
Content Count
72 
Joined

Last visited
Posts posted by awaterpon


46 minutes ago, Ghideon said:If forces are not balanced then the body is accelerating down through the earth. Does that match your observations?
The force which represent weight is one direction downwards opposed with small force upwards.Theses forces are not equal .The body will be at rest and no acceleration since it actually opposed by earth surface . in the case for instance the object accelerating into water , this is applied according to the calculation of what I suggested. Taking in consideration acceleration as well as water resistance
0 
Hello ,
This appears to violate physics but it is only a body phenomenon :
A human can stand on toes tips, toes , or a compilation of toes and feet balls .It is possible for a human to stand on toes. But if a person put load equivalent to his body mass on toes " and without wearing shoes " the load will break joints.
My hypothesis is:
Human body mass can be determined by comparing the body with another mass in scale" nothing new here ".The gravity of the human body is its mass times acceleration “nothing change here "
When a person stands on surface. The gravity force of body on a surface is far greater than the normal force by the surface on the body upwards.
The gravity force of body a” weight” appears in a spring of scale by compressing it which shows body mass times acceleration" nothing new". But the normal force upwards is less than that value. That why the pressure on feet toes and feet soles appears very small. So always the force of surface upwards is far smaller than force downwards " weight" .
The pressure on toes or soles is as a result of two equals forces , one is the force of ground upwards “ normal force “and the other is force downwards far less than weight.
The values: weight and normal force upwards related to each other mathematically .The massive the body is the force downwards “weight “and the force upwards are big
The explanation of the phenomenon of a person lifting ones’ massive body with weak foot and calf’s muscles when trying to pick a fruit on a tree vixra is :
The small normal force I mentioned of earth surface upwards on the body is equal to the force lifting the body, so the force lifting a body is small, far less than force downwards “weight”
0 
13 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:I find it quite believable and quite unremarkable.
Thanks you.
0 
45 minutes ago, Strange said:Also, the total force on the ground will be exactly equal to the weight. And the force of the ground on the person will also be equal to that. So Newton is redeemed once again.
Thanks
It's unbelievable that I carry up my 60 kg body with only my feet when trying to pick a fruit on a tree.0 
46 minutes ago, pzkpfw said:For one thing, a body is made of parts.
If you lift a 60 kg weight with your arm, the arm has to cope will all 60 kg.
A 60 kg person lifting themselves, does it in parts. Their neck lifts their head. Their core lifts their torso plus neck plus head. Their legs lift all the above.
It's not an apples to apples comparison. A 60 kg person doing a onehanded pull up or press up, would be a fairer comparison.
Thanks.
0 
According to classical mechanics for a force to lift a mass it should be slightly greater than its weight .
My hypothesis is that a human body can lift itself by a force far less than its weight .
It is obvious phenomenon that when lifting an object of 60 kg up , it would be extremely hard than lifting one's body " 60 kg" .while standing.
This applied to many phenomenon .A body will seem to have inertia far less than its actual mass inertia , moving and walking effortlessly , standing effortlessly , lifting one's body parts easily.
In this special case the Newtonian equations doesn't apply , however we could measure the ratio between the force lifting a body and the force lifting an object both body and the object have the same mass.
0 
My first thread about this topic:
F=GmM/r²
This equation is not valid and wrong.
What is wrong with this equation?
Mathematics equations are a away to measure quantities related to other quantities .
Equations works for finite values, I measure r = 4 meters and find out F to be x Newtons
Equations won't work for infinite values , that is equations themselves works finitely but not infinitely .
Let say F decreases without bound while r increases without bound, then the equation itself as a functional tool will approach infinity and the equation limit as r approaches ∞ is ∞, the equation is undefined and wrong.
If the equation definition is the tool that finds values of F for each value of r, then I can't find all values of F for all values of r , then the equation won't work for all values of F and r and it is useless and invalid.That means the equation itself approaches ∞ in measuring the quantities and undefinedI can say at F=0 , r doesn't exist and equals ∞, so the equation won't work and undefined in such case and invalid, but some scientists might say F won't reach 0 ever , so I presented the explanation above.
0 
If spacetime is infinite ,how gravity extends to infinity? we know infinity is unreachable because it continues forever and noone reach a finite point.How gravity extends to infinite distances while infinity is unreachable? how gravity bends and curve spacetime everywhere while space time end is unreachable? for gravity to bend spacetime everywhere it should reach its end , how gravity bends spacetime end while this end is unreachable?
0 
Two set of gear box one with 1:14 and the other of 1:56 the total is 784
Torque is first reduced by 1:14 then stored in spring then the spring release its energy to the gearbox 1:56.
0 
Hello,
I was able to build a machine to reduce torque with high ratios up to 1:700 gear box.
What applications in mechanical engineering I could use my new invention in?
Thanks,
0 
8 hours ago, swansont said:So you're claiming that Newton's first law is wrong. That an object in uniform motion will not remain in uniform motion in the absence of an external force. It will instead come to rest as it displaces space, which exerts a force on it.
Do you have any evidence that this is the case?
An object at uniform motion is different from accelerated object my idea applies to accelerated objects gravitational waves also appears for accelerated objects
12 hours ago, Ghideon said:Which theory is that? Movement of mass and curvature makes your description sound like detection of gravity waves, currently part of established science.
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2017/pressrelease/
New range caused by a rotating mass is different from gravitational waves this is a prediction for my theory and now it could be tested
0 
In my thread here and according to this quote"
"When an object moves , it tries to displace space in front of it " making non existence in space " space will resist its motion " inertia of an object" logically space can't be displaced without exerting the same force against the mass .Exerting force continuously will result in displacing space continuously and making nonexistence in space continuously .The two forces " force exerted on an object and resistance force by space will make energy creation "as energy and mass are interchangeable then the process actually creates new mass amount"
I can predict and test my theory as follows:
instead of mass popping out from nowhere we have energy or mass/energy coming from original energy transferred by force , when an object moves its mass increases causing new curvature in spacetime doubling the curvature already there .I can predict that new range of gravity will start from time t equals zero and extend this also could be tested
0 
When an object moves , it tries to displace space in front of it " making non existence in space " space will resist its motion " inertia of an object" logically space can't be displaced without exerting the same force against the mass .Exerting force continuously will result in displacing space continuously and making nonexistence in space continuously .The two forces " force exerted on an object and resistance force by space will make energy creation "as energy and mass are interchangeable then the process actually creates new mass amount I can conclude to this:
If space exerts force on mass "inertia" then nonspace will also exert the same force on space.
if nonspace exerts force on space between two masses and this space exerts force on the other mass then attraction or gravity will appear according to my view.
All these entities " space, nonspace , mass " exert forces on each other mutually.
1 hour ago, Ghideon said:What is your exact definition of the "space" that the mass "fills"? What is "mass" in your model?
Space is everything that is not anything mass is what has weight.
0 
3 hours ago, swansont said:What predictions can you make, based on your idea? How can it be tested?
I will think about this.
3 hours ago, swansont said:What does this mean?
I made a mistake mistake:
Mass m is attracted to nonexistence of space inside mass M and mass M is attracted to nonexistence of space in mass m.
3 hours ago, swansont said:That’s not what space is in mainstream physics.
I made another mistake mass and nonexistence of space are opposites if there is mass then something is missing by the existence of mass " this thing is space itself" causing nonexistence of space
0 
5 hours ago, Ghideon said:Ok, so the idea is about particle physics. How do you define a particle, radius and space in your idea? Is your definition compatible with quantum physics or are you suggesting something different? Radius, volume, density are not the most usable concepts at the small scales of subatomic particles, how does your model look? Is there a distinction between elementary particles such as electrons or quarks, which have no known internal structure*, versus composite particles such as protons, which do have internal structure?
*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_particle
Whether there is internal structure or point particle in general we have mass that fills a place of space and we have space that fills the place where there is not mass.
0 
11 minutes ago, Ghideon said:A quick comment; a lot more details and math is required since the idea seems to say that Newton and GR is incorrect. Example: As far as I know a star that have run out of fuel may collapse. If for instance the result is a neutron star we have about the same mass in less volume, ok? What is your definition of "space" in this context? Does the star loose a lot of gravity when it turns* into a neutron star, according to your model? How does your idea match observations? There are already mainstream models for this.
Space doesn't mean measurements from mass edges .There is still gaps between particles. Gravity is particle to particle attraction the collection is mass m.
0 
Well , I'm not against GR this is a new view added to GR view of space time curvature of positive and negative attraction concept.Does space exist inside mass m? No since mass m occupied the place of space.Does mass m exist in place of the space I mentioned? No space is nothingness there is not mass occupied in it
So mass m occupy space , this space is equivalent to mass m.
If mass m occupy space " there is not space in the place of the mass" then mass m causes Nonexistence of space in that place
If we have to masses M and m they will attract each other This is due to mass m is attracted to nonexistence of mass M and mass M is attracted to nonexistence of mass m.
Mass tends to fulfill the nonexistence of space caused by other masses .The two " space and matter" are opposite mass means no space , space means no mass so they have such interaction of fulfillment .
The fulfillment tendency causes potential between masses and force we have such concept in electricity where positive charges are attracted to negative charges.
Nonexistence of space could be like a negative charge and mass could be like a positive charge.
Notice the medium here for the force is space itself so I'm not against GR .
I mentioned the space which has been occupied is equivalent to the mass m so in the equation of Newton gravitation mass m and M can represent both masses and equivalent space
Fulfillment tendency happens for sure. If mass interacts with space and curve it according to GR then mass"positive " will also interact with nonspace "negative" causes attraction between two masses
0 
7 minutes ago, Strange said:You don't seem to understand how science works. Here is a summary:
1. Develop a mathematical model to describe what we observe
2. Make quantifiable and testable predictions based on that model
3. Test those predictions by means of observation/experiment
The infinite reach of gravity is not testable.
Neither of these is applied to the fact that gravity is infinite then no one can scientifically say gravity is infinite.
0 
1 hour ago, swansont said:All tests of gravity are consistent with the GR model, so we have a lot of confidence that the model is correct.
Not gravity in general but the fact that it should be infinite, how physics determines it should be infinite ?
0 
I post a thread here in speculation proposing that gravity has a limited range I would like to ask some questions about the existing fact.
My questions are :
What does science think of infinite gravity " gravity being everywhere" ?
How it is mathematically described "giving the idea that Newtonian gravitational law doesn't work for infinity distance" ?
Is the idea of infinite gravity part of GR ? how it is described according to GR?
Is there a proof for gravity being infinite in range ?
Thanks,
0 
On 4/23/2019 at 11:23 AM, Ghideon said:start by opening a new thread with some relevant question in the cosmology section!
I have started one .
0 

2 minutes ago, Ghideon said:Detection of gravity waves, with finite speed c, and hence reaching finite distance in finite time, got a Nobel Prize: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2017/pressrelease/ So it is considered a well established part of science.
I mean gravity is not infinitely throughout space. It is limited to a range extendable with speed of light c.
What if there is not new math, is that possible ?and it's only an addition to GR and just the equation I presented which shows limited time instead of infinite distance ?
0 
14 minutes ago, Ghideon said:Again, nothing new.
Is there any point of continuing this discussion?
Just one last thing:
What if there is not new math, is that possible ?and it's only an addition to GR and just the equation I presented which shows limited time instead of infinite distance ?
0
massive human body can stand on its weak feet toes
in Speculations
Posted · Edited by awaterpon
I'm glad this can be tested that easily.
weight of 60 kg is 60*9.8 or 588 Newton which is a huge number.
Try to pull toes with your hands and compare it with lifting a 60 kg mass you will see how these muscle are weak and won't bear even far less that mass