Jump to content

Mellinia

Senior Members
  • Posts

    243
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Mellinia

  1. now let the planet move from A to B in small time dT....let it cover a distance dSvector

     

    ...here dA ( the area covered by the planet in time dT) = 1/2 rvector x dSvector

     

     

    why is the dA = 1/2 rvector X dSvector?

    shouldn't it be dA = 1/2 rvector X (dy)^2?

    doesn't dS=rvectordy?

  2. And this is currently approved in science world? Keep on rocking!

     

    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.

  3. Actually one experiment failed due to known reasons. I have done numerous tests of my own and I haven't failed yet. Next step is test run in vacuum.

     

     

     

    Contradicting in what way? What kind of mathematical derivation you do have for Newton's II law? In YOUR physics there is derivation for it, right?

     

    Cherry picking, right. What will you say after test ran in vacuum? :lol:

     

    Derivation of Newtonian mechanics--

    http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/newton_mechanics.html

  4. 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?

  5. Not necessary include math. Please, ignore my theory and this topic. You don't have to read this, ok?

     

    ...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).

  6. Broader theory have to include results of previous theory.

     

    Density is kg/m^3

     

    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?

     

     

  7. If I remember correctly, even in this Speculations area, there is conversation concerning of existence of ether. I think you can't say that it's proven that there is no ether.

    Photons hava a mass (tiny one) and ether near large mass bends photons path.

     

    Ok, that last part shows me that you didn't understand what you read :( I hope you take time to really understand that paper. If you don't do it, please, ignore it and ignore this topic.

     

    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?

  8. You are wrong in so many levels dude. First, your gravitation calculations are wrong, you must measure r as distance between mass points, not as distance between surfaces. Second, if you can't understand what (any kind of) movement causes in ether, you are missing a lot in many areas of physics.

    Third, if you measure GR with for example atom clocks, you will get correct result, but only because atoms clocks behave differently in various densities of FTE.

     

    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?!!!

     

     

     

     

     

  9. Actually the wall blocked pulling force. I got the effect alright, but I did reruns with better system and there was not good effect. So, yes, Magnus effect can be prevented with wall.

     

    ok, about my theory.

    1) my theory sure applies to non-rotating objects. Pure movement without rotation causes changes is ether too, of course. According to my theory if there is no rotation or other movements there won't be any pulling force.

     

    So, the experiment failed?

     

    Um, but then your equations show nothing of this. So now movements through the "ether" also produces a pulling force?!

     

    2) not with small mass (like bike's wheel). With heavy metal ball "gravity" overcomes air resistance nicely (no need for high rotation frequence). I thought that you got that already, hmm...

     

     

    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.

     

    3) yes

     

     

    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)

     

    mmm... normal Newton's equation is just fine, you only have to forget the gravitation constant. That constant is actually NOT a constant, it's rotational component of force and it's varies.

     

    dude, you just said that unrotating objects also causes gravity.

     

    I got an idea! There is relativily easy and cheap way to prevent asteroid collisions! We just have to put few large rotaing objects into space along asteroids path to make that asteroid's path change :)Those "rotaters" can be in space permanently and moved to where needed.

     

    dude. The "large objects" causes gravity even if they are not rotating. we want small objects that are rotating fast(saves costs, you see)

  10. Ok, let's try another route. Picture in your mind, that every mass is surrounded by FTEPs. Bigger mass in covered with more FTEP ans so ether is thicker. When two objects rotate or move (in relation to each other), what will happen in ether? Well pressure changes because there is no gravity per se. Can you picture this? Try to be as positive as you can towards the idea and me.

     

    Ether density is related to 1/r^2 so would you say that there is any differences when you measure preasure between moving objects compared to preasure behing the objects? Remember the distance r.

     

    Can you picture what that preasure difference can do to the objects?

     

    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.

  11. I think the perception (or information input) is less relevant than the knowledge of the event taking place and the social norms that have been established. You could close your eyes, or be blind, but if you know someone is being murdered you are still going to compare that experience against the social norms established in your local tribe, community, or society... regardless of having the visual input restricted.

     

     

    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...

  12. Hmm... I did an experiment with the same test object and same drill, BUT this time through ~3mm wall. Wall size was roughly 1 m^2. EFFECT IS STILL THERE !!! :blink::lol::blink:

    I try to manage to create a video during this weekend.

     

     

    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?

  13. Theory works also with "massless" particles. Obviously there is mass, but it's just too damn small to detect currently (like photons).

     

    I don't have bigger setup available anymore. I think that I save my money to University which runs the test in vacuum, so everybody is happy.

     

    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.

  14. You think that Magnus effect works better with smoother object? Actually with rough high rotating object, effect is poorer. And with large massed ball, effect is great without high rotation frequence. Do you understand? No need for big rotation frequence -> no air induced Magnus effect. Got it?

     

     

    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)

  15. I think it was 50 rps. Well, It's all about Magnus effect! BUT this Magnus effect happens in force transfer ether (FTE). My experiment can be done in vacuum where Magnus effect with air is irrelevant, actually test performs even better in vacuum.

     

    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

    actually test performs even better in vacuum.

    part.

     

    And so we put aside the fact that gravity occurs between non-rotating objects?

  16. They tried they failed. I did show how to do it :D The test object was round plastic stick (some kind of knitting thing), so it's smoother than common pencil. Aaa... don't use vaseline! It will be all over the place.

     

    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.

  17. Problem is that some current ideas in physics are a bit wrong. My theory is completely provable, it's not matter of fate, you can validate it.

     

    It was proved mathematically. In fact, if it was wrong, I could find a frame of reference that your theory isn't working.

    The point is, they tried to prove your theory, and they failed. You should try proving it, though.

     

    By the way, try attracting a round pencil covered in Vaseline around the middle part with your driller and post the video. Be sure to show us the rps of the driller...

  18. I haven't said that Earth rotates respect to you. The point is that Earth rotates. Rotation generates pulling effect due to Magnus effect in ether.

     

    Einstein proved that all laws of physics are applicable in any reference frame.

    If you can measure gravity when you're jumping from the earth(which is not rotating with respect to you.), then gravity is there when you fall down from jumping. The point Earth rotates, in your theory only holds applicable to something that saw it rotate.

  19. Well, I don't have a vacuum pump so doing that is out of question at a moment. Air flow is just a problem. With larger objects you don't need that much rotation frequence to get the effect. You did see the test with a bike's wheel, air flow was too much. With driller (50 rps) effect was ok. With smoother (less air flow) rotating part the effect is greater. Vacuum is naturally the best option. BUT, when generating lifting force with rotating objects air flow is actually helpful.

     

    mmm... jumping, but you are on Earth. Earth is rotating and therefore generates pulling force (gravitation).

     

    Problem is, air flow is ( I'm thinking along the lines of Bernoulli's principle, fast moving wing causes lift) what saves you from seeing that rotating objects don't generate gravity.

     

    Yes, earth is rotating. But not with respect to you. All laws of physics are valid in any frame of reference, including yours. Do you observe the earth rotate with respect to you?

  20. Does completely rejecting a particular input of information (eg not listening to the surroundings) prevent emotional output that arises from evaluating that input? e.g. If you see one killing another you will feel disgust but a blind person doesn't.

     

    If so, does abstaining from information input actually produces a state of mind which is free of emotions?

  21. Before i begin, a couple things you should know.

    1) Im only 12 years old, so dont expect fancy calculus equations that agree with yours.

    2) I dont have the money to present evidence for this theory.

     

    I'll try to continually post new additions to this theory. If any of my claims contradict, let me know.

     

    First of all, the basics. Bullet Physics is the theory of Dimensional, Time, and Space travel.

     

    There are three constants per space(half-dimension). the Antimatter ( or M- ) and Matter (or M+ ) Node Counts, and the Energy constant.

    Basically, the medium between the Antimatter Node Count (M-NC) and the Matter Node Counts( M+NC) is the energy constant

     

     

     

    Anymore details before we start a full discussion? Don't worry about the math first...even though it is probably needed later. I do suggest double-checking your theory with existing ones to see what your theory have an advantage over.

    Anyway, what I gleamed from your 'explanation' is this:

    1.I did a double take on 'Dimensional' travel. What is this?

    2.What are Node counts?

    3.What is the 'medium' for? And why is a 'constant'?! What kind of constant were you thinking of?

×
×
  • 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.