Relative Posted September 29, 2014 Posted September 29, 2014 F=force P=pressure mf=magnetic field m=mass
Sensei Posted September 29, 2014 Posted September 29, 2014 M has unit kg P has unit N/m^2 kg/(N/m^2) doesn't match N..
Relative Posted September 29, 2014 Author Posted September 29, 2014 M has unit kg P has unit N/m^2 kg/(N/m^2) doesn't match N.. OH , sorry, does magnetism have a weight? would i change it to force?
Sensei Posted September 29, 2014 Posted September 29, 2014 I am just interpreting what you wrote in image, and showing you that there is basic unit mismatch.
Relative Posted September 29, 2014 Author Posted September 29, 2014 I am just interpreting what you wrote in image, and showing you that there is basic unit mismatch. I thank you for pointing it out, but how do we define two different forces at work, when the forces are of a different value? My diagram shows the standard, Earth been drawn to the sun by gravity f=mag, is that correct? mass accelerated by gravity. The second calculation shows matter been stopped, repelled by two of the same magnetic fields. The pressure between two fields? I should of put a lower case M on the top equation, and represented it has matter would that make more sense?
Strange Posted September 29, 2014 Posted September 29, 2014 (edited) Earth been drawn to the sun by gravity f=mag, is that correct? mass accelerated by gravity. The correct formula is [latex]\displaystyle F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2} [/latex] What is the source of the pressure, P? Have you worked out how much force will be applied to the Earth by the Sun's magnetic field? And the direction of that force? Edited September 29, 2014 by Strange
Relative Posted September 29, 2014 Author Posted September 29, 2014 The correct formula is [latex]\displaystyle F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2} [/latex] yes but that is using current formula, the what we currently use, but in my opinion has a really bad explanation of how gravity works. I appreciate that Einstein , Newton , and others have spent probably decades making maths fit, and the maths you have currently will work because it was made to fit, so can not fail. I am trying to show a model that shows what gravity actually is, there been different forces involved. 1. force is equal to attract 2.force is equal to repel 3.matter , force is equal to distant i.e the crust, the mantle , attracted to the core with been the nearer. 4.the sun repelling the core, the core repelling the sun, same energy magnetic fields. 5.stationary orbits in space , adjusting by thermodynamics intake/outtake 6. Lifters taking on the same electromagnetic frequency to the Earth's core. -1
Strange Posted September 29, 2014 Posted September 29, 2014 1. force is equal to attract What does that mean? What is "attract"? The others are equally incomprehensible.
Sensei Posted September 29, 2014 Posted September 29, 2014 (edited) I bet you have no idea how to calculate (measure) from scratch [latex]g=9.81 \frac{m}{s^2}[/latex].... Show me that I am wrong.. Edited September 29, 2014 by Sensei
Relative Posted September 29, 2014 Author Posted September 29, 2014 (edited) What does that mean? What is "attract"? The others are equally incomprehensible. What is attract?, are you serious, a pin is attracted to a magnet, a magnet is attracted to a pin, and now im thinking you use a different word? I bet you have no idea how to calculate [latex]g=9.81 \frac{m}{s^2}[/latex].... Show me that I am wrong.. Correct I have no idea, and know current will work because it was made to fit, but that does not mean that there is not a proper explanation of gravity works, rather than spiraling down a funnel trying to go straight. Edited September 29, 2014 by Relative
Sensei Posted September 29, 2014 Posted September 29, 2014 I thank you for pointing it out, but how do we define two different forces at work, when the forces are of a different value? Force by definition has unit Newton, which is [latex]kg\frac{m}{s^2}[/latex]
Relative Posted September 29, 2014 Author Posted September 29, 2014 Force by definition has unit Newton, which is [latex]kg\frac{m}{s^2}[/latex] is ,s entropy?
swansont Posted September 29, 2014 Posted September 29, 2014 yes but that is using current formula, the what we currently use, but in my opinion has a really bad explanation of how gravity works. I appreciate that Einstein , Newton , and others have spent probably decades making maths fit, and the maths you have currently will work because it was made to fit, so can not fail. This is utter crap. The math was not "made to fit" as if there is some fudging going on — at ACTUALLY WORKS. It has allowed us to land payloads on the moon and mars and put satellites in orbit. It is, therefore, an accurate model of how masses behave. That's the standard. Is it an accurate model of how things behave. Systematically test and compare with data from experiment — that's science. If it didn't work, those endeavors would have failed.
Sensei Posted September 29, 2014 Posted September 29, 2014 (edited) is ,s entropy? Entropy?! s is second, unit of time... Edited September 29, 2014 by Sensei
swansont Posted September 29, 2014 Posted September 29, 2014 is ,s entropy? In that set of units, s is seconds. Entropy is not a unit.
Strange Posted September 29, 2014 Posted September 29, 2014 What is attract?, are you serious, a pin is attracted to a magnet, a magnet is attracted to a pin, and now im thinking you use a different word? Attract is a verb (to attract). I don't see how that verb can be equal to a force. Unless force is also a verb. "To attract is to make someone do something"? If you mean "attraction", then I'm still not sure what you are saying: "force is equal to attraction" What force? And what attraction?
Sensei Posted September 29, 2014 Posted September 29, 2014 (edited) Correct I have no idea, and know current will work because it was made to fit, but that does not mean that there is not a proper explanation of gravity works, rather than spiraling down a funnel trying to go straight. In that case you should learn how to measure 9.81 m/s^2 acceleration at home doing experiment. I have showed whole experiment in this thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/84336-if-pi-ratio-was-squared-and-98-mss-how-would-this-change-the-whole-of-science/?p=815752 Camera and cable to computer and some video editing application will make easier calculations. Edited September 29, 2014 by Sensei
swansont Posted September 29, 2014 Posted September 29, 2014 ! Moderator Note As a reminder, the rules of speculations require "evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can." And given the current state of affairs, this thread isn't coming close to that. If it doesn't move in that direction quickly, it will be closed/trashed.
Relative Posted September 29, 2014 Author Posted September 29, 2014 Attract is a verb (to attract). I don't see how that verb can be equal to a force. Unless force is also a verb. "To attract is to make someone do something"? If you mean "attraction", then I'm still not sure what you are saying: "force is equal to attraction" What force? And what attraction? The Sun is attracting the ground but repelling the core, the core is attracting the ground but repelling the sun, Magnetic fields opposing other of the same polarity magnetic fields have a force , they try to push each other back, the space between becomes ''pressured'', pulling and pushing at the same time, is what im trying to say . ! Moderator Note As a reminder, the rules of speculations require "evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can." And given the current state of affairs, this thread isn't coming close to that. If it doesn't move in that direction quickly, it will be closed/trashed. I did a model, explained that model, I do not get it....? Ok, i will give u a test, spin a ball in a pond and the ripples will be circular, spin a ball in a pond and add forward momentum and the ripples will ellipse. Magnetic fields bend out of shape by momentum?
swansont Posted September 29, 2014 Posted September 29, 2014 You will note that the word "model" isn't in my modnote. It asks for testable predictions and/or evidence. IOW it sets a bar for the minimum acceptable level of model. What's the connection to ripples in a pond? Your original idea was gravity and magnetism.
Kramer Posted September 29, 2014 Posted September 29, 2014 Magnetism is created by "electric charges" in movement, where do you mean they exists and with what charges interacts.?
Relative Posted September 30, 2014 Author Posted September 30, 2014 (edited) 'You will note that the word "model" isn't in my modnote. It asks for testable predictions and/or evidence. IOW it sets a bar for 'the minimum acceptable level of model. What's the connection to ripples in a pond? Your original idea was gravity and magnetism. '' The pond was to represent waves, The Physical process of opposite reaction, all movement creates opposite motion in time and space, A comet will have a comet tail, a ship at sea will have a trail behind it, The suns pattern ,shape of fields and energy will be directional opposite to direction of the suns travel axis. An Ellipse orbit can be only created by forward movement of the sun, Magnetism is created by "electric charges" in movement, where do you mean they exists and with what charges interacts.?The Earths magnetism is made in the core, it expands outwards until it meets an opposing force, i.e the sun F of magnetism. They were both correct assumptions from history A is repelled by B, and B is repelled by A. C is drawn towards D and D is drawn towards C. Edited September 30, 2014 by swansont fix quote tag
Strange Posted September 30, 2014 Posted September 30, 2014 (edited) Magnetism is not a repelling force. It is both attractive and repelling. If you consider the Sun and the Earth as being like a couple of bar magnets (with N and S poles) then the effect of their magnetic fields would be to rotate them so that their N-S poles are aligned, and then pull them towards each other. BUT. It would be very easy to work out the strength of the forces involved. If you do this you will find they are vanishingly small and have no measurable effect. What is the point of your "model"? We have a description of gravity that works extremely well. It includes the mathematics that allows us to make quantitative predictions which can be tested (and are always found to be correct) and allows us to make practical use of it in technology. You have some vague, half-formed ideas with no mathematics. This means we cannot check if your ideas work as well as or (hopefully, for any new theory) better than existing theories, or (more likely) don't match reality at all. The only reason seems to be that you are to lazy to learn and prefer to make stuff up. A is repelled by B, and B is repelled by A. C is drawn towards D and D is drawn towards C What is the strength of the force between A and B and how it is it calculated. What is the strength of the force between C and D and how it is it calculated. Having worked these out, please show that they match observations. Edited September 30, 2014 by Strange
Relative Posted September 30, 2014 Author Posted September 30, 2014 ''Magnetism is not a repelling force. It is both attractive and repelling. If you consider the Sun and the Earth as being like a couple of bar magnets (with N and S poles) then the effect of their magnetic fields would be to rotate them so that their N-S poles are aligned, and then pull them towards each other. BUT. It would be very easy to work out the strength of the forces involved. If you do this you will find they are vanishingly small and have no measurable effect. What is the point of your "model"? We have a description of gravity that works extremely well. It includes the mathematics that allows us to make quantitative predictions which can be tested (and are always found to be correct) and allows us to make practical use of it in technology. You have some vague, half-formed ideas with no mathematics. This means we cannot check if your ideas work as well as or (hopefully, for any new theory) better than existing theories, or (more likely) don't match reality at all. The only reason seems to be that you are to lazy to learn and prefer to make stuff up.'' What is the strength of the force between A and B and how it is it calculated. What is the strength of the force between C and D and how it is it calculated. Having worked these out, please show that they match observations.'' I do understand what you are saying, and there is no problem keeping the current maths, it works for humanity. However, the explanation of gravity in my opinion is incorrect, trying to go straight, centrifugal forces, does not compute in my brain has been the truth when there is several other forces involved. You know two magnets of the same polarity can never touch, you know they repel even if a weak force, you also know that gravity attracts matter. The sun and the Earth push and pull each other by different forces not one force been gravity. My diagram above, is it correct in a physical sense? the forces making an equilibrium.
Strange Posted September 30, 2014 Posted September 30, 2014 However, the explanation of gravity in my opinion is incorrect, trying to go straight, centrifugal forces, does not compute in my brain has been the truth when there is several other forces involved. You have no basis for your opinion other than, as you say, it "does not compute in your brain". This is a problem for you, not for the existing theories. You either need to work harder at understanding the current models (and why they work and should therefore be accepted) or give up completely. Those are the only two sensible alternatives. Just making stuff up is a waste of time. It will tell you nothing useful. You know two magnets of the same polarity can never touch, you know they repel even if a weak force, you also know that gravity attracts matter. Put two magnets close together and they will be attracted to one another. They will NOT repel each other. You can confirm this for yourself after a quick visit to a toy shop. It is this sort of denial of reality that makes your "theories" so ridiculous. My diagram above, is it correct in a physical sense? the forces making an equilibrium. Calculate the relative strengths of the forces and you will immediately see that it is NOT correct.
Recommended Posts