Mellinia

So, the frequency remains the same but wavelength changes because the energy of photons are constant and wavelength is not related to its energy?

yeah, but the speed of photons remain the same, right? Do photons lose energy when they pass through something transparent?

Well, c is always constant(the speed of light?!) but I have no idea as to why wavelength is altered but frequency is not.

if I wrote a code that could generate new code, would that make computer 'god'?

Why doesn't the frequency of light change after it is perfectly refracted? Is it because of the conservation of energy?

sorry, it should have been dA = 1/2( rvector)^2 (dy) instead

why is the dA = 1/2 rvector X dSvector? shouldn't it be dA = 1/2 rvector X (dy)^2? doesn't dS=rvectordy?

Have you read it? It's published in a journal, subject to even harsher critics than in this forum. Though this is the special case of conservative forces(e.g. gravitational forces). Law of physics can be derived. That's why our resident experts keep on asking you how are your 'equations' derived.

Derivation of Newtonian mechanics-- http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/newton_mechanics.html

I thought Einstein 's GM showed that the universe was curved (it works on Riemann surfaces) and that the stretchy rubber is just an analogy to help understand how the stress-energy tensor affect space-time around the mass in question? Did you mean that the angle in which the shells are inclined increases as they near the mass point?

...sigh. Well, hopefully I provided something for you to improve your theory. Maths is needed for you to show how you're right. You predict, people do experiments, the prediction is proved, your theory gets accepted (or not).

Yup, and that includes the math. Units do not make an equation. We are discussing physics, not maths. I don't really understand... you're saying that G is inversely proportional to the density? of what?

Hmm, i don't think i will get any reaction. Because I don't have any input to show an output So, basically we can cheat polygraph if we can convince ourselves that we are not lying?

Yes, I read it. However, there was no convincing conclusion out of the discussion. What kind of mass were you thinking? rest mass? ether bends? dude. That's what GM said. Your paper said nothing about that. okay, actually GM never said anything about ether. It's spacetime. dude, really, do you realise that you're modifying your theory so much that it looks more closely like the accepted theory of GM now? even though it wasn't really an equation, more a analysis of the dimensions, what I get is this. G= (N(ms / kg )^2)(1/2)(n^2) now, N is a derived unit. it is equal to kgms^-2 Substituting , I get G=(m^3)(n^2)/(2kg) Of course, you never explained what does m(the distance unit), and kg(the mass unit) came from. Which object does it applies on? From your treatment of G, I guess that kg is the mass of the rotating object. Then what about m(distance?!) Of course, unless N is something...then I couldn't just wave it away, but what is it?

Um, right. The force is quite small. I apologise. um, you did say rotational, and ether doesn't exist, dude, it's proven. GR isn't just used for atomic clocks, dude. Light bending is off the mark(i tried your equations) I read your equations and found this G=(m^3)(n^2)/(2kg) it is directly proportional to distance now?!!!

So, the experiment failed? Um, but then your equations show nothing of this. So now movements through the "ether" also produces a pulling force?! Well, the small mass can be compensated by the high rps, right? That's what your equations say. The reason why he don't use the heavy metal ball is that he want to show that rotation, not Newton's law of gravitation(which required a huge mass and small distance to show some visible effect) was what caused gravity. However....the experiments showed otherwise. I've already calculated that the force of two heavy lead balls of 47.54kg sitting next to each other at distance of 0.1m give each other a 0.15N pulling force(that's quite large). That is what Newton told me. I want you to tell me rotation causes it. dude. We have tons of experimental data to show GM is currently correct. Don't worry, we tried proving it wrong, of course. Problem is, everyone failed. You just signed the letter that condemned your theory. Newton's theory was tested. But it failed to explain some things that Einstein's theory could. Einstein's theory was tested. But it failed to explain some things that your theory can't explain too. Dude, i reread your paper a few times just to understand you're trying attribute the force from pulling force(that's what we see) to pushing force(from the FTEP) dude, you just said that unrotating objects also causes gravity. dude. The "large objects" causes gravity even if they are not rotating. we want small objects that are rotating fast(saves costs, you see)

Dude, you know we will all ask you for the equation relating mass and density of FTEP and the distance. Show it, please...we seem to be getting somewhere with the theory.

So, if you don't know someone is being murdered then you won't have any reaction, then? Hmm, what happens if the observer does not perceive it as murder? Then the reaction would be different...

Hopefully we get to see the video, because: 1) so airflow does(?!) get in the way of the "Magnus effect" 2) so the second bike experiment failed in spite of air flow being blocked [see imatfaal's second experiment], and so your explanation of how air flow blocks it is contradicted. If you're correct that a wall can prevent airflow problems, then your explanation that air flow causes the weight not be picked up is wrong. Vice versa, dude. 3)The Magnus effect is applied to rotating objects in motion in a viscous fluid, dude, not to things that are not rotating. DUDE, the Magnus effect is not a pulling force to other objects. They don't feel it. Are you trying to say that the gravity is actually caused by the "Magnus effect"of motion in the "medium" of "Force transfer ether particles(FTEP)"? 4)The force you're trying to explain with FTEP is what I think is called 'lift', i.e. airplanes? 5) Dude, if this video gets out, everything you tried to explain the weight-that-don't-picked-up-because-of-air-flow thing goes ka-put. 6)But Dude, we need to see the video to see that airflow does get in the way of 'gravity'. 7)Dude, what did you get yourself into? By the way, you did not explain how your theory works on rest-mass-less particles, because that's where Newton failed. And you're using Newton's equations for your G. So currently your theory: 1) can not be applied to objects that are not rotating 2) can show that "gravity" can not overcome air resistance in spite of the calculated value of gravitational force being larger than air resistance and weight. 3) can show that the predictions made by general relativity is dead wrong as G is dependent of the rps. [yes, G is needed in Einstein equations] Did I miss anything?

An aquarium works, i think. Any enclosed space strong enough to hold atmospheric pressure...English miners used that technique for decades.

Um, there is a reason why there photons have no rest mass. You could try this: fill a glass cube half with water. Boil off the water. The steam would drive out the air. After the water is nearly used up, closed up the cube and allow it to cool. You now have a near-vacuum. Test your experiment.

I gotcha. Actually, Magnus effect works irregardless of the surface in mention and the object spinning experiences it, not the object outside it. Big rotation frequency --> high velocity of air around --> Lift force. Does your theory work with massless particles? Wait...effect is great with large mass ball? Can I see it? But then again, wouldn't gravitational force affect it(I meant Newton's)

The Magnus effect also happens in air. dude. 50rps?! no wonder it flew to the driller. Well...you did say you did not manage to do the experiment, so I can't really accept the part. And so we put aside the fact that gravity occurs between non-rotating objects?

How much was the rps? http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Lift_force and http://en.wikipedia....i/Magnus_effect I do fear by increasing the speed of the air between the thing and the driller actually causes a region of low pressure between them and the plastic was pushed in by the air pressure. using vaseline greatly decreases the friction between air and the pencil has quite the weight.