Lan Todak

20 minutes ago, joigus said:

Physics cannot be formulated in just words (however philosophically sophisticated) or pictures. It just can't.

Yes you can. Just multiply p,h,y,s,i,c and s then you'll get physics 😏😏😏.

24 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Ok, so there's at least one neutron star between us on earth and the planet Uranus. Can you provide a map of how you believe the solar system looks like?

Sorry... I read it wrong.

26 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Have you considered my hint about asking questions instead of posting claims?

I donno what to say. But I prefer this way...

29 minutes ago, Strange said:

Well, you might convince people that you have a valid argument.

Getting it published is up to you.

So... Asking people to provide mathematical evidence isn't right because some of it worth million dollars... At least people get paid or their papers get published.

38 minutes ago, Strange said:

You think neutron stars exist between us and the other planets? Wow. What do you base this on?

Why do you think no one has noticed? 

And they probably would cause noticeable gravitational lensing, which would change as they passed between us and other planets. But, more importantly, we would see them.

They would also cause the orbits of the planets to be different. You know that Neptune was discovered because the orbits of other planets did not seem quite right unless there was another (hypothetical) planet. That is why Neptune is sometimes called "the original dark matter".

Sorry... I read it wrong.

40 minutes ago, Strange said:

No. It is called dark because it doesn't interact with light

No... We call dark DNA not because it doesn't interact with light.

3 hours ago, Strange said:

You mean that if gravity is holding you down then I will start to float because it can't work in two places at the same time?

This is the problem with your use of arguments from common sense and describing things in words: it makes no sense.

Please show, in mathematical detail, exactly what you mean.

I can... But what will I get. Will my calculations get published? 

3 hours ago, Strange said:

No. It makes no difference other you push to slowly or hit it fast

Are u sure about that? It certainly not. U will slip. 

3 hours ago, Ghideon said:

That is not very clear or helpful. I'll try again: can you post a reference to a credible source that supports your claim that such a phenomenon exists and how that phenomenon is defined? From there we could discuss the possible causes.

I have but i can post it now.

3 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Do you believe there are massive objects between us and the planets?

Yes... Neutron star for example.

3 hours ago, joigus said:

In science, it doesn't (darkly, even) matter at all what anyone believes

I know... We call it dark because we don't know what it is.

3 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

What magnifying effect on the planets? 

bigger and closer

4 hours ago, Ghideon said:

 

Have you compared that explanation to some calculations or can you provide some source? Have you compared the above with what gravitational lensing actually is according to science?

It might be helpful to open a thread the mainstream sections asking some questions instead. 

"Gravitational lensing. As the light emitted by distant galaxies passes by massive objects in the universe, the gravitational pull from these objects can distort or bend the light. This is called gravitational lensing. ... Weak gravitational lensing results in galaxies appearing distorted, stretched or magnified" -google.

I know GLE is caused by distribution of dark matter. But only if dark matter is real. Otherwise its just gravity.

I left a note at the bottom saying that I don't believe in dark matter.

U are asking me for some sources. Why don't u? Could you give something telling us what causes magnifying effects on the planets?

It is hard to convince anyone when everyone uses common sense in argument. It's ok. I came here not to argue. I just want to give a suggestion.

We learnt from school that centrifugal(or centripetal) works the same with orbital force

but actually not because

Gravity always work at specific degree(angle) at instant moment.

It does not make sense right?

let me explain. When someone standing on slippery floor wants to move a slippery box, the only way to move the box is by hinting it fast. As u can see, to apply force u need contact, less contact means more force.

centrifugal/petal force requires connection between center and moving part. That implies Centrifugal/petal to have contact all the times.

Yes u might think gravity also have contact all the time. No, when we move away gravity deceases and grows when we get closer. Centrifugal/petal force is always the same even if we use elastic material because when we move away we gain force and lose when get closer.

I undestand if u dont get it. Take times to read.

The key is gravity axerts force at exact location and time not total locations at period of time.

So, if something is moving, an exact amount of gravitational force applies at exact instantly location and time.

Take magnet as example. Run this experiment, shoot a bullet over a magnet and calculate magnetic force required to Swing the bullet to circular path. Trust me that will require ridiculously large amount of force. Why? Because magnetic pull works the same.

Do you get it? Why I wrote dis? This implies gravity is actually stronger than what we feel.

Another evidence is the existence of gravitational lensing effect around giant planets especially uranus. We can see Uranus with naked eyes. If we put earth to scale, as small as a ball on the football field, Uranus would be at around 7 to 8 km and earth totally not visiable at all. that's obviously gravitational lensing effect. That also explains Why the planets look closer too...

So I gave two evidence for now first and more If all of u interested in me. There are a lot proofs for strong gravity.

Side note:

I dont believe dark matter exists

Do they pull or push earth in/toward the sun?  

(for evidence.)

There are several ways to prove that our earth is actually a star.
one way is to do "free fall" experiment on the moon.

23 hours ago, Ghideon said:

There seems to be some errors in that claim. If you mean earth that we live on, earth is not a star. Earth does not seem deadly. Large planets* in solar system are planets, not stars AFAIK.

Are you maybe talking about brown dwarfs? 

*) gas planets

No... i mean star like sun but much smaller.

23 hours ago, Janus said:

If you mean "dead" star rather than "deadly" star, You'd still be wrong.  Stars all, at some time or another, had hydrogen fusion occurring in their cores.  This is not the case for or any of the other planets in our solar system.  They instead are classed as sub-stellar objects.

True for  now until physicists have found star smaller than our earth due to
physicists believe that hydrogen fusion can not be happening on star like that. 
anyway... i really mean "deadly". 

22 hours ago, Strange said:

!

Moderator Note

The rules of the Speculations forum require you to support your claims with evidence. If you do not provide support for this (plainly nonsensical) claim in the next post this thread will be closed.

 

Done. read from the top.

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

It's not really a discussion if you just try to claim the things you make up are facts. 

It's also not reasonable to redefine words that already have a known and well-used meaning, and then expect anyone to know what you're talking about.

And doubling down on your ignorance, instead of trying to explain yourself or ask some questions about the areas where your understanding is lacking, that's just preaching. This is a science discussion forum. You wasted your best chance to explain and support what you're talking about.

If i wanted to ask questions i would not come here... 
i would go on the right topic and ask... 

living on a deadly star. All of the giant planets are also stars.       

Since i have been given warning so i will go straight to the point.

our solar system is well fine tuned so everything seems stable from going to disorder.

because of that, energy looks conserved in every confined body. but globally that's not the case. 

total mass should be calculated of certain area or volume rather than of body when involving chaotic systems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem 

//I will go on vacation and will be back.. 😃. 

3 hours ago, Mordred said:

Atoms don't think or read indicators. They simply respond to their respective fields through attraction and repulsion interactions.

if we ask a person to sit in a box and tie the box with different length ropes . when we pull any of the ropes with equal strength and direction, does he know which one?

if atom is exerted with forces from various distances, that atom will interact according to directions and strengths of those forces only.  atom is not experiencing any distances.  

17 hours ago, swansont said:

At the end of the rod you will get the integrated value of M/r^2

Any scenario with the symmetry I described will give you zero.

No, you will get zero at the center, and a nonzero value away from center. I expect it will be a maximum at the end of the rod, since that situation would have the most, and closest, mass contributing to the net result.

How atoms knew that they were farther away from the center? Does atom have such indicator to indicate coordinates?   

21 hours ago, Sensei said:

Mass of what? Mass of small things is measured on weigh. Mass of uniform things is calculated from average density muliplied by volume of an object. e.g. mass of the all oceans can be calculated from volume, obtained from depth maps, muliplied by density 1 kg/L. Mass of astronomical objects like planets is calculated from gravitational acceleration of an object.

Mass of macroscopic objects is sum of masses of constituents. Measure mass of single average grain of sand, calculate volume of a beach, and you will know average quantity of grains. The same is with atoms. Therefore we can convert mass to moles in chemistry.

How about temperature and luminosity? 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Yes. Apply Newton's law to it.

Symmetry indicates that it's zero. (any dV I pick has a partner equidistant from the center and in the exact opposite direction)

What's your point?

You need to plot the value into a graph. from the center to the ends of the rod. you will get zero to asymptotically zero.

36 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes. Apply Newton's law to it.

Symmetry indicates that it's zero. (any dV I pick has a partner equidistant from the center and in the exact opposite direction)

What's your point?

How about at the ends of the rod?would you get some values? what happened if you split the rod into 2 identical rods. so that the center became 2 new ends. would that give you values instead of zero referring of your result? just answer my questions first then i will let you know...

Let say if i had a golden rod,1000000 km in width and 1 km in diameter. Could you calculate gravity at the center of that rod?

27 minutes ago, Strange said:

Why? So that we know the total mass.

!

Moderator Note

Do I need to move this to Speculations? Do you have an alternative theory you are proposing?

 

maybe later... since i did not purpose any theory yet. 

length*

Why we calculate total mass of a subject?

I don't understand even after using google translate... 😫

1 minute ago, Strange said:

The only benefits you can get from good topics are a productive discussion and, maybe, some upvotes.

You cannot ask people to give you money (if that is what you mean by 'donate').

Oh... okkey... I thought that would be possible

Hi... can I get benefits from good topics... can i ask anyone to donate? can i get banned from asking for donations?  

21 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Energy is a property of matter in physics, not a thing separate by itself. Empty space is devoid of matter, by definition, so how are you accumulating energy?

Add this to Strange's list, and I think you'll find you need a more formal science study. Popular science articles are NOT the place to learn science. They'll just confuse you with their sensationalism.

If energy  is a property of matter, energy should also be a property of space. 

21 hours ago, Strange said:

This is largely nonsense.

• Matter is not a form of space
• Matter cannot be created and destroyed to nothingness
• Driving away energy does not create matter.

Then why do physicists separate energy fields for each energy field they propose? Physicists invented math to Higgs field but they don’t know how energy fields get created. this is absurd...

On 2/15/2019 at 12:38 AM, StringJunky said:

So, within the confines of a body, space does not exist? I know we commonly make the distinction but is that really the case?

matter is another form of space. matter and space are united but our senses perceive matter as physical form (has boundary and solid). matter can be created and destroyed to nothingness and vice-versa. accumulating energy at any point in empty space creates gravity while driving away energy creates matter.         

15 hours ago, Mordred said:

OK let's clarify something here. First consider the following definitions.

Mass is resistance to inertia change

Energy the ability to perform work.

Spacetime a geometric model system with 3 spatial dimensions with 1 time dimension.  In physics dimension is an independent variable or value that can change without affecting any other mathematical object.

So how does mass curve spacetime. Well GR models bodies in free fall that is without any force applied. Time is given units of length and can be called an interval. This is done by setting c which is constant to all observers and adding a unit of time. So the time coordinate is given units of length by ct.

(t,x,y,z)=(ct,x,y,z)=(x1,x2x3x,x4) the last is in four momentum form for convenience as its useful to model a particle trajectory along the x axis.

Now what is spacetime curvature. Well space is just volume... (Very important ) it isn't a stretchable bendable fabric...

Those are just analogy descriptive. 

What spacetime truly means by curvature is the worldline paths for light it us the null geodesic. 

If you shoot two laser beams in flat spacetime those beams stay parallel. If spacetime is curved then the beams converge for positive curvature and spread apart for negative curvature.

 This is a consequence of how the mass term affects the time it takes for a particle to go from emitter to observer. That whole resistance to inertia. 

So let's drop two objects toward a planet. You have the usual Centre of mass. As the objects free fall they do not stay parallel. They will converge upon one another as they approach the center of mass.

That what is really meant by curvature the free fall paths are curved. Not the volume of space.

Do you mean in 4 dimensional space?... in 3d, space distorted whenever object passing by like when black hole is passing over galaxy. At least we can clearly see distortion in 3d. A mass can really curve space... i am just asking how... in quantum level.   

10 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Not by the definition used in science. What do YOU mean by "alive"?

I mean empty space has unique properties and account to  97% total energy of our universe. matter can not simply bend empty space. 99.9999999% energy of a matter resides in empty space too.     

I know... but empty space is alive