Jump to content

idontknowwhyijustknow

Members
  • Content Count

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-19 Bad

About idontknowwhyijustknow

  • Rank
    Quark

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    all of it
  1. no proof im not a genius man as i stated help me im crazy lol im really just asking on other opinions as i have a real prob with spacetime theory and gravity as explained by academics my gut feeling is that magnetism and electricity can account for all forces and motions if we understood them fully it seems like science is just invented more and more differnt names for forces and matter that are all relative to one thing ? ps didnt einstein himself say general relativity was either wrong or incomplete any thoughts where is the galactic core how do we know the sun orbits it if the big bang is expanding space an a 3 dimensional form from a point outwards how can there be a galactic core apart from the point of the big bang ? skip the last question i get what you mean by galatic core i was thinking of space core duh am i write in assuming earths motion is helical though
  2. can anyone help with this as i understand it the earth orbits the suns equator and the moon orbits the earths equator (this is approx not taking in recession ) now this im not sure of but doesnt the sun orbit one of the pleidian stars or if not what does the sun orbit anything a better question might be what motion and reason does the sun follow assuming it moves and my real question if the sun moves through space while the earth is orbiting then am i right in assuming the earths motion is actually helical in nature if this is so wouldnt the centripetal force explain gravity thouroughly by it self this would of course be assuming space is a uniform magnetic field and objects like planets and maybe suns are charged particles i know far fetched probably help me?lol
  3. thanx for you comment as its obvious i have no idea lol however i have learnt alot in the last 24 hrs and had the hole history of gravity explained to me i understand newton came up with the idea of fixed space and einstein came up with space time theory with allows for gravity as a result of the curvature of space time i would like to point out the fact the einstein himself was not satisfied with this theory and died believing he still misunderstood it i think its fair to say that everyone is still quessing nowawdays and have a set of views based on what we think(do) know about that around us to pick the best theory i think the word theory is most important !!! ok new question for anyone What or where is the force acting on bodies in orbit that allow them to maintain orbital direction and speed because i cant see how this curvature can work without an external force if you try and model it u simply cant without another energy In particular it is suggested that the spin caused by larger bodies is what allows for the orbital speed but why hasnt anyone been able to build a model of this also this model doesnt really allow for electricity/magnetism force as we know these can move space ok i have seen a model using magnestism which does appear to work as the force of gravity and electricity as the cause for spin and the lorentz force is a inverse square law as for the monopole idea from above thats nonsence i didnt suggest monopoles existed a sphere that is charged via magnet can become charged positive on the outside and negative internally this isnt a monopole can can perfom actions a monopole is thought too only exhibit?
  4. sorry i thought you moved me to my own thread already under skeptics?
  5. i agree science has many fallacies as good as it is real amatuer the speed of light i presume because it is the main source of energy ,when referring to acceleration you are referring to a force as for why squared dunno evrything seems to get squared lol as for mass personally i think they measure it incorrectly but thats another story
  6. hows this for me gravity is a force of attraction to the earth which presents itself in matter as weight(newtons) NOT!!!!! n = m x g the fact that the acceleration of mass due to the force is constant regardless of quantity of mass suggests two options to describe this phenomena first......what we feel as weight on earth is due to the amount of matter multiplied by the acceleration of the mass(the same for all masses) secondly.....the acceleration is equal in all masses due to equal force regardless of mass(this fits if we see matter not to exert force due to gravity but for matter to adopt the gravity force and become attracted to the earth that is matter never exerts force but it acted upon much like a magnet will polarize iron and then attract it the iron itself only feels this force in close proximity and the force of attraction of other iron to the attracted piece is only due to the force of the magnet and disapears when proximity to the magnet is reduced much as earths gravity loses its effect on matter as we reduce our proximity) this might help explain why weight is approx 0 when at freefall both the earth and matter are making full use of the force of attraction so there is no opposition to force is this situation and to explain weight at rest the attraction of earth and matter can no longer become closer(matter can no longer fall to the centre of earth) so at this stage there is full opposition to the force in respect to the magnitude of attraction between the body's weight is in essence the lorentz force amperes early deffinitions of the this force were all desciptions of the properties of an object and the distances between them rather than in terms of electricity and magnetism doesn't that fact that the law of gravity and the lorentz force are both inverse square laws hint towards magnetism the fact both gravity(centripetal) and magnetism are attractive forces while centrifugal and electrical forces are repulsive aids this view
  7. good point sorry bout redirecting im new here thanx for all the replies very interesting thoughts i know ive asked this before but can someone explain why we teach students to measure weight in kg's doesnt this cause half the confusion out there?
  8. im not trying to debunk these laws i know they work at have been well tested im simply stating that gravity is measured twice in the equation n = m x g the only reason i can see why we do this is because we assume matter to aquire weight as we feel weight. however if you realise that when you lift a child its not his matter we experience as force but a reaction to gravity the matter has gravity is force matter simply reacts to it inertial mass experiments measure force and matter reacts to that force just like it reacts to gravity we cant differentiate from this because we are under the influence of gravity ourselfs when testing it mass only ever reacts to force it cannot change force we are looking at this problem wrongly because our brains think matter is solid and heavy
  9. when an object is in fall it it suggested it looses weight weight n = m x g if gravity is 0 weight remains 0 no matter how much mass you have inertiall mass f = m x a to calculate f to a set acceleration with a changing mass assumes that the mass is changing the force and therefore is independant of gravity here we are measuring the force required to move the mass rather than the force acting on mass in gravity however under gravitational field this equation doesnt take gravity into account and more so in 0 gravity it assumes mass exerts some resistance force to that acting(measured) on it where is this resistance force found in mass in 0 gravity when mass doesnt effect force in 0 gravity
  10. thats correct but if you add more mass you dont get get more inertial resistance unless in gravity ? doesnt that mean the second law doesnt take gravity into account but should ?
  11. thats just a statement im not interested in people quoting ignorance of past thoughts give me some example explain why is mass expressed in kgs when the kg is actually a measure of gravity(newton) science explains this away with the second law of motion inertial mass but i argue that if the gravity force acts on all matter then the weight messured f=ma is not exerted by the matter but rather by gravity. the matter doesnt gain weight in the presence of gravity ..... Gravity becomes measerable in the presence of matter its all about perception humans are part of the illusion hence why matter is perceived as solid and heavy .we cant see it any other way unless you leave the illusion but to measure the force gravity with both the newton and the kg isnt helping please stop teaching our youth the falsehood of weight being a property of matter it simply isnt
  12. over my head but i see what you are getting at as far as i can tell if light was not at a constant speed then neither would time be constant (hey maybe it isn't)
  13. to assume that pure matter would have a stronger gravity is wrong as the force gravity is formed by the earth and all matter within the gravity only has weight because of the gravity. matter does not have weight in 0 gravity and since gravity is the result of electromagnetic force of the earth any object weight is subject to electromagnetic force directly , the only way this could happen is for the object to be seperated by space from earth, such an element could not exist on earth as it would(or prob the earth) would be repelled away
  14. how can inertial mass be independant of gravity when no more force is needed to move a larger mass in 0 gravity please give an experimental example which shows that the force required to accelerate a larger mass on earth is independant of gravity just because a mass isnt in gravitational fall it is still subject to gravity therefore any increase in resistance due to extra matter must allow for the force gravity in its equation? f=ma doesnt allow for it am i wrong?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.