I-try

Strange. Thanks for your reassessment of my mentality and the other statement. I accept your statements in the same manner and spirit in which they are given. My ability to apply physics in an industrial manner is non-existent. However, I do believe that ? possesses an ability to assist a better understanding of the fundamental dynamic nature underlying physics than that now prevailing. You were exposed several times now to the manner in which I view the difference between gravity and gravitation. An explanation was provided on previous posts. However and since you state that you are trying to understand my work, ? and a comparison to that of GR is herein provided. Gr is able to account for the rotation of Mercury's aphelion GR states that gravitation is not a force, and gravity only results because matter is compelled to follow geodesic pathways through space. GR also states that matter warps space/time. GR requires and provides measurements regarding the deflecting of light rays by the warping of space/time. The concept of relativistic mass was derived from the idea of a slowly accelerated electron supposed to prevent it from radiating, and so enable the accelerating force to be constantly added to increase the mass of the accelerating electron. You know how GR accounts for matters inability to exceed the speed of light. ? attempts to provide a logical fundamental dynamic base for physics. ? requires that matters mass and charge plus outgoing electric field was created originally by the establishment of its gravity field. Originally gravity created matter particles and eternally assists to maintain their continued existence. ? requires that light rays are deflected in proportion to the strength of the gravity field they travel through, and explains why. ? states that gravitation is not a force, and the warping of space results from the eternal interaction between gravity and matter. Gravitation results from the reduction in the mass of competing bodies in proportion to the inverse of the square of the distance between them, and resulting from a proportional reduction of the gravity field strength between them. According to ?, gravitation does not produce a field. There is no such field as a Gravitational field. There is the act of pulling, but no possibility of a pulling force. ? proposes and explains why science should refer to relativistic momentum and not relativistic mass. Etcetera and so on.

Mordred. Had you bothered to examine my work, you would have found three examples of calculations derived from the application of logic, arithmetic and a calculator. One introduced the idea that an electron undergoes a cycle that provides a time relative to an electron. The maximum rate of oscillation was provided. The second calculation also provided a conceptual description why the electric force of an electron was so vastly superior to its gravitation effect. The third calculation gave the very slight difference between acceleration of a kg of matter by gravitational effect, as opposed to horizontal acceleration of a kg of matter where the accelerating force has to be supplied from an external source. That challenge to Strange remains unanswered. With regards to assisting you to feel good: Glad to be of assistance. Even so, I would advise that you were attempting to detect the nonexistent, because all energy is dark before enforcing an affect. Strange. You haven't answered one of my questions to you, and appear to be now taking a more conciliatory attitude. Therefore, will you answer this question; a yes or now answer will also suffice. Do you still hold to your previous stated belief that I am an idiot with regards to my knowledge of physics, based on my stated long term belief that gravity and gravitation are two differing phenomenons.

hypervalent_iodine I am aware that you will remove this post. Your sudden closing of thread Gravity by I-try was far from even a pretence of fairness. Therefore if that is your attitude, you can also close this thread because I will not be posting further information on this forum; there are others where there may be persons interested in the fundamental nature of physics. The following was my reply to Swansont that was gagged by your closing of that thread. And you should also look at the posts referred to. Swansont said; In Newtonian physics, gravity is a force. There's nothing going on here that I have seen that suggest relativity needs to be invoked, especially in a manner so trivial as saying since gravity is not a force, therefore momentum is not conserved. Answer to: In Newtonian physics, gravity is a force. According to ?, gravity is also a force, and attempts to provide the following fundamental conceptual description of gravity in post numbers 21and 32. The postulated fundamental difference between gravity and gravitation has been supplied in other posts. With regards to the last part of your reply; a careful rereading of post number 47 leaves me wondering how you came to your stated conclusion.

Swansont. Posted Today, 08:26 PM I-try, on 29 Oct 2014 - 10:12 AM, said: Swansont. I am in complete agreement with you regarding the conservation of momentum, and with the obvious stability of the rotating Earth whilst describing its orbit of the Sun. However, and unlike the centuries of interest generated by an attempt to understand gravitation, conservation of momentum has mainly been applied and demanded when particles or bodies of matter collide. Apart from the last statement, mainstream science appears to have little interest in that phenomenon being strictly applied during the Earth's orbit of the Sun etcetera. Wait, what? People haven't been interested in the orbits of planets (especially the earth)around the sun? Perhaps you need a history refresher. My answer. Perhaps I do , every body can benefit from a refresher. Even so, mainstream science should supply the reason for an increase in momentum when the Earth's velocity increases (momentum = mass times velocity) when the Earth approaches the Sun. It is not logical to state that the required energy that results in an increase in momentum is derived from gravitation, because according to ?, and Einstein's correct statement, gravitation is not a force. The conservation of momentum is required to conform to the strict requirements of the conservation of energy. ? requires that the magnitude of the Earth's momentum does not change with an increase in velocity, thereby requiring a change to the mass of the Earth. With regards to proof, it is not possible to perform an experiment in any frame of reference, because all parameters remain I strict compliance to each other and to local physical conditions. That is the reason why SR is so accurate. In that regard, I will be intensely interested in the findings hopefully to result from the spacecraft Rosetta orbiting of the comet now approaching the vicinity of the Sun. I-try, on 29 Oct 2014 - 10:12 AM, said: On previous posts, the mechanics of gravity and gravitation were posted without even an expression of a yawn from any member of this forum; as was the reason for the excess acceleration of Pioneer whilst bypassing Jupiter. The reason provided for the Pioneer anomaly, supplies a part of the answer for the posed question presently referred to. To enable the obvious stability of the Earth, the conservation of energy and of momentum must be conserved instant by instant, despite any acceleration of the Earth that is induced by gravitation. I, too, fail to understand what you mean by "instant by instant". The gravitational interaction of the sun and earth violates neither conservation of energy nor conservation of angular momentum. My answer. By instant by instant I mean that the instant one parameter changes, all other parameters instantaneously change proportionally. And yes, I agree that; The gravitational interaction of the sun and earth violates neither conservation of energy nor conservation of angular momentum

Strange. Your statement: When you say "that phenomenon", do you mean conservation of momentum? If so, then that is applied during the Earth's orbit of the Sun. Can you explain why you think it is not? Answer. You would be an incompetent reader if you did not know that the conservation of momentum was being referred to. I will adopt one of your tactics by giving the following answer to your question: Yes it is. But not being you, I will supply the correct and more full answer and that is; Mainstream science only states that conservation of momentum is conceived when the Earth returns to any particular point in its orbit. Your statement: I'm not sure what you mean by "conserved instant by instant". Conservation laws are always true, so of course they are true at every instant. So I assume you mean something else. Could you try to explain it more clearly? Answer. If you had bothered to have read my posts so contemptuously ignored and not responded to, you would not have need to ask that question. ? requires that the magnitude of a particle or a body of matter's momentum remains unchanged, and in strict conformity to the changes enforced by changing local parameters occurring during Earth's orbit. And why you wont understand the reasons is because when gravitation is not involved, momentum is found by the equation mass times velocity. (We have been there before haven't we and I have not received an answer to my challenge to you.) Gravitation is most certainly involved every instant during the Earth's orbit, and there are constant slight changes to its velocity. Strange. You haven't answered any of my question to you, and you certainly are not interested in promoting an understanding of ?. Your questions are only probes in an attempt to find reason to ridicule. Therefore, I will no longer answer your questions not related to an understanding of ?. My question to Swansont was required by his moderators notice with regards of supplying an answer and indication of possible proof. ? answer to that question is only an indication of its ability to point to and supply an answer to such phenomena as the reason, the how and the why of inertia, momentum, uniform and accelerated motion, and assorted kindred subjects. The gravitational thermodynamic effect is one of the most important.

Swansont. I am in complete agreement with you regarding the conservation of momentum, and with the obvious stability of the rotating Earth whilst describing its orbit of the Sun. However, and unlike the centuries of interest generated by an attempt to understand gravitation, conservation of momentum has mainly been applied and demanded when particles or bodies of matter collide. Apart from the last statement, mainstream science appears to have little interest in that phenomenon being strictly applied during the Earth's orbit of the Sun etcetera. The question regarding the conservation of momentum, so like gravitation, is in the how and the why. On previous posts, the mechanics of gravity and gravitation were posted without even an expression of a yawn from any member of this forum; as was the reason for the excess acceleration of Pioneer whilst bypassing Jupiter. The reason provided for the Pioneer anomaly, supplies a part of the answer for the posed question presently referred to. To enable the obvious stability of the Earth, the conservation of energy and of momentum must be conserved instant by instant, despite any acceleration of the Earth that is induced by gravitation.

Swansont. Your answer to the question posed in post number 37 is only a description of reality, of that which we so obviously observe. The orbital speed of the Earth is approximately 30 km/s and relative to the Earth direction of orbital motion, two given points at the equator and 180 degrees apart on the surface of the Earth, exchange positions every 12 hours. The question asked is under those conditions, what physical phenomena enables the Earth to maintain such stability(question mark) The answer to that question explains why SR is so accurate, and why space vehicles receive slight extra acceleration than that expected from Newtonian gravitation, whilst bypassing close behind the direction of motion of a planet or the Sun. If NASA or the European Space Agency were to send a probe to pass close in front of the direction of motion of a planet, it would experience less acceleration than that expected to result from Newtonian gravitation, after deductions are made to account for the approach of the planet to the space-vehicle.

Swansont. ! In answer to your request and subsequent statement in smaller print: I have previously come to the conclusion that it would be futile to continue attempting to generate interest in ?, and therefore no hope on this forum of an evaluation regarding the possibility of the physical reality of that I refer to as The Gravitational Thermodynamic Effect. That conclusion resulted from the tone of responses (I am referred to as arrogant etcetera) to my posts, and total lack of responses to posts 12, 14,15,16, 17, 19, 21 and 24. Statements made in those posts included an outline of the mechanism of gravity and gravitation without the inclusion of some vital information that would have been provided if requested by questions indicating a genuine interest. The total lack of questions on the information contained in those posts eloquently indicated the futility of continuing further. Since then, I have been engaged in defensively answering questions and statements designed to indicate my stupidity. With regards to the lack of interested response and charges of arrogance etceteras; I did not come to this forum intending to pit my knowledge of physics against that of any other member of this forum. With regards to the practical application of physics in a commercial manner, I have no ability in that regard. Even so, my work has concentrated on the how and the why of the realities on which our physics is based, and in that regard, mainstream science concepts appear to be leading to expensive activity and brain power loss attempting to detect the non-existent such as constantly reoccurring gravitational induced waves. It was my hope that a better understanding of gravity would prevent such loss, and the human effort and scarce finances be perhaps directed in other directions such as health and welfare. With regards to your request to provide an example of how I could test my work, then if ? had been accepted, there would have been no need for the expensive and the large amount of brain power that went into detecting whether the mass of the Earth did actually warp the space around it. I have provided in recent posts, a much abbreviated list of what ? indicates is required of any concept attempting to explain the fundamental dynamic nature underlying physics. . To better comply with your request, I would suggest the following answer in the form of a question. Can mainstream science supply the detailed physical reason (including a description of the apparent rapidly changing of parameters) as to why a rotating Earth whilst orbiting the Sun, does not cause uninhabitable conditions on Earth. In other words, why is the rotating Earth able to maintain such stability whilst undergoing constant gravitational induced changes of velocity and angular momentum resulting from its orbit of the Sun. In that regard, ? supplies what I believe to be an automatic and logical answer. Rotation of the Earth implies 12 hour changes in angular momentum of large landmass and oceans relative to its velocity and that of the Sun. So like gravity and gravitation are physical phenomena, the posed question has a physical explanation. With regards to worth or otherwise; the gravitational thermodynamic effect suggested by ?, has to be capable of explaining all physical phenomena known and unknown, that pertains to the generation of heat energy. . !

Strange. I would advise you not to refer to your paste experiences regarding me. You may not appreciate my response. Also stop trying to play the aggrieve tutor dealing with a recalcitrant student, and actually answer one of my questions: especially regarding the provided slight numerical difference between horizontal acceleration and gravitational acceleration as indicated in my challenge to you. The implications of your opinion of my knowledge of theoretical physics contained in your posts, are mainly directed to other members of this forum, including the moderators, and your intention is glaringly obvious. You have eloquently provided your opinion of me. In the final section of your post 83, you stated: But lets forget that and move on. There is still the substantial point that your theory predicts a decreasing effective mass with increasing acceleration, while SR predicts an increase in effective mass with increasing velocity. These are clearly contradictory and, sadly, experiment supports SR and not you. <shrug> Not much we can do to help you in that case. Also, can you clarify what "experiment" you are referring to with respect to the "anomaly" in the measurement of the newton? Answer. Are you playing games by referring to acceleration in one instance and velocity in the other. I am well aware that velocity contains a directional component as well as speed. Nevertheless, congratulations for at least making the effort to indicate the difference between ? and GR. Yes, the first part of your statement concerning ? is perhaps correct. ? can provide an instant by instant conceptual description regarding changes to parameters acting on an electron whilst it is undergoing acceleration due to an unbalanced externally applied force; also instant by instant acceleration due to the gravitational effect of the Earth's gravity. The time referred to is relative to the rate of oscillations of an electron. In the process several anomalies are attempted to be answered such as: How does the electron know regarding the magnitude of past accelerations etceteras. Robin Pike made that query on a post in Classical Physics regarding gravitational acceleration of an electron. As for relativistic mass that Einstein derived from his study of the slowly accelerated electron, that question has been answered and reasons given on several previous posts. As for your last question, you appear to have forgotten that I gave you an answer in a recent previous post, and you replied by merely supplying the equation for calculating distance displaced relative to time. I have indicated to you that an anomaly exist, and therefore perhaps you can utilise your mathematical ability to provide an answer without the assistance of logic or further conceptual explanation. Remember your statements regarding the unnecessary need for logic and imagination or conceptual explanation regarding the advancement in the knowledge of physics.

Continued from post 33. The equal energy but opposite nature of the negatron and positron (as evidenced by equal rest mass and by equal but opposite magnetic response) must be included in and conform to all other explanations. The reason as to why opposites attract and like repel has to be indicated. It would be highly unlikely that Positrons would have any differences among themselves, then and because they repel each other, they would each be surrounded by a similar, equally repulsive force field, thereby indicating mutual repulsion. Naturally occurring negatrons would also be surrounded by their own type of force field for the same reason and result. Force acts on force and force (resulting from impacting energy) reacts against force. When an electron is undergoing rectilinear acceleration, there is a need to provide a conceptual reason for the change from the allover equal magnitude of the spherically radial, for a relatively stationary electron’s electrical ability, to a proportional intensification of that ability towards all directions perpendicular to an electron’s direction of motion. Does an electron radiate when undergoing orbital acceleration? The idea of P E provides information indicating that an electron would not radiate when in an unchanging orbital situation. There is a need to explain why an electron will and must radiate other than electrically, and in proportion to its rate of alternating near approach and retreat to and from other matter. Provide a fundamental and logical reason why photons are compelled to obey the dictates of gravitation? The inverse of the square of the distance law must be included in any explanation of fields. When the electromagnetic and gravitational nature is added to the above, then some legitimacy is due to any idea if thereby, all of the above and more such as reasons for phase changing of state appear to be inclusively and conceptually explainable.

Elfmotat. I will answer your post sentence by sentence. First sentence. I-try, a lot of members have been very patient with you. Answer. If you read my posts and subsequent answers from the beginning, you would find that you have been deceive because the overall attitude has been confrontation except for that of Hoola's posts. Your post is a mild example of uninformed confrontation. Second sentence. Everyone has tried to explain that what you're saying is ill-defined, at best. (And deep down, I'm sure you already know this.) Answer. Please supply an example where there has been an attempt at an understanding of my work. Frustration is part answer to your statement enclosed in brackets. Frustration because there needs to be at least a part understanding of ?, and not assume that the lack of university education or of mathematics ensures that I am self deluded in the belief that ? has some value. Third sentence. Why bother posting to a science forum then? If you're not interested in learning real science then why are you here. Answer. I came to this forum due to a belief there may be somebody with a desire and interest to examine ?. That belief was centred on the fact that as a postulated foundation for physics, ? has to be able to provide logically based information starting from the fundamental dynamic lever of reality, up to conditions pertaining at the centre of our galaxy. Forth sentence. It seems like you just want praise and validation Answer. Yes please, I would much appreciate an honest evaluation of ?. However from the past attitude here, that hope is no longer there. By praise, do you mean the thrill of being told I am arrogant or have less knowledge of physics than a school child. Fifth sentence, - finding out whether or not your ideas make sense and actually apply to reality appears to be a secondary concern. Answer. Not correct. I would much appreciate if you would supply an answer to the controversial statements I have made on this forum. Will you supply an answer regarding the need to teach the concept of relativistic momentum instead of relativistic mass. If you don't agree, will you supply your reasons. With regards Strange and his attitude to my work, I will supply you with the following example from post 14. His question. Also, when you refer to "units of mass" are you thinking that mass should be quantised in the same way that charge is? My answer. According to ?, the elementary charge exist only because the elementary mass particle in the form of an electron or a positron exists and their magnitude of mass is quantified in direct proportion to the magnitude of the parameters responsible either for their creation or for enabling their continued existence. His response. That doesn't really answer the question. Is mass (quantized in your model)? (A simple yes or no should suffice) If yes, is the quantum of mass equal to the mass of the electron? End of quote Now I will point out his method of diverting the debate back to his desired outcome. Without any questions regarding the part of my statement that he doesn't understand, he states that doesn't answer the question without providing reasons. Then proceeds to set the trap in the last two lines of his statement above by requesting a simple yes or no My yes answer to his questions were based on ?, regarding the amount of energy needed to be amassed to an elementary matter particle state. In that case, represented by an electron of a positron. By skim reading his last question, I read an a for a the and so he very elatedly proceeded with his demolition that included his assessment of my knowledge of physics. I have underlined the relevant part of my statement that he would not have had any knowledge of because it is not a part of mainstream knowledge. That underlined statement has relevance to why SR is so accurate. .

Strange. No you did not refer to quarks in your replies. However, by many of the statements you have made concerning ?, you consistently presume to have an understanding. Therefore, when you stated: . There are particles with masses that are not integer multiples of the electron mass. Then, because according to ?, the quoted statement was also a reference to their charge, hence the statements regarding quarks. And no, I don't expect that you will understand that statement. Regarding the anomaly referred to; there is no record in the literature that I can find that explains why during the experiment regarding the defining of a newton, the kilogram of matter was only displaced one half meter whilst achieving a velocity of one meter per second etc. Because you consider that your knowledge of physics far exceeds my lack of even a school child's knowledge of physics, you should have no trouble providing an explanation. By the way, ? automatically supplies an answer.

Strange. A review of your posts reveals a constant refusal to answer questions or statements by adhering to the concept that the best form of defence is to attack, thereby keep your opponent answering irrelevant questions such as the use of the word force in relation to the acceleration of matter or any other phenomena requiring the expenditure of that which we call energy. I wholeheartedly agree that a quantity of expended energy we refer to as a force, is necessary to change the relative state of rest or velocity of a body of matter, is found by the equation, Force = mass times the acceleration. Even so you prefer to pretend that the word force does not basically requires the expenditure of energy by refusing to acknowledge the connection between the two words. You do so despite the experimenters finding that the magnitude of force regarding the specified acceleration of a gram of matter, is found by measuring the total energy expended. To you the word force and energy are one and the same phenomenon with no attempt at explaining the difference. The word force represents the magnitude of energy expended to achieve a given acceleration, whilst energy is a phenomenon. Relative to the above comments, in an earlier post you chose to challenge me regarding the mainstream reference to the pull of gravity or to gravitational pull. You in your usual manner implied that my statement was not correct and as a result I challenged you to provide a description of a pulling force. You have made no attempt to reply. Also, you have disregarded my statement regarding the slight difference between the horizontal acceleration of a kilogram mass by the application of a specified amount of force, a newton, and the 9,81 n stated to be the gravitational force acting on a kg of mass near sea level. Gravitational force despite Einstein correctly stating that gravitational force is an illusion. You appear to be unaware of why Einstein was able to correctly claim that the gravitational mass is exactly similar to the inertial mass. Also why his illustration using elevators under the two differing conditions was close to, but not exactly correct. ? supplies the difference between horizontal and vertical acceleration. Whilst on the subject of the definition of words such as acceleration and subsequent resulting change to velocity, are you aware that there is an anomaly associated with the experiment to measure the magnitude of energy expended and represented as a newton. If you are aware of said anomaly, then define it, and can you supply a logical answer for same. I expect that so like my other questions to you, this question will also be ignored. With regards my yes yes answers to your question Quote : Is mass (quantized in your model)? (A simple yes or no should suffice) If yes, is the quantum of mass equal to the mass of the electron? My answer. Your ridiculous reference to the quarks especially the t quark as debunking my statement concerning the electron representing a unit of charge and mass, is an indication of your debunking tactics. Electrons are the least massive of all stable particles, and cannot be reasonably compared to artificially created virtual particles, especially the t quark with a supposed mass comparable with an atom of tungsten, and virtual because its mean lifetime is calculated to be roughly 5×10−25 part of a second. To compare the t quark to the relative stability of charge and mass of an electron is physically and logically preposterous And yes, I agree that further attempts at a debate with you would be a waste of my time. However, I would be interested in any replies you are able to post regarding my questions to you.

I have today temporally rescued the thread Gravity by I-try from the oblivion of finally being buried under pages of posts, which because and due to a astonishing lack of interest, will be its fate. Therefore, before abandoning further attempts to gain a genuine interest, I will provide an idea of what must be achieved by any valid attempt to provide information regarding the fundamental dynamic nature of the realities proposed as a foundation for physics. Phenomena to be explained. The following list of phenomena must all be explainable without addition or change to any basic postulation that we may propose as a foundation for physics. The same restriction and requirements applies to my work on that subject.. The partial list is as follows: There is the question of the nature of Energy and Mass. What constitutes the potentially sensible energy or mass of an electron and all other particles? A fundamental postulation must be capable of explaining the nature of the Poincaré stresses that mathematically are deemed to be essential and thereby explain their effect on the electron. There is a requirement to provide a conceptual description of and conform in minute detail with all the laws of motion. The mathematical concept is well known. By minute detail, I am referring to the answer to a question such as follows. If an unbalanced single quantum of force acted to displace the center of mass of an electron by a minimum possible distance during one instant, and thereafter no other displacing force acted; what change to the electron’s state has occurred that will ensure that the electron center of mass will every instant thereafter, be displaced twice the original distance displaced and in the direction of original displacement? All movement both uniform and accelerated must be logically explainable. Because of the reality of motion, an electron in motion moves a distance relative to Time, then a definition of Time relative to an electron must be provided to give meaning to the distance and so the rate of displacement. What is the nature of Time relative to an electron and to humanity? Whenever acceleration of mass is involved, and a conceptual explanation of the rate of acceleration is required; a fundamental conceptual explanation of time is absolutely required. When an electron is being accelerated, there is a requirement to explain the reaction force, the inertia. Also, to provide a reason why the electron will emit intensified electrical radiation directed towards the perpendicular of its motion, and in proportion to the instant by instant imposed rate of acceleration. Why is there a magnetic field associated with an electron in motion; how is it formed? There are changes to the kinetic energy and presently believed total mass (total energy) resulting from acceleration to be accounted for and explained. If the magnitude of an electron’s electrical charge and therefore its electrical ability depends on the quantity of its rest mass, (I believe that it does) and the total mass were to increase with acceleration, explain conservation of charge. Approaching the speed of light, the distortion of a particle and the increase in relativistic mass (total energy) must be accounted for, because throughout the acceleration, the electron has also radiated intensified electrical energy towards the perpendicular to its direction of motion, and in proportion to the rate of its acceleration. Because rates of an electron’s acceleration are quantified, being due to the fact that energy is quantified, it would be impossible to accelerate an electron slowly enough to avoid directional intensified electrical radiation. To be continued.

Strange. My answer to your question one and two is as follows. A gram of matter, referred to as a mass of one gram, contains a large number of units of mass. Even so, and irrespective of whether we are concerned with the method of reference, the mass content measured by what is referred to as its weight; has been precisely measured, as has the acceleration that results from the continuous one second application of a force referred to as one dyne. Then as stated in my post number 73 regarding measurement by electromagnetic energy, and if that dyne force has not been measured, its measurement is capable of supplying a reasonable accurate indication of the amount of rest energy of a Kg mass. The magnitude of the energy removed by the Earth gravity effect per Kg mass could also thereby be provided. An opportunity is thereby provided to check accuracy of the above statement and the equation E = MC^2 The accuracy of the measurement could be much improved by the use of the smallest measured amount of matter, subjected to proportional equivalent conditions to that of the gram of matter. ? answer to your last question is yes and yes. Your question has relevance to the treatment of energy and mass as appears in the work of Einstein.

Strange. Try the web site below http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/cgsmks.html The dyne is the CGS unit of force, it is the force which accelerates a mass of one gram at the rate of one centimeter per second per second. If there has been no estimation of energy, then by accepting that a mass of one gram can be accelerated as stated by a dyne of force and the referred to magnitude of force could require the expenditure of a precise quantity of measurable electromagnetic energy, then 100,000 quantities of that measured amount of energy, multiplied by 300,000,000 would give a reasonable accurate indication of the amount of rest energy of a Kg mass. The magnitude of the energy removed by the Earth gravity effect per Kg mass could also thereby be provided. An opportunity is thereby provided to check accuracy of the above statement and the equation E = MC^2 Your question: Also, when you refer to "units of mass" are you thinking that mass should be quantised in the same way that charge is? According to ?, the elementary charge exist only because the elementary mass particle in the form of an electron or a positron exists and their magnitude of mass is quantified in direct proportion to the magnitude of the parameters responsible either for their creation or for enabling their continued existence.

Strange. Many thanks for your much appreciated stated interest and for the relevant questions – and yes, your questions are very constructive It is my fault there is confusion, because I should have referred to the energy- rest mass relationship forming a kilogram of matter. Also, I was of the opinion that science had defined the magnitude of energy expended to deliver the force referred to as a newton In this post, I hope the answer to your question stated below removes some of the confusion and not adding to it: I suppose the confusion is to be expected because this is the first time since attempting to get an evaluation of ?, I have had the pleasure of answering questions directly relevant to a genuine attempt at understanding. And throughout the years of developing ?, the concentration has been mainly directed to the how and the why. It is only because ? required that there should be a slight difference between the calculation in newtons of the horizontal and vertical measurements by providing the how and why, that I attempted the explanation. I will be leaving your other questions for my next post because although ? provides an answer, those questions require care in answering. With regards to the confusion. The confusion resulting from my statement - The rest mass is found by dividing the energy content of 300,000,000 newtons by c^2 - can perhaps be removed by looking upon a unit of mass as follows. I look upon the equation E = MC^2 as M referring to the total amounts of units of mass forming a body of matter. Therefore, according to ?, a unit of mass is equal to units of primeval energy (as attempted to be explained in other posts) being amassed to an energy density = to C^2; also attempted to be explained in other posts. Because ? proposes that an electron can perhaps be referred to as a unit of mass as well as a unit of charge, then physicists and mathematicians would be better able to eventually estimate the energy-mass relationship. If you refer back to the use of the Dyne as the then agreed unit for mass (for industrial and scientific purposes only) and there are 100,000 Dynes to a newton, then the magnitude of energy essentially expended during the delivery of that small amount of force referred to, provides a better approximate understanding of the energy-rest mass relationship forming a kilogram of mass. The answer for your other questions will perhaps provide a better understanding of ?.

Strange. Many thanks for your questions. osted Today, 09:37 AM Quote results in a very slight reduction of the kilogram bodies mass in strict accordance to the conservation of energy and of momentum Can you explain why this reduces the mass of the body? Answer. As stated on other posts, Gravitation effect results from an interference to the Gravity field of all competing matter. Not already stated: If the Kilogram of mass was located in a volume of space free of gravitational effect, its increase in mass would be equal to the energy content of 9,81 newtons divided by C^2. Therefore providing the magnitude of difference between Gravity mass and Gravitational mass. You stated: So you are completely discarding relativity, despite all the evidence? Answer. Reasons for disregarding relativistic mass were provided on other posts. But, ignoring that, can you explain the logic behind dividing the vertical acceleration by the force required to accelerate to c in 1s? In other words, why does the mass reduce by this fraction? Answer. I would refer you to the answer provided for your remaining questions Quote thereby indicating the magnitude of the amassed energy contained within the kilogram of matter. How does the force required to accelerate to c in 1 second relate to the energy of the matter? How does the energy calculated this way relate to Einstein's famous e=mc2? Answer. to: How does the force required to accelerate to c in 1 second relate to the energy of the matter? The short answer is – the rest mass of a kilogram of matter is provided by the fact that it requires a force of one newton to accelerate a kilogram mass to a velocity of one meter during one second. Two newtons of force must be applied to accelerate a kilogram of mass from rest to achieve a velocity of two meters during one second, and so on. Therefore, if that experimentally obtained belief is correct, the logical and mathematical extension requires a force of 300,000,000 newtons to accelerate a kilogram of matter at relative rest to a velocity of c during one second. The energy content of a newton of force provides the remaining part of the answer. An attempt at a provision for a long answer to that question according to ?, would require that you have at least a basic understanding of ?, some of which has already been posted in this thread and the thread Gravity by I-try. The rest mass is found by dividing the energy content of 300,000,000 newtons by c^2.

The horizontal acceleration of a kilogram of mass to a velocity of one metre during one second, required the application of a magnitude of force referred to as a newton, and the force is derived from an external source. Whereas, with regards to the gravitational acceleration, the accelerating force responsible for the acceleration of a kilogram of mass, is derived from the gravitational effect of the Earth's gravity fields interfering with the gravity field of the kilogram mass, and essentially results in a very slight reduction of the kilogram bodies mass in strict accordance to the conservation of energy and of momentum. Even so, if we consider that 9.81 newtons equals the sensible gravitational effect induced force acting on a kilogram mass due to the influence of the Earth’s mass, then the horizontal acceleration of a kilogram mass to a velocity of 9.81m during one second, requires the application of 1/30,581,039 times more force per second, than the magnitude of gravitational force acting on a kilogram mass due to the earth’s gravitational effect. The magnitude of the extra force is derived from the number of newtons (9.81) now believed to be due to the Earth’s gravitational acceleration of the kilogram mass, divided into what I hope is a rough approximation of the theoretical number of newtons (300,000,000) required to accelerate the kilogram of rest mass to the speed of light in one second. Thereby indicating the magnitude of the amassed energy contained within the kilogram of matter. Any possibility of change in other ability of the kilogram mass to resist acceleration is ignored, because a slight increase in relativistic mass would be equal in both accelerations of the kilogram of mass. Therefore, there is approximately 1 / 30,581,039 times less force than the 9.81 Newton now supposed to be the value of the Earth’s gravitational affect on a kilogram mass. My belief concerning relativistic mass was supplied on other posts.

Strange. Thanks for your agreement to reply when you stated;” show us how you calculate the value for the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the Earth and we can discuss it”.I hope the underlined word is intended to be read as we will discuss it. I have not calculated the value of the acceleration due to the gravitational effect at the surface of the Earth. Others much more capable have provided that by measuring the acceleration to a velocity of 9.81 meters per second per second The calculation to be posted, refers to the very slight difference between a newton of force derived from the horizontal acceleration of a kilogram mass to a velocity of one meter during one second, and when then applied to give the value of the vertical acceleration of a kilogram mass due to gravitational affect during one second. If it is agreed that there is a difference, my rough calculation could be subjected to a refinement by mathematicians or physicists. Despite the believed difference, Einstein's statement regarding the exact similarity between the gravitational and inertial mass remains correct due to the instant by instant conservation of energy and momentum; ? attempts to provide a conceptual explanation of the instant by instant change to parameters acting on an electron undergoing horizontal acceleration due to an electromagnet force, and the instant by instant acceleration of an electron due to gravitational effect.

I-try, on 17 Oct 2014 - 3:19 PM, said: Will you engage in a debate with me on the subject of the exact similarity of gravitational and inertial mass, with regards to the accuracy of the present believed 9.81 newton of force imposed by the Earth's gravity field on a kilogram of mass falling at close proximity to sea level on Earth. Strange said: Show us your calculations and I'll take a look. Strange. Due to your past attitude to me and ?, your lawyers statement only implies that you will take a look, which I am sure you and some others will do. Judging from experience of the total lack of reply when I have posted other physics based statement regarding generally believed concepts; your agreement of taking a look, does not require you to reply, let alone providing a valid assessment. If you or another are prepared to forsake the apparent belief that all who lack a mathematical ability and dare to propose ideas concerning generally believed concepts are deserving of ridicule, then I will gladly post the mainstream physics involved that require a compliance to the laws of the conservation of energy and momentum: also the approximate arithmetic derived calculations. Commit to an honest debate and I will gladly post as stated.

Physica. I withdrew my challenge to you because you will shortly be undergoing your final exams. However, if you would like to join in my challenge to Strange – you will obviously do so. If you want to continue wasting my and your time – you will attempt to do so. I will not reply. I am well aware that this is a science forum and our present knowledge of physics is utilised in support of all disciplines. You, by your and other posters attitude of pre-judging ? before you or they have the slightest idea regarding its value or otherwise, is why we are not well along with an attempt at an understanding or a hoped for fair evaluation. Another reason is except tor the questions provided by hoola, there has been no previous indication that any body was reading my work. The constant attempts at explaining gravity are considered as scientific when attempted by others – double standards requires such studies are unscientific when ? makes an attempt. If your reason for your provision of a link is a concern for my welfare and not of sarcastic intent, then attempt to provide one where I can contact perhaps some scientists who are interested in investigating the subjects covered by ?. I have always been of the opinion that a knowledge of the fundamental dynamic nature of matter would be of interest to those interested in furthering the knowledge of physics. With regards to your claim that ? makes no predictions indicates that you have given very little attention to my work – obviously because of your desire to protect mainstream concepts. More than 40 years ago, ? provided reasons why constantly reoccurring gravity induced waves have no possibility of existing. With regards to arrogance, then do you believe that physics is a closed book; or have you a snobbish belief that a university education is the only way that the fundamental dynamic nature underlying matter can be explored. QM does not explain gravity or gravitation; the general belief is that gravitation and gravity are the one and the same phenomenal applied to differing circumstances. If you wish to discuss the physics pertaining to ? without the inclusion of abuse, I would be happy to oblige – no red herrings please. Strange. You would most likely attempt to calculate the probability amplitude regards who is knocking at your door, I would apply practical logic and open the door; then have a peep hole installed to allow future prior investigation of who is knocking on my door. However, I must thank you for the link. It will be a help to me and others with regards correct punctuation. But enough of your red herrings: Will you engage in a debate with me on the subject of the exact similarity of gravitational and inertial mass, with regards to the accuracy of the present believed 9.81 newton of force imposed by the Earth's gravity field on a kilogram of mass falling at close proximity to sea level on Earth. And further if you wish, a discussion concerning the possibility of there being a difference between the exact similarity of gravity and inertial mass, and the exact similarity of gravitational and inertial mass. If there is a difference, then why and how does the difference occur.

Strange. Most of your post 57 does not warrant an answer except for your last statement concerning your search of the thread. You were unable to find the information because it was not there. I have been much too busy answering attack posts similar to those of yours, and when goaded concerning ? being referred to as rubbish by persons not able to make such a statement in any honesty, I posted statement pertaining to ? that I expected to be subjected to critical analysis; there is no interest because there are no questions or replies. One such statement provided a one plus one equals two phenomenon that provides a fundamental base for mathematics and perhaps the on or off method used by a calculator It would appear that because ? has an ability to provide an ATTEMPT to explain the fundamental dynamic nature of gravity and gravitation, then probability demands that I must be a self deluding interloper intruding where I have no right or ability, and so I am subjected to ridicule. Fair-minded people should respect the convention that I should be held to be innocent until proven guilty of an arrogant self indulged belief that I possess a superior knowledge except for that of ?. Not an unreasonable request given the extent and complexity of my self imposed task, and the fact that I have never claimed that ? is correct. I simply have faith in the information provided by ?. By coming to this forum, it was my hope that there would be a fair assessment of it. It is the concepts provided by ?, that conflict with that of the mainstream concepts that should be the subject of attack. I have never claimed an ability that approaches the practical application of physics that most certainly demands a knowledge of mathematics. With regard to the above and ?, then on the thread; What is the vector quantity of e-m radiation produced by an accelerated charged particle?, Robin Pike, a physicist made some remarks and proposed questions concerning the emission of radiation from an electron accelerated by gravitation. He also wondered how the electron knew of past accelerations. Although ? was able to provide an answer that was relevant to his questions, I am not permitted to do so because that thread is in Classical Physics and the answers are a part of ? obtained from many years of attempts to analyse such subjects. The answer to one of Robin Pike's questions and provided by ?, requires an instant by instant description of the changes to parameters affecting an electron that is forced to accelerate. The other requires an instant by instant description of an electron accelerated by the gravitational effect of a larger body. However, if I posted those descriptions, there would be a need to provide information concerning how ? views the creation of an electron to enable some understanding of the acceleration of an electron, therefore it would require a number of posts. With regards your statement that I should post the subject of my challenge to you, I would be pleased to do so on condition there are to be replies or questions forthcoming of a physical nature that respect the laws of conservation of energy and momentum.

Strange, Your post number 55 is typical of your attitude on several forums. Knock knock continual knocker, who's there, its good old Strange valiantly defending the concept that mathematical ability is essentially required (it would be a valuable asset) by any person attempting an increase in knowledge regarding the advancement of physics. Thereby implying that mathematicians are incapable of mathematically explaining physical concepts proposed by others. If your belief as stated above is correct, then you would be better able to attempt to explain anomalies extant in our knowledge of physics than I am. In that regard, you being an electrical engineer should better qualify you to attempt to provide presently unknown information concerning an electron's nature and attributes. The facts are, you have or had an applicative ability to use electrical knowledge in an industrial capacity, and so you were able to support your lifestyle. I am involved simply because I believe physics is based on a rudimentary electrical phenomenon that may assist to further our knowledge of the proposed existence of a Gravitational Thermodynamic Effect. Despite my lack of mathematical ability, I will withdraw my challenge to Physica and extend it to you Strange. ? states that despite the fact that the Earth's gravitational effect has the ability to accelerate a kilogram mass by 9.81 meters per second per second, the measurement of the accelerating force referred to is slightly less than 9.81 newtons now accepted by the mainstream to be correct. The challenge is for you to use your mathematical ability to prove that ? backing that statement to be incorrect. I would advise that you have no less a person as Einstein (the exact equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass as conceptually explained by the use of two elevators) on your side in such a debate. Stating that it would be a waste of your time to debate me, would not be consistent with the large amount of your time spent on this and other forums demolishing other people's ideas. After all, meter, second, acceleration. and newton are measurable as demanded by you.

Physica. I would suggest that for your sake in your final exams, you take more care and note of words as well as statements. I stated as here quoted: With regards to the problems you set in what you imagine is a test of ?; either your logic is suspect (I could have easily obtained an answer) or your sense of fairness is. The easily obtained referred to in brackets indicates I could have cheated by requesting answers from friends well qualified to provide an answer. With regards to fairness, I have made it clear that I an not able to adapt mathematics to my work because of a lack of knowledge of mathematics. With regards the statement you made to set another problem for me, you should perhaps revise the underlined; A pulsar, which is 1019 m from Earth …. even so, you are wasting your time and effort because those questions are well beyond my ability to answer. Also, you have not the slightest idea of my profound admiration of the achievements of mainstream science. You stated: He has spent decades on this but he hasn't bothered to apply maths to it as if his brain is so amazing that it doesn't need maths to guide him. No Physica, just a lifelong intense interest in science in general with an abiding love of physics, plus an ability to attempt by imagination and logic, to understand the microscopic reasons underlying that we refer to as reality. I have never claimed ? is correct, or referred to it as being a theory. I only request and hope that ? is subjected to criticism that is physically based and logically correct. I note that you are in your final year of a physics degree and I wish you every success. With regards to my formal education, (previously declared) I was compelled by circumstances during the so called Great Depression, to leave school at age 13 , whilst in grade 7 of primary school. It is unfortunate and regrettable that my enforced defence of ? has annoyed you.