The complete space theory

[Ihcisphysicist]

The complete space physics theory.

 

1) Earth is an absolute magnet as a whole:

The earth does have two magnetic poles that act opposite to each other but it is this proposition that balances the magnetic field of the earth as a whole. Thus the effect of gravity that matters perceive is but the central attraction force of the entity, hence gravity waves is but proportional pull of the earth via the balancing out of the two opposite force.

(Something about the physics of the entire universe is that usually two opposite force of equal potential energy exist along with an intermediary to balance the construct of space and matters.)

2) Nature of the laws of physics:

It is perhaps the most important but ignored aspect whenever an observation is concluded which is that the law of physics is not constant. The nature of space inside the earth that enables us to define our current laws can never ever be applied with the space around two galaxies. Of course this doesn’t mean that they don’t relate which they do but in a different manner based on the perspective of the mass and volume of the matters and the amount of disturbance of other matters that would affect it’s environment.

3) Why does the earth (planets) revolve around the sun?

Since as mentioned the earth is a complete or total magnet in it’s self, space which is spread with radiations and magnetic waves that flows and bends from a point to other thus the central attraction force of the earth which is a combination of the two opposite magnetic force, repels the magnetic waves of space and so this repulsion causes the earth to rotate and revolve in a respective position. It can also be mentioned that a heavier mass matters (planets) would have a more circular or definitive orbit. As in the case of Pluto which is comparatively smaller than earth has more elliptical orbit than to that of Earth’s. Planets bigger than earth would have more stable or definitive orbit and if a planet or any matter is just too big for the star to influence in a solar system then it would not be a part of that system and would rather be a member of the higher system like the galaxies and would concur with the laws of that system.

4) Conclusion

It can be said that a star holds a solar system which means the space around the star with the focal force stronger at it closeness would incur with the laws that it influences. The rays and force of the sun thus takes a toll on the matters under its reach. But as we move further away from the sun, the arrangement of physics laws with space by it’s force would no longer influence the supposedly another race of humans that dwell on far off planet as they would perceive in another set of environment where the laws of physics would not necessarily be as ours because it is influenced by the nature of the space around it in another side of the universe.

 

 

And Much More...

Edited August 19, 2016 by Ihcisphysicist

[Daecon]

Gravity is not magnetic.

[DrP]

What do you mean by 'absolute' magnet? What is the difference between this and a normal magnet?

 

Maybe most of the flow of it has been lost in the translation from the Indian - seriously, in English it reads as pretty much word soup and seems very wrong in many places. Maybe try to do a better translation to English from the native language it was written in because it just reads as nonscience/nonsense.

PS - and where do you see an experiment where the laws of physics are not constant? I have never seen one - please elaborate with an example.

Edited August 19, 2016 by DrP

[swansont]

2) Nature of the laws of physics:

It is perhaps the most important but ignored aspect whenever an observation is concluded which is that the law of physics is not constant. The nature of space inside the earth that enables us to define our current laws can never ever be applied with the space around two galaxies. Of course this doesn’t mean that they don’t relate which they do but in a different manner based on the perspective of the mass and volume of the matters and the amount of disturbance of other matters that would affect it’s environment.

This is contrary to relativity which is an extremely well-tested theory. Do you have evidence to support your assertion?

 

3) Why does the earth (planets) revolve around the sun?

Since as mentioned the earth is a complete or total magnet in it’s self, space which is spread with radiations and magnetic waves that flows and bends from a point to other thus the central attraction force of the earth which is a combination of the two opposite magnetic force, repels the magnetic waves of space and so this repulsion causes the earth to rotate and revolve in a respective position. It can also be mentioned that a heavier mass matters (planets) would have a more circular or definitive orbit. As in the case of Pluto which is comparatively smaller than earth has more elliptical orbit than to that of Earth’s. Planets bigger than earth would have more stable or definitive orbit and if a planet or any matter is just too big for the star to influence in a solar system then it would not be a part of that system and would rather be a member of the higher system like the galaxies and would concur with the laws of that system.

 

Why, then, do Saturn and and Jupiter have eccentricities ~3x larger than earth's?

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/glossary/Eccentricity.shtml

[Ihcisphysicist]

What do you mean by 'absolute' magnet? What is the difference between this and a normal magnet?

 

Duh! it is a pioneering concept which may not be easy to understand for any self proclaimed science expert in this site. Since our earth is spherical it does not have a particular edge for the two poles of magnet to influence, rather the two equals out and and makes our earth have its own force of attraction.

 

 

Maybe most of the flow of it has been lost in the translation from the Indian - seriously, in English it reads as pretty much word soup and seems very wrong in many places. Maybe try to do a better translation to English from the native language it was written in because it just reads as nonscience/nonsense.

 

BTW You are a nuisance/ nonsense.

 

PS - and where do you see an experiment where the laws of physics are not constant? I have never seen one - please elaborate with an example.

 

Why is it so hard for you to accept that the law of physic is not constant elsewhere in the universe. Why does an ant fall 100 feet down without breaking a ball while a 20 feet fall breaks our bones!!!

 

This is contrary to relativity which is an extremely well-tested theory. Do you have evidence to support your assertion?

 

 

Why, then, do Saturn and and Jupiter have eccentricities ~3x larger than earth's?

 

I guess you are aware that the times a star is bigger than our sun, do conclude what kind of star it would be or is. For instance as the times a star is bigger than our sun, there are dwarf star, pulsars, red giant etc. and because of their mass they all have distinct characteristic. Now when I mean planets bigger to our earth, I just don't mean any regular planet that is bigger than earth but a planet with it's distinct properties like mass, volume, dimensions, composition etc. because every slight distinction means comparatively similar maybe, but different product.

 

[DrP]

See - you are just misunderstanding basic physics here - with your ant analogy for example, we know exactly why an ant can fall and not be harmed while a person would die - it has to do with air resistance, surface area to weight ratio's and the like. It is not a mystery.

 

 

QUOTE: "Why is it so hard to accept the laws of physics are not constant everywhere."

ANS: Because we have not seen them to be different anywhere else, so why should we think they are at all let alone accept it as fact.

 

 

QUOTE"You are a nuisance/nonsense"

Are you just flirting with me now..? ;-) Why would it bug you to receive questions about this? I am being honest with you - if you want to publish that in your book then I would have thought you would have welcomed criticism.. The English in your excerpts is terrible and barely coherent.. I was being polite in suggesting that it had translated poorly.

 

PS - Don't shoot the messenger! ;-) You'd prefer honesty surely? That's why you posted here, no? To get an honest opinion of what actual scientists thought of your suggestions.

PPS - Could you adjust your post so that your answers do not come under my quote please? It makes it look like I called you a nuisance and I did not - I wouldn't have been so rude so early in a thread and I reckon I might have been more subtle about it too. ;-)

Edited August 19, 2016 by DrP

[swansont]

I guess you are aware that the times a star is bigger than our sun, do conclude what kind of star it would be or is. For instance as the times a star is bigger than our sun, there are dwarf star, pulsars, red giant etc. and because of their mass they all have distinct characteristic. Now when I mean planets bigger to our earth, I just don't mean any regular planet that is bigger than earth but a planet with it's distinct properties like mass, volume, dimensions, composition etc. because every slight distinction means comparatively similar maybe, but different product.

 

 

You're just waffling here. "a heavier mass matters (planets) would have a more circular or definitive orbit" is a pretty specific prediction, and is wrong.

[Strange]

Now when I mean planets bigger to our earth, I just don't mean any regular planet that is bigger than earth but a planet with it's distinct properties like mass, volume, dimensions, composition etc. because every slight distinction means comparatively similar maybe, but different product.

 

The thing is, we have a subject called "science" which is able to take all those different properties, make precise, mathematical predictions about how those planets and stars behave, and then test those predictions against observation.

 

So that is at least 3 reasons why your random thoughts do not count as a theory. And not even as science.

[DrP]

QUOTE: "Duh! it is a pioneering concept which might not be easy to understand for any self proclaimed science expert on this site.. Since our Earth is spherical...."

 

Yea - I think the physics of spherical magnets are understood too - it has been a long time since I sat in lectures about it but I seem to remember there being some maths and stuff which kinda explained it all.

 

As for the self proclaimed experts - I believe that all the 'experts' on this site have been chosen by the moderators and site owners and admin... and I am sure they wouldn't proclaim someone an expert unless they knew a little about what they were talking about. As for me? I am not listed as a site expert and I would not want to be - my field isn't really straight physics and it seems that nearly everyone here who actually knows about physics are more knowledgeable than me. My PhD is more in the area where chemistry and physics over lap - bucket chemistry, materials, polymers and industrial problem solving.

Edited August 19, 2016 by DrP

[Strange]

Duh! it is a pioneering concept ...

 

No, it is just some random nonsense that you made up. It has no basis in reality.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

lhcisphysicist, you need to show evidence in support of your assertions. There have also been some posts refuting specific parts of your science. You need to address those by either altering your ideas, or showing where the refutations are wrong.

 

If you make an assertion that is trivially falsifiable (like the laws of physics change the further we move away from our sun), you have to provide evidence. We have a LOT of evidence that they don't change, so you would need a LOT MORE evidence to convince anyone you may be right.

 

If you could provide any evidence at all that supports your ideas, now is the time to do it. If you're just guessing, say so. If you continue to make assertions, then support them with evidence.

 

Don't respond to this note, respond to the other member's questions.

[Sensei]

It is perhaps the most important but ignored aspect whenever an observation is concluded which is that the law of physics is not constant.

If they're not constant, you should show how they change, and relative to what.

Change laws over time?

 

Say we have equation:

[math]F=G\frac{Mm}{r^2}[/math]

or more precisely

[math]F ( r )=G\frac{Mm}{r^2}[/math]

 

It's time-invariant version. Telling how force changes with variable r, distance.

 

But if we assume M and m are changing over time f.e.

 

[math]M(t)=\frac{M_0}{2^{t*a}}[/math]

 

[math]m(t)=\frac{m_0}{2^{t*b}}[/math]

 

(gaining or losing mass by f.e. emitting particles, absorbing particles)

 

where a,b will be some constants (or variables).

 

Then you can make Newton's gravitational force which changes over time:

[math]F(t,r)=G\frac{M(t)m(t)}{r^2}[/math]

 

Stars indeed lose their mass, emitting photons, having solar flares etc.

But it's so small effect, that while discussion about gravitation, it's ignored.

 

Mass of 1 Hydrogen is 938.272 MeV/c^2+0.511 MeV/c^2=938.783 MeV/c^2

so 4 such have mass 3,755.132 MeV/c^2,

but Helium-4 has mass 3,728.4 MeV/c^2.

3,728.4 / 3,755.132 = 1.00717

In other words, if star would fuse the all its Hydrogen-1 to Helium-4, it would lose just 0.72% of initial mass. And it could take 10 billions of years or more.

 

The nature of space inside the earth that enables us to define our current laws can never ever be applied with the space around two galaxies.

We know about existence of other galaxies, because they emit photons toward us.

If laws of physics are significantly different, then how can you see photons from these galaxies?

[Ihcisphysicist]

 

The thing is, we have a subject called "science" which is able to take all those different properties, make precise, mathematical predictions about how those planets and stars behave, and then test those predictions against observation.

 

So that is at least 3 reasons why your random thoughts do not count as a theory. And not even as science.

Just when I was missing the God of science ,"strange" shows right up my shit.

QUOTE: "Duh! it is a pioneering concept which might not be easy to understand for any self proclaimed science expert on this site.. Since our Earth is spherical...."

 

Yea - I think the physics of spherical magnets are understood too - it has been a long time since I sat in lectures about it but I seem to remember there being some maths and stuff which kinda explained it all.

 

As for the self proclaimed experts - I believe that all the 'experts' on this site have been chosen by the moderators and site owners and admin... and I am sure they wouldn't proclaim someone an expert unless they knew a little about what they were talking about. As for me? I am not listed as a site expert and I would not want to be - my field isn't really straight physics and it seems that nearly everyone here who actually knows about physics are more knowledgeable than me. My PhD is more in the area where chemistry and physics over lap - bucket chemistry, materials, polymers and industrial problem solving.

Then I presume you don't know shit about astrophysics so jerk the f**k off.

 

No, it is just some random nonsense that you made up. It has no basis in reality.

Dude go and get a therapy. You are so messed up because you have an issue about acknowledging anything that cometh your path.

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

No. That's not how we debate here. You need some evidence not vague guesses and insults.

Thread closed don't reintroduce this topic.