Mellinia

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...

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.

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?

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?

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?

Post the experiment done in the vacuum, please, it achieves a greater effect of demonstrating your theorem, showing that it isn't air flow that saved your theory from failing. You still haven't explained how your theorem fails to explain the gravitational force caused by things that are not rotating. e.g. you jumping and falling on to the ground when you are not rotating with respect to the Earth.

Illuusio. I saw the video. The thing swung, dude, it was not attracted to the powertool. Besides, it didn't really stayed there...

So, I plugged in the numbers, m1=47.54kg=m2, and distance between them, 0.001m, into Newton's F=Gm1m2 / r^2 and got myself 0.15 N, where G is the universal gravitational constant. Yup! They would get contact, however slowly though. I believe you have tried it, in a vacuum, perhaps hung by very light strings? Now according to your theory, n=0, thus G=0, thus they don't get contact. When you start spinning them though, did you do this in a vacuum? Did you ensure that they underwent constant spinning before allowing them to be put together, so that external forces can be eliminated? And that the lead balls continue to stick together after their contact? Um, let assume they spun in different directions so kinetic energy-causes-flying off could be eliminated.

Um, how? Please show that Newton is wrong...using your own equations perhaps? Of course, unless you're trying to use experimental evidence to show that Newton is wrong on the twin balls that are not rotating...then I really don't know what to say...Don't we have the Cavendish Experiment for that? Again, picture this. You're standing on Earth. You jump. Why do you fall down to Earth? For one, the earth is not rotating with respect to you. (That's why our ancestors thought that the Earth was flat.) So, once again, the calculated G value is zero. So there is no pulling force towards the ground.i.e. No gravitation? Um, Newton was wrong on some binary stars and galaxy's odd spiral movements. Heck, his equations were wrong to predict Pluto's orbit. And...that's when Einstein showed up. Still nothing on rotation though. I'm still amazed. What phenomena did you observe that led to your theory?

But that's a prediction by classical physics. Your theorem predicted an attractive force due to an rotating object. Unless of course you're stating that anything that gets pulled in by the rotating object flies off so fast we can't see it.... Amazing! How did you observe these phenomena? Hmm. The First law of ToEbi showed how to calculate G. So...picture this. There are two balls in space. One has a billion times the mass of the second ball. They are not rotating. According to Newton, they will experience an attractive force to each other. According to you, both balls are not rotating, so the rounds per second ends up zero, and G=0, and they will not experience an attractive force to each other. Who is right? Experiments show Newton is right. Though you can say that the two balls are rotating with respective to some other thing, the laws of physics are same in any reference frame...unless you also intend to show that that's wrong too?

but the pebbles doesn't even come near the wheel when I ride my bike. They don't get 'attached to the wheel'. Your equations come across as...."magic"? I believe you believe that we should believe your equations just as we believed Newton's "F=ma"(which was slightly off by the way). However...aren't you using the same system as Newton's in your equation? Where should your 'G' be used to calculate the gravitational force? If it is used in Newton's law of gravitation, shouldn't your 'G' be accountable for that too?

Two plane mirrors inclined at an angle [latex]\theta [/latex] to each other, with an object placed between them will create [latex](n-1) \frac {360 ^o}{ \theta } [/latex] of images. Is this because of the repeated reflection of the images? Are we allowed to produce a mirror lengthwise to show a reflection of an object that would otherwise cannot be located? see attachment. go.bmp

Now length contraction in this case is showed to be applied to curved space. This shows Mass/ Energy curves space. Ah, geometry doesn't show how mass is given the ability to bend space, it merely shows us how it curves it. That problem is left to philosophers to ponder. We don't know why space can be "bent" (it's empty!), or why time can be "warped" (time fabric?!) or why mass can affect it (why should it?) because basically, we haven't discovered enough.

Nice one swansont. Euclidean geometry only works on plane surfaces. Now Riemann geometry works on curve surfaces, reducing to Euclidean when the space in question is planar. So, I guess you can figure out the rest.

1. Einstein did not equate "gravitation" with "acceleration". He equated "acceleration due to gravity" with "acceleration due to external forces that gives the same acceleration as the former". (Sorry, but i need to be precise.) This meant that taking the acceleration due to Earth's gravity to be 9.87ms-2, your weight balance reading on Earth would be the same as your weight balance reading when you're on a rocket with 9.87ms-2 acceleration. 2. Spacetime is not just "three dimensions of space and one dimension of time". What you refer to as"gravitational field", a "medium", "like the atmosphere of the Earth" has a name, it's called spacetime. Space and time integrated together. Manipulating time affects space and vice versa. 3. "Warping" is not attributed to space. Sometimes you might see people discussing about "warping space" because space is much more easier to imagine than time. You can "imagine the 'warping' of space" but not time. Space is where everything's happening and time is the sequence in which everything's happening. 4. Mathematics allow us to "see" the "bend". "Bending of spacetime"caused us to be able to see a star directly behind the Sun because light travels on a "curved spacetime" caused by the Sun.

I do suggest reading up on general relativity. Spacetime may have the word space in it, and it does concern spatial dimensions but it isn't really just taking "three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension" together. I'm not even sure it only has three spatial dimensions. Space and time are "integrated" together. Affecting space affects time and vice versa. I don't know why, but it does. Isn't spacetime the "medium" that you call "gravitational field"? Einstein described the gravitational field as spacetime curvature. Spacetime which is present around everything. "Acceleration" and "Gravitation" both curve spacetime the same way, affecting the temporal dimension thus is equated. It doesn't mean that gravitation is substituted with acceleration. Einstein done away with gravitation by explaining that actually, the curvature of spacetime is gravity and that curvature is caused by mass/energy.

Side note: Mass warps space time...at times :"only time is warped". ~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity just in case

So what behaviors are observed to evoke pride?

ah. That clears up a bit. Thanks!

The thinking ego is just...there?!

So basically pride is a product of the society and our desires?

Do humans want to regain lost pride? Why does the 'revenge' mechanism seem to be span most cultures?

Please give use the other thread. We could use with some on topic reading.