Relative Posted October 7, 2014 Author Posted October 7, 2014 (edited) To be honest, that is because you have a very vague understanding of about 10% of what you are told. The rest just confuses you. You also ignore and misinterpret anything that contradicts your idea. But these are two weak to have any effect of the motion of the Earth. The magnetic fields are too weak to overcome gravity. Also, whether the magnetic fields attract or repel depends on their orientation - which is constantly changing. This is a crackpot pseudoscience website. (Unfortunately, you don't know enough basic science to tell.) Just no. The reason for the sky being blue is well understood and nothing to do with that. No. <sigh> There are both positive and negative charges. If you were to swap their signs, it would make no difference. Gravity does not have positive and negative components so there is nothing to swap. Every action has an opposite reaction, So what is the opposite reaction to gravity? I do not guess, or make things up, Every I say is from your science, actions and reactions, the Raleigh effect in my opinion is has my diagram shows, and not scatterring, scattering would not have enough energy to show blue. Has any one done the maths for my gravity model ? is there any difference? The net force is zero yes? Edited October 7, 2014 by Relative
swansont Posted October 7, 2014 Posted October 7, 2014 I can offer you evidence from your science, I can offer you evidence from the forum today, unless you can deny the sun emits electrons and the earth emits electrons, I think I have given you something to think about. The amount matters, since the size of the force depends on how much charge you have. That's the evidence you need. I know the net force is equal to zero, that is what i have put the fn = 0, this does not change the maths of current, and I can explain where the orbital motion comes from, I can explain Venus, but am in fear of thread closure. I am getting use to the formulas now, I pretty much, am understanding them. Still not 100% but getting there. That would be a problem, because the net force is not zero. It can't be zero. If it was, we'd be moving in a straight line. If this is what your model says, then it is falsified. It's trivially wrong. Nothing more to discuss. There's no point in moving on to other examples. The model is wrong, and is based on misconceptions about some very basic physics.
Relative Posted October 7, 2014 Author Posted October 7, 2014 The amount matters, since the size of the force depends on how much charge you have. That's the evidence you need. That would be a problem, because the net force is not zero. It can't be zero. If it was, we'd be moving in a straight line. If this is what your model says, then it is falsified. It's trivially wrong. Nothing more to discuss. There's no point in moving on to other examples. The model is wrong, and is based on misconceptions about some very basic physics. Ok nothing more to discuss, I give up, obviously science is not for me, because science says one thing, I agree with it for science to then always tell me I am wrong. Einstein says we are going in a straight line, it does not even change that.
swansont Posted October 7, 2014 Posted October 7, 2014 Every action has an opposite reaction, So what is the opposite reaction to gravity? Gravity. By Newton's third law. (Something you pick up if you study and learn physics). The reaction force is always the same type as the action, and an action/reaction pair act on each other. The reaction force to the sun exerting gravity on the earth is that the earth exerts gravity on the sun. I do not guess, or make things up, Every I say is from your science, actions and reactions, the Raleigh effect in my opinion is has my diagram shows, and not scatterring, scattering would not have enough energy to show blue. You are misunderstanding and misapplying the science, and there are gaps in what you do understand, so your conclusions are wrong. Has any one done the maths for my gravity model ? is there any difference? The net force is zero yes? There is no point to doing the maths for your model. If it says the net force is zero, it's wrong. Objects feeling no net force move in straight lines. The force on any object moving in a circle must be mv2/r. That's not the result of your model, so your model is wrong. Ok nothing more to discuss, I give up, obviously science is not for me, because science says one thing, I agree with it for science to then always tell me I am wrong. Einstein says we are going in a straight line, it does not even change that. Newton says we go in a straight line. Nothing under discussion needs to invoke anything Einstein came up with. If you are truly interested in science, go take a science class or several and learn the basics. What's not for you is jumping in and trying to develop models when you don't know enough to work them out. That's not going to work for anyone.
Strange Posted October 7, 2014 Posted October 7, 2014 Every action has an opposite reaction, So what is the opposite reaction to gravity? The reaction to gravity is the chair pushing at your arse. I do not guess, or make things up, Yes you do. For example: Every I say is from your science, actions and reactions, the Raleigh effect in my opinion is has my diagram shows, and not scatterring, scattering would not have enough energy to show blue. If this is not a guess, then please show in appropriate mathematical detail: 1. That the compression in your diagram will create a blue diagram 2. That Rayleigh [note spelling] scattering does not have enough energy to show blue. As you cannot do either of these things, this is what is technically known as a "guess". Has any one done the maths for my gravity model ? Yes, where I showed that if there was no net force, there would be no orbits. is there any difference? Yes, your model does not work. The net force is zero yes Which is why your model does not work.
Relative Posted October 7, 2014 Author Posted October 7, 2014 Gravity. By Newton's third law. (Something you pick up if you study and learn physics). The reaction force is always the same type as the action, and an action/reaction pair act on each other. The reaction force to the sun exerting gravity on the earth is that the earth exerts gravity on the sun. You are misunderstanding and misapplying the science, and there are gaps in what you do understand, so your conclusions are wrong. There is no point to doing the maths for your model. If it says the net force is zero, it's wrong. Objects feeling no net force move in straight lines. The force on any object moving in a circle must be mv2/r. That's not the result of your model, so your model is wrong. Newton says we go in a straight line. Nothing under discussion needs to invoke anything Einstein came up with. If you are truly interested in science, go take a science class or several and learn the basics. What's not for you is jumping in and trying to develop models when you don't know enough to work them out. That's not going to work for anyone. I have not changed anything about the Newtonian gravity nothing changes with that, all I have done is add a stopping force. The opposite action to gravity is anti gravity. What goes up must come down, unless there is acting force. Helium and Hydrogen are anti gravity by been more towards been an Ion, Anti-gravity is a difference in energies to the equilibrium zero net force of a standard atom. A more positive Ion repels itself away. It is my terminology and formulas that are off, I assure you it is not my ideas.
Strange Posted October 7, 2014 Posted October 7, 2014 NOTE: Swansont and I both give different answers to the "what is the reaction to gravity" question. They are both correct in different contexts. In yet another context, it could be something else; for example, in the Millikan experiment, it is the electric field. By the way: the reason you don't sink through your chair, the reason it feels solid, is because of the electric charges of the electrons in its molecules pushing against the electrons in your molecules. So, in certain contexts, the force of gravity is countered by electric charge.
Relative Posted October 7, 2014 Author Posted October 7, 2014 I have not changed anything about the Newtonian gravity nothing changes with that, all I have done is add a stopping force. The opposite action to gravity is anti gravity. What goes up must come down, unless there is acting force. Helium and Hydrogen are anti gravity by been more towards been an Ion, Anti-gravity is a difference in energies to the equilibrium zero net force of a standard atom. A more positive Ion repels itself away. It is my terminology and formulas that are off, I assure you it is not my ideas. Doppler NOTE: Swansont and I both give different answers to the "what is the reaction to gravity" question. They are both correct in different contexts. In yet another context, it could be something else; for example, in the Millikan experiment, it is the electric field. By the way: the reason you don't sink through your chair, the reason it feels solid, is because of the electric charges of the electrons in its molecules pushing against the electrons in your molecules. So, in certain contexts, the force of gravity is countered by electric charge. Yes that is what I am saying
Strange Posted October 7, 2014 Posted October 7, 2014 I have not changed anything about the Newtonian gravity nothing changes with that, all I have done is add a stopping force. Except: 1. there is need for any such stopping force 2. there is no evidence for any such stopping force and 3. if there were any such stopping force our models would not work. And they do. It is my terminology and formulas that are off, I assure you it is not my ideas As shown above, there is something seriously wrong with your ideas: they do not work on the real world. The opposite action to gravity is anti gravity. Except there is no such thing as antigravity.
Relative Posted October 7, 2014 Author Posted October 7, 2014 If we increased the electrons in our body to outweight gravity we fly off if we could find the balance of frequency
Strange Posted October 7, 2014 Posted October 7, 2014 Doppler It doesn't help when you just throw random words in that have no apparent connection to anything that was said. Yes that is what I am saying Not really. If we increased the electrons in our body to outweight gravity we fly off if we could find the balance of frequency You would only "fly" if you became negatively charged if there was something else negatively charged below you, or something positively charged above you. You can, of course, demonstrate this effect by rubbing a balloon and picking up little bits of paper. It would be impractical to lift something with the weight of a person. The charges required would be impractical and would be discharged in a big flash. And "frequency" is completely irrelevant. It is just a magic sounding buzzword you threw in.
Relative Posted October 7, 2014 Author Posted October 7, 2014 There is something positive charged above you, more positive than negative for sure. Except: 1. there is need for any such stopping force 2. there is no evidence for any such stopping force and 3. if there were any such stopping force our models would not work. And they do. As shown above, there is something seriously wrong with your ideas: they do not work on the real world. Except there is no such thing as antigravity. Yes there is and yes there is and yes there is. I can not wait to produce the sentence that nails it on the head using correct terminology. If you switched gravity around and did the maths the results would be the same. No difference designed to fit
swansont Posted October 7, 2014 Posted October 7, 2014 The reaction to gravity is the chair pushing at your arse. No, this is a common mistake. The reaction to gravity is gravity. The reaction to the chair pushing on your posterior is your posterior pushing on the chair. The reaction force pairs would still be there if the system was accelerating, making these forces unequal.
Relative Posted October 7, 2014 Author Posted October 7, 2014 In this diagram we have a singularity with no other effecting mass, Yes or no to the action tags?
swansont Posted October 7, 2014 Posted October 7, 2014 I have not changed anything about the Newtonian gravity nothing changes with that, all I have done is add a stopping force. The opposite action to gravity is anti gravity. Nope. The reaction force to gravity is also gravity. What goes up must come down, unless there is acting force. Helium and Hydrogen are anti gravity by been more towards been an Ion, Anti-gravity is a difference in energies to the equilibrium zero net force of a standard atom. Nope. An object will not change direction unless there is a force on it. "What goes up must come down" requires the presence of a force. A more positive Ion repels itself away. It is my terminology and formulas that are off, I assure you it is not my ideas. Given your thorough misunderstanding of physics, your assurances are worth bupkus.
Relative Posted October 7, 2014 Author Posted October 7, 2014 (edited) Yes or no to the diagram , please so i can clear up my misunderstanding? Nope. The reaction force to gravity is also gravity. Nope. An object will not change direction unless there is a force on it. "What goes up must come down" requires the presence of a force. Given your thorough misunderstanding of physics, your assurances are worth bupkus. What goes up must come down because there is an acting force on it, add force to what goes up and it carries on going up, I know you are clearly misunderstanding me, Edited October 7, 2014 by Relative
swansont Posted October 7, 2014 Posted October 7, 2014 What goes up must come down because there is an acting force on it, add force to what goes up and it carries on going up, I know you are clearly misunderstanding me, I can only react to what you write, and what you wrote was "What goes up must come down, unless there is acting force." which is clearly incorrect. If you meant something else, you need to work on doing a better job of writing what you are thinking. (Using non-standard terminology is part of this issue)
Relative Posted October 7, 2014 Author Posted October 7, 2014 I can only react to what you write, and what you wrote was "What goes up must come down, unless there is acting force." which is clearly incorrect. If you meant something else, you need to work on doing a better job of writing what you are thinking. (Using non-standard terminology is part of this issue) I apologize ,I do know it is my spag, I did mean ''unless there is acting force'',on what goes up, meaning thrust etc. You say the ground is a neutral , mass on the ground has a net force of zero, but the force is still there which is equal to a9.81ms2, but opposed of equal force. Mass on the ground has a singularity not accounting for the ground also has a net force of zero? an equilibrium, atoms ?
Fuzzwood Posted October 7, 2014 Posted October 7, 2014 (edited) "What goes up must come down, unless there is acting compensating force." If I released a stone by just opening my fingers, it would plummet down to earth. If I gave it horizontal motion while throwing it, where would it end up? Edited October 7, 2014 by Fuzzwood
Relative Posted October 7, 2014 Author Posted October 7, 2014 You add force to either action "What goes up must come down, unless there is acting compensating force." If I released a stone by just opening my fingers, it would plummet down to earth. If I gave it horizontal motion while throwing it, where would it end up? on the ground when it loses V and curves you do not want me to start drawing cannon balls do you? I apologize ,I do know it is my spag, I did mean ''unless there is acting force'',on what goes up, meaning thrust etc. You say the ground is a neutral , mass on the ground has a net force of zero, but the force is still there which is equal to a9.81ms2, but opposed of equal force. Mass on the ground has a singularity not accounting for the ground also has a net force of zero? an equilibrium, atoms ? Back to this please. Fn, you add force to either the ground or object that has a net force of zero and it will move? An atom has a net force of zero but vibrates, I think I know why it vibrates. Do protons have an electromagnetic field? Is this how an atom works?
Strange Posted October 7, 2014 Posted October 7, 2014 There is something positive charged above you, more positive than negative for sure. Really? What evidence do you have for that? If you switched gravity around and did the maths the results would be the same. No difference designed to fit Go on then. Do it.
Relative Posted October 7, 2014 Author Posted October 7, 2014 Really? What evidence do you have for that? Go on then. Do it. Ok that was a guess, can u please answer my questions, no one seems to be answering them, I asked about a singularity diagram and also an atom, added another atom with s1 and s2 layer
Strange Posted October 7, 2014 Posted October 7, 2014 No, this is a common mistake. The reaction to gravity is gravity. The reaction to the chair pushing on your posterior is your posterior pushing on the chair. True. I was thinking of a more more general balance of forces in a static system. Not the same thing as Newton's law. In this diagram we have a singularity with no other effecting mass, Yes or no to the action tags? iso.jpg Most of your diagrams are hard to decipher. This one is impossible. I don't have a clue what it is supposed to represent. I'm not sure what you mean by "singularity". If you mean a mass with zero volume, then this changes nothing (as far as gravity is concerned). You have arrows marked "isotropic" which seems contradictory: isotropic means the same in all directions.
Relative Posted October 7, 2014 Author Posted October 7, 2014 (edited) True. I was thinking of a more more general balance of forces in a static system. Not the same thing as Newton's law. The reaction to sitting down on a chair , is changing my center of mass, both I and the chair want to fall, but the force equal to I and the chair opposes us. If I change the density of the ground, to a viscosity weaker than the chair, both I and the chair fall. Even metal can be made into a liquid.... The opposing F of the ground is density, which is viscosity on a denser scale. True. I was thinking of a more more general balance of forces in a static system. Not the same thing as Newton's law. Most of your diagrams are hard to decipher. This one is impossible. I don't have a clue what it is supposed to represent. I'm not sure what you mean by "singularity". If you mean a mass with zero volume, then this changes nothing (as far as gravity is concerned). You have arrows marked "isotropic" which seems contradictory: isotropic means the same in all directions. I know what Isotropic means , the arrows represent the direction of the isotropic , I didnt need to put a load of arrows facing the same way around the sphere,, A singularity, just the one mass, no other mass in the universe, a sun on itself, gravity still exists , output still exists, do you agree with the diagram? Edited October 7, 2014 by Relative
swansont Posted October 7, 2014 Posted October 7, 2014 True. I was thinking of a more more general balance of forces in a static system. Not the same thing as Newton's law. There's a decent chance that Relative is using "reaction" in that way, which is confusing because it has a specific definition within physics.
Recommended Posts