect has the ability to accelerate a kilogram mass by 9.81 meters per second per second, the measurement of the accelerating force referred to is slightly less than 9.81 newtons now accepted by the mainstream to be correct. The challenge is for you to use your mathematical ability to prove that ? backing that statement to be incorrect.

 

I have skimmed through the thread again and have been unable to see where you derived your value for the acceleration due to gravity. Perhaps you could reproduce it here.

[I-try]

Strange.

Most of your post 57 does not warrant an answer except for your last statement concerning your search of the thread. You were unable to find the information because it was not there. I have been much too busy answering attack posts similar to those of yours, and when goaded concerning ? being referred to as rubbish by persons not able to make such a statement in any honesty, I posted statement pertaining to ? that I expected to be subjected to critical analysis; there is no interest because there are no questions or replies. One such statement provided a one plus one equals two phenomenon that provides a fundamental base for mathematics and perhaps the on or off method used by a calculator

It would appear that because ? has an ability to provide an ATTEMPT to explain the fundamental dynamic nature of gravity and gravitation, then probability demands that I must be a self deluding interloper intruding where I have no right or ability, and so I am subjected to ridicule. Fair-minded people should respect the convention that I should be held to be innocent until proven guilty of an arrogant self indulged belief that I possess a superior knowledge except for that of ?. Not an unreasonable request given the extent and complexity of my self imposed task, and the fact that I have never claimed that ? is correct. I simply have faith in the information provided by ?. By coming to this forum, it was my hope that there would be a fair assessment of it. It is the concepts provided by ?, that conflict with that of the mainstream concepts that should be the subject of attack. I have never claimed an ability that approaches the practical application of physics that most certainly demands a knowledge of mathematics.

With regard to the above and ?, then on the thread; What is the vector quantity of e-m radiation produced by an accelerated charged particle?, Robin Pike, a physicist made some remarks and proposed questions concerning the emission of radiation from an electron accelerated by gravitation. He also wondered how the electron knew of past accelerations. Although ? was able to provide an answer that was relevant to his questions, I am not permitted to do so because that thread is in Classical Physics and the answers are a part of ? obtained from many years of attempts to analyse such subjects.

The answer to one of Robin Pike's questions and provided by ?, requires an instant by instant description of the changes to parameters affecting an electron that is forced to accelerate. The other requires an instant by instant description of an electron accelerated by the gravitational effect of a larger body. However, if I posted those descriptions, there would be a need to provide information concerning how ? views the creation of an electron to enable some understanding of the acceleration of an electron, therefore it would require a number of posts.

With regards your statement that I should post the subject of my challenge to you, I would be pleased to do so on condition there are to be replies or questions forthcoming of a physical nature that respect the laws of conservation of energy and momentum.

 

[Strange]

Most of your post 57 does not warrant an answer except for your last statement concerning your search of the thread. You were unable to find the information because it was not there.

 

Then why say "The challenge is for you to use your mathematical ability to prove that ? backing that statement to be incorrect" ?

 

How can I answer your challenge, if you can't even be bothered to provide the information?

 

 

By coming to this forum, it was my hope that there would be a fair assessment of it

 

But you can't be bothered to answer the simple problems put to you by physica and you can't be bothered to provide your own calculations. Why would anyone take it seriously, then?

 

"I have a new fundamental theory"

"Show us!"

"Nah, can't be bothered"

"OK. Bye."

[physica]

I-try

 

You keep missing the point of all the posters here. These posts are not personal. We do not know you. We comment on the nature of your posts, for instance if a post comes off as arrogant we will point out that it comes off as arrogant. Most of us on this forum are interested in science. It's because it's a science forum. The problem is that you want to believe that you have something of worth but you don't have any predictable outcomes that can be measured. It's like me speculating who's knocking at the door but I don't have a key to open the door and find out if my speculations were correct.

 

As for looking into it from a theory perspective people who have had formal education in physics usually start to switch off when the person says they haven't used maths. This is because we have been shown again and again that our preconceptions after reading the textbook are wrong because the maths tells us something else or that our approach is incorrect because the units didn't make sense. Saying you have a physics explanation without maths is like going to a publisher with a novel and telling him you didn't do a spell check and you didn't reread it to see if it made sense. Maths is the language of physics. Like a spell checker maths is a logic checker.

 

As for your theory I cannot look at its predictions and see if its consistent with previous experiments. Should I spend my time in lingual debate with you where words have multiple meanings and can vary on the context? I don't see how that's a productive use of anyone's time. The reason why people may be short with you is that you are not some 15 year old kid. You have lived a full life. You could have written to a university physics department telling them of your situation and your desires/plan. You could have asked them for a list of subjects that you'd need to learn or a list of subjects that they teach their students. You should have looked at historical people in physics. You would have noticed that they all had strong math backgrounds or tons of experimental data. Your approach isn't productive. You keep looking at the attitude of others instead of looking at your approach.

 

Below is a link to a scale. It displays classic crackpot characteristics.

 

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

[Strange]

 

It's like me speculating who's knocking at the door but I don't have a key to open the door and find out if my speculations were correct.

 

It is more like someone else insisting they know who is at the door and insisting that a key isn't necessary to test their idea.

 

 

You could have asked them for a list of subjects that you'd need to learn or a list of subjects that they teach their students.

 

Here is a list, form such a professor, of the basics you need to become a theoretical physicist: http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~Gadda001/goodtheorist/index.html

 

I'm sorry, I-try, but if you can't demonstrate a really solid grasp of several (ideally, at least the first 10) technical subjects on his list, no one is going to take you seriously. Firstly, it indicates you probably don't have a good understanding of the theories you are attempting to criticise or replace; secondly, it means you probably don't have a sound theoretical basis for your ideas.

 

Note that "logic" or common sense are not not on the list.

[I-try]

Physica.

I withdrew my challenge to you because you will shortly be undergoing your final exams. However, if you would like to join in my challenge to Strange – you will obviously do so. If you want to continue wasting my and your time – you will attempt to do so. I will not reply.

I am well aware that this is a science forum and our present knowledge of physics is utilised in support of all disciplines. You, by your and other posters attitude of pre-judging ? before you or they have the slightest idea regarding its value or otherwise, is why we are not well along with an attempt at an understanding or a hoped for fair evaluation. Another reason is except tor the questions provided by hoola, there has been no previous indication that any body was reading my work. The constant attempts at explaining gravity are considered as scientific when attempted by others – double standards requires such studies are unscientific when ? makes an attempt.

If your reason for your provision of a link is a concern for my welfare and not of sarcastic intent, then attempt to provide one where I can contact perhaps some scientists who are interested in investigating the subjects covered by ?. I have always been of the opinion that a knowledge of the fundamental dynamic nature of matter would be of interest to those interested in furthering the knowledge of physics.

With regards to your claim that ? makes no predictions indicates that you have given very little attention to my work – obviously because of your desire to protect mainstream concepts. More than 40 years ago, ? provided reasons why constantly reoccurring gravity induced waves have no possibility of existing.

With regards to arrogance, then do you believe that physics is a closed book; or have you a snobbish belief that a university education is the only way that the fundamental dynamic nature underlying matter can be explored. QM does not explain gravity or gravitation; the general belief is that gravitation and gravity are the one and the same phenomenal applied to differing circumstances.

If you wish to discuss the physics pertaining to ? without the inclusion of abuse, I would be happy to oblige – no red herrings please.

Strange.

You would most likely attempt to calculate the probability amplitude regards who is knocking at your door, I would apply practical logic and open the door; then have a peep hole installed to allow future prior investigation of who is knocking on my door.

 

However, I must thank you for the link. It will be a help to me and others with regards correct punctuation.

 

But enough of your red herrings: Will you engage in a debate with me on the subject of the exact similarity of gravitational and inertial mass, with regards to the accuracy of the present believed 9.81 newton of force imposed by the Earth's gravity field on a kilogram of mass falling at close proximity to sea level on Earth. And further if you wish, a discussion concerning the possibility of there being a difference between the exact similarity of gravity and inertial mass, and the exact similarity of gravitational and inertial mass. If there is a difference, then why and how does the difference occur.

 

[Strange]

Will you engage in a debate with me on the subject of the exact similarity of gravitational and inertial mass, with regards to the accuracy of the present believed 9.81 newton of force imposed by the Earth's gravity field on a kilogram of mass falling at close proximity to sea level on Earth.

 

Show us your calculations and I'll take a look.

[I-try]

I-try, on 17 Oct 2014 - 3:19 PM, said:

Will you engage in a debate with me on the subject of the exact similarity of gravitational and inertial mass, with regards to the accuracy of the present believed 9.81 newton of force imposed by the Earth's gravity field on a kilogram of mass falling at close proximity to sea level on Earth.

Strange said: Show us your calculations and I'll take a look.

 

Strange.

Due to your past attitude to me and ?, your lawyers statement only implies that you will take a look, which I am sure you and some others will do. Judging from experience of the total lack of reply when I have posted other physics based statement regarding generally believed concepts; your agreement of taking a look, does not require you to reply, let alone providing a valid assessment.

If you or another are prepared to forsake the apparent belief that all who lack a mathematical ability and dare to propose ideas concerning generally believed concepts are deserving of ridicule, then I will gladly post the mainstream physics involved that require a compliance to the laws of the conservation of energy and momentum: also the approximate arithmetic derived calculations.

 

Commit to an honest debate and I will gladly post as stated.

 

[Strange]

 

your agreement of taking a look, does not require you to reply, let alone providing a valid assessment.

 

I promise to reply, if you post your calculations. I can't promise to provide a "valid assessment" without knowing what you are going to post.

 

 

If you or another are prepared to forsake the apparent belief that all who lack a mathematical ability and dare to propose ideas concerning generally believed concepts are deserving of ridicule

 

I don't believe such people are deserving of ridicule. On the other, hand I will patiently explain to them that, without mathematics, they are not doing science. It might be imaginative, it might be philosophy, it might be interesting ... but it ain't science.

 

Anyway, show us how you calculate the value for the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the Earth and we can discuss it.

[I-try]

Strange.

Thanks for your agreement to reply when you stated;” show us how you calculate the value for the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the Earth and we can discuss it”.I hope the underlined word is intended to be read as we will discuss it.

 

I have not calculated the value of the acceleration due to the gravitational effect at the surface of the Earth. Others much more capable have provided that by measuring the acceleration to a velocity of 9.81 meters per second per second

 

The calculation to be posted, refers to the very slight difference between a newton of force derived from the horizontal acceleration of a kilogram mass to a velocity of one meter during one second, and when then applied to give the value of the vertical acceleration of a kilogram mass due to gravitational affect during one second. If it is agreed that there is a difference, my rough calculation could be subjected to a refinement by mathematicians or physicists.

 

Despite the believed difference, Einstein's statement regarding the exact similarity between the gravitational and inertial mass remains correct due to the instant by instant conservation of energy and momentum; ? attempts to provide a conceptual explanation of the instant by instant change to parameters acting on an electron undergoing horizontal acceleration due to an electromagnet force, and the instant by instant acceleration of an electron due to gravitational effect.

[I-try]

The horizontal acceleration of a kilogram of mass to a velocity of one metre during one second, required the application of a magnitude of force referred to as a newton, and the force is derived from an external source. Whereas, with regards to the gravitational acceleration, the accelerating force responsible for the acceleration of a kilogram of mass, is derived from the gravitational effect of the Earth's gravity fields interfering with the gravity field of the kilogram mass, and essentially results in a very slight reduction of the kilogram bodies mass in strict accordance to the conservation of energy and of momentum.

Even so, if we consider that 9.81 newtons equals the sensible gravitational effect induced force acting on a kilogram mass due to the influence of the Earth’s mass, then the horizontal acceleration of a kilogram mass to a velocity of 9.81m during one second, requires the application of 1/30,581,039 times more force per second, than the magnitude of gravitational force acting on a kilogram mass due to the earth’s gravitational effect.

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. Thereby indicating the magnitude of the amassed energy contained within the kilogram of matter. Any possibility of change in other ability of the kilogram mass to resist acceleration is ignored, because a slight increase in relativistic mass would be equal in both accelerations of the kilogram of mass. Therefore, there is approximately 1 / 30,581,039 times less force than the 9.81 Newton now supposed to be the value of the Earth’s gravitational affect on a kilogram mass.

 

My belief concerning relativistic mass was supplied on other posts.

[Strange]

results in a very slight reduction of the kilogram bodies mass in strict accordance to the conservation of energy and of momentum

 

Can you explain why this reduces the mass of the body?

 

the horizontal acceleration of a kilogram mass to a velocity of 9.81m during one second, requires the application of 1/30,581,039 times more force per second

 

I assume you mean: the horizontal acceleration of a 1kg mass to a velocity of 9.81 m/s in one second ...

 

Can you explain how you calculated the value 1/30,581,039 ?

 

OK. Just managed to work through the rest of your post.

 

 

number of newtons (300,000,000) required to accelerate the kilogram of rest mass to the speed of light in one second

 

So you are completely discarding relativity, despite all the evidence?

 

But, ignoring that, can you explain the logic behind dividing the vertical acceleration by the force required to accelerate to c in 1s? In other words, why does the mass reduce by this fraction?

 

 

Thereby indicating the magnitude of the amassed energy contained within the kilogram of matter.

 

How does the force required to accelerate to c in 1 second relate to the energy of the matter?

How does the energy calculated this way relate to Einstein's famous e=mc²?

Edited October 18, 2014 by Strange

[I-try]

Strange. Many thanks for your questions.

 

osted Today, 09:37 AM

Quote

results in a very slight reduction of the kilogram bodies mass in strict accordance to the conservation of energy and of momentum

 

Can you explain why this reduces the mass of the body?

 

Answer.

As stated on other posts, Gravitation effect results from an interference to the Gravity field of all competing matter.

 

Not already stated: If the Kilogram of mass was located in a volume of space free of gravitational effect, its increase in mass would be equal to the energy content of 9,81 newtons divided by C^2. Therefore providing the magnitude of difference between Gravity mass and Gravitational mass.

 

You stated: So you are completely discarding relativity, despite all the evidence?

 

Answer. Reasons for disregarding relativistic mass were provided on other posts.

 

 

But, ignoring that, can you explain the logic behind dividing the vertical acceleration by the force required to accelerate to c in 1s? In other words, why does the mass reduce by this fraction?

 

Answer.

I would refer you to the answer provided for your remaining questions

 

Quote

thereby indicating the magnitude of the amassed energy contained within the kilogram of matter.

 

How does the force required to accelerate to c in 1 second relate to the energy of the matter?

How does the energy calculated this way relate to Einstein's famous e=mc²?

Answer. to: How does the force required to accelerate to c in 1 second relate to the energy of the matter?

 

The short answer is – the rest mass of a kilogram of matter is provided by the fact that it requires a force of one newton to accelerate a kilogram mass to a velocity of one meter during one second. Two newtons of force must be applied to accelerate a kilogram of mass from rest to achieve a velocity of two meters during one second, and so on. Therefore, if that experimentally obtained belief is correct, the logical and mathematical extension requires a force of 300,000,000 newtons to accelerate a kilogram of matter at relative rest to a velocity of c during one second. The energy content of a newton of force provides the remaining part of the answer.

 

An attempt at a provision for a long answer to that question according to ?, would require that you have at least a basic understanding of ?, some of which has already been posted in this thread and the thread Gravity by I-try.

 

The rest mass is found by dividing the energy content of 300,000,000 newtons by c^2.

 

[Strange]

I have been thinking about this all day. I can only make a couple of comments. I hope you think this is constructive.

 

1. I am struggling to make sense of the phrase "energy content of a newton of force".

 

For example, you say "The rest mass is found by dividing the energy content of 300,000,000 newtons by c^2." But newtons divided by c^2 gives kg/meter, which is not mass (or energy).

 

The energy imparted to a given mass by a force depends on how long the force is applied for: energy = force * distance (or :1 N . m = 1 J). So it isn't clear how you relate energy to force. Is this the energy after applying the force for 1 second? The trouble is, that the energy equivalent of an object defined this way is inversely proportional to mass: a 2kg mass will have half the equivalent energy of a 1kg mass.

 

2. In your model, the effective mass of an object decreases the greater its acceleration (the larger the force applied). Is that correct?

 

In the "traditional" view, effective mass increases with increasing velocity.

 

This should give us an easy way to test the two hypotheses and determine which is more accurate.

 

For example, in your model, applying a constant force will cause an acceleration which reduces the mass. This means that the same force will be able to cause a greater acceleration which will cause the mass to reduce further. Causing the acceleration to increase. And so on. So, a constant force will cause the rate of acceleration to gradually increase. (Correct me if I have misunderstood.)

 

Whereas, standard physics says that the effective mass increases with velocity and therefore a constant force will result in decreasing acceleration over time. (Which is one explanation of why a massive object can never reach a velocity of c.)

 

So it should be possible to find cases where we can compare the effects of objects subjected to rapid acceleration and high velocities and see which model applies. I'll leave that there for the moment.

 

 

it requires a force of one newton to accelerate a kilogram mass to a velocity of one meter during one second

 

I was confused by this at first. I think that what you mean is: "it requires a force of one newton to accelerate a kilogram mass to a velocity of one meter per second during after one second".

 

That might seem like nitpicking, but your wording was ambiguous and confusing.

- At first I thought you were saying the velocity was "one meter" (which obviously doesn't make sense).

- But then thought you probably meant "one meter during one second" (i.e. one meter per second) for the velocity. But that leaves off the fact that it takes one second to achieve that velocity.

- Another interpretation is that you were referring to the average velocity during that period of one seond. But that is 1/2 meter per second.

So I hope you see why I was confused.

 

So I wonder if I am misunderstanding the phrase "energy content of a newton of force" in a similar way....

Edited October 19, 2014 by Strange

[I-try]

Strange.

Many thanks for your much appreciated stated interest and for the relevant questions – and yes, your questions are very constructive

It is my fault there is confusion, because I should have referred to the energy- rest mass relationship forming a kilogram of matter. Also, I was of the opinion that science had defined the magnitude of energy expended to deliver the force referred to as a newton

 

In this post, I hope the answer to your question stated below removes some of the confusion and not adding to it: I suppose the confusion is to be expected because this is the first time since attempting to get an evaluation of ?, I have had the pleasure of answering questions directly relevant to a genuine attempt at understanding. And throughout the years of developing ?, the concentration has been mainly directed to the how and the why. It is only because ? required that there should be a slight difference between the calculation in newtons of the horizontal and vertical measurements by providing the how and why, that I attempted the explanation.

 

I will be leaving your other questions for my next post because although ? provides an answer, those questions require care in answering.

 

With regards to the confusion.

The confusion resulting from my statement - The rest mass is found by dividing the energy content of 300,000,000 newtons by c^2 - can perhaps be removed by looking upon a unit of mass as follows. I look upon the equation E = MC^2 as M referring to the total amounts of units of mass forming a body of matter. Therefore, according to ?, a unit of mass is equal to units of primeval energy (as attempted to be explained in other posts) being amassed to an energy density = to C^2; also attempted to be explained in other posts. Because ? proposes that an electron can perhaps be referred to as a unit of mass as well as a unit of charge, then physicists and mathematicians would be better able to eventually estimate the energy-mass relationship.

 

If you refer back to the use of the Dyne as the then agreed unit for mass (for industrial and scientific purposes only) and there are 100,000 Dynes to a newton, then the magnitude of energy essentially expended during the delivery of that small amount of force referred to, provides a better approximate understanding of the energy-rest mass relationship forming a kilogram of mass.

 

The answer for your other questions will perhaps provide a better understanding of ?.

[Strange]

Also, I was of the opinion that science had defined the magnitude of energy expended to deliver the force referred to as a newton.

 

There is no single amount of energy related to a force of 1N, even if applied to 1kg.

 

 

If you refer back to the use of the Dyne as the then agreed unit for mass

 

Can you provide a reference to this. I have never heard of the dyne being used as a unit of mass, and cannot understand how it can be.

 

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

Edited October 20, 2014 by Strange

[I-try]

 

There is no single amount of energy related to a force of 1N, even if applied to 1kg.

 

 

Can you provide a reference to this. I have never heard of the dyne being used as a unit of mass, and cannot understand how it can be.

 

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

Strange.

 

Try the web site below

 

http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/cgsmks.html

 

The dyne is the CGS unit of force, it is the force which accelerates a mass of one gram at the rate of one centimeter per second per second. If there has been no estimation of energy, then by accepting that a mass of one gram can be accelerated as stated by a dyne of force and the referred to magnitude of force could require the expenditure of a precise quantity of measurable electromagnetic energy, then 100,000 quantities of that measured amount of energy, multiplied by 300,000,000 would give a reasonable accurate indication of the amount of rest energy of a Kg mass. 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

 

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

 

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.

 

 

 

[Strange]

The dyne is the CGS unit of force

 

Exactly. It is a unit of force, not mass.

 

If there has been no estimation of energy, then by accepting that a mass of one gram can be accelerated as stated by a dyne of force and the referred to magnitude of force could require the expenditure of a precise quantity of measurable electromagnetic energy

 

The energy required to accelerate something depends on the velocity achieved. There is no direct relationship between force and energy.

 

This mixing up of units (force equals mass, force equals energy) is one of the things that makes it hard for anyone to comment reasonably on your ideas. It makes them appear wrong prima-facie.

 

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

 

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.

 

 

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?

[I-try]

 

Exactly. It is a unit of force, not mass.

 

 

The energy required to accelerate something depends on the velocity achieved. There is no direct relationship between force and energy.

 

This mixing up of units (force equals mass, force equals energy) is one of the things that makes it hard for anyone to comment reasonably on your ideas. It makes them appear wrong prima-facie.

 

 

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?

Strange.

 

My answer to your question one and two is as follows.

 

A gram of matter, referred to as a mass of one gram, contains a large number of units of mass. Even so, and irrespective of whether we are concerned with the method of reference, the mass content measured by what is referred to as its weight; has been precisely measured, as has the acceleration that results from the continuous one second application of a force referred to as one dyne. 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 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

 

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.

 

? answer to your last question is yes and yes. Your question has relevance to the treatment of energy and mass as appears in the work of Einstein.