Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JaKiri

  1. Ofc it depends who you talk to as it were. It's not exactly the most rigourously defined area of physics, so its quite partisan in places.
  2. Not all exams. For instance STEP forces one to think, however these are being replaced in all subjects but maths with the AEA (which don't, if the maths one I sat is a fair sample).
  3. Well, the evidence for it at the moment is that the universe doesn't work if you combine the standard model and general relativity. Until you get a working mathematical model that you can predict from, it's all just so much hot air. But as popsci books go, TEU is a good one. Correctomundo. I thought it was 11, with 7 as a Calibi-Yau space?
  4. That's right though, 0.9 rec. is equiv to 1. (this is in relevence to Giles says: whats the problem with blike's last proof? )
  5. This is almost creationist in its stylings; as you can only get perfectly stable systems in confined models, any empirical example we could give could be said to be 'unstable', which of course we could not prove, only disprove. Therefore stating such a thing as a prediction is almost singularly unhelpful. If it is pushed out, as the only thing that really keeps the sun together is the gravity, wouldn't this cloud of plasma just expand? Created from the sun, or created from the planets? Because it would have to be some coincidence that allows, say, Jupiter and all its moons to be created in the same 'birth'. Now, I could be going insane, but am I the only one to see something problematic with creating a ball of ice from plasma? If the moon is 'pushed out' by solar pressure, then I don't think there would be an increase in orbital radius; the effect would be to direct the orbit of the moon 'away' from the sun, and to elongate the elipse in that direction. Plus the orbital radius is only increasing by about 4cm per year anyway. If the rotational speed of the planet is dependent on magnetic interaction between the core and the sun, then surely the length of the martian day would be very different to the terran day, as mars has no magnetic field to speak of? Yet the martian day is only 1.026 terran days. Vortex chaos? If that is so, then why don't all the particles in a planet's atmosphere simply orbit? Why do we have counter-rotational winds, and the like? What do you mean, 'created by geology'? Geology is defined as 'The scientific study of the origin, history, structure and processes of the Earth'. Actually make something even nearing sense and I might be able to understand what you are talking about. Since you are saying that all the particles on a planet are orbiting, then why would the water be lost to space if it is in orbit around the planet? Why then has there been shown to be gravitational attraction between non-spinning objects? 'Lines of force' are defined as the direction taken by a point mass/charge at the given points. If the lines of force are spiral in shape, then wouldn't things fall in a spiral, rather than vertically down? (You seem to have forgotten how to count at this stage) The words have individual meaning, but don't seem to be coherent as a sentence. Plus you don't seem to know what 'centrifugal force' (which doesnt exist) and 'centripetal force' (which does) are. Aberration is defined as 'a deviation from the expected course'. So I don't really understand what you are trying to say, as this is no prediction; it's a verification of the truth of the model (given certain errors for other factors). As opposed to 'normal' gravity, which when the earth is between mars and the sun, mars flies off at a tangent. Proven to be incorrect. There is no such thing as centrifugal (or certrifugal as you put it) force. 1. There is no such thing as centrifugal (or certrifugal as you put it) force. 2. Without some kind of numerical prediction, this is not a different prediction to either Newtonian gravity or General Relativity, and can't support the theory. Since you haven't given any numerical values/equations etc for spin gravity so far, you can't actually say this. Newtonian Gravity and General Relativity don't need dark matter or central black holes if you don't put any numbers in. An ether would suggest absolute positioning, which really went out with Newton. Doesn't this go against what you said in 22? Haven't you said that all these forces are 'push' forces, in which case the sun should explode instantly, as there's nothing holding it in. Since electricity is a flow of electrons, I don't see how moving a proton in a magnetic field induces electricty. Plus this would mean that all objects induce electricity, going back to 22 and 23. Explain why. Red shifts have been shown to be independent of distance, not proportional to as this theory would suggest. Once again, the words make sense, but I have no idea what you are talking about. The Chandler wobble is not a force... Which is a great pity, as there is really quite a lot of evidence for them. You do understand that wave mechanics depends upon Special Relativity, which you decried earlier?
  • 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.