Jump to content

I-try

Senior Members
  • Posts

    139
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by I-try

  1. Swansont' I am confused regarding how I have hijacked the thread you refer to. I have attempted to locate the thread, but have been unable to find it to check if I have posted the reply to Hysor in the incorrect thread. If that is what I have done, then I owe an apology to the Forum. With regard to the thread number one as posted above, that was intended to supply truthful and accurate information concerning the man being discussed on that thread. I have been on his mailing list for some years. He provides access to all his letters and access or links to replies received from those claiming to have found Black Holes. With reference to the remainder of the post number one above, that was provided in an attempt to indicate the difficulties attached to any attempt to change majority views regarding concepts derived from The General Theory of Relativity. I have been abused and banned for life from another forum for daring to suggest that gravity and gravitation are both fundamental dynamic phenomena in their own right. At that time, my work was available free of charge. One of my opponents downloaded it and spent a short period of time leafing through it in search of a mathematical description. Because there were no such description, he declared it unscientific and not worth his time reading it. With regards opposing the conceptual finding derived from GR; my work on the fundamental dynamic nature of matter, which I have never claimed to be a theory or correct, has been made available to universities and many physicists for close to forty years without any criticism for or against, despite my pleas for critical comment. The fact that the referred to work demands that there is only an increase in relativist momentum when a particle closely approaches C, with no increase in mass, is an indication of one serious disagreement with GR. The physical proof of the last statement regarding mass increase as required by GR, would require an equal magnitude of force to achieve a given acceleration in any direction, when a particle closely approaches C. I have noticed on several occasions over the last year, that some physicists are now stating that they cannot understand why relativistic mass is still being taught to students. It would appear that you and I have differing idea of what constitutes an industry. In Australia during 2010, our government imposed a Carbon Tax that extracted eight billion dollars from the community for each of three years. It is expected to grow to fifteen billion dollars per year by 2017 if it is not removed. A large number of bureaucrats were employed to control the many avenues that money is supposed to support. We have been informed by our political masters that other countries are taking similar action. With regards punitive action taken against a professor by a university; I am on the mailing list of a professor (I can supply his name) who was invited to establish a department dealing with climate at a university. He was allowed to be accompanied by his advanced P Hd student. During his subsequent research he found physical proof that an increase in the Earth's heat preceded any increase in CO2 . Following that discovery, the university provided finance for him to attend a conference held in Europe. He presented his paper regarding his research, and to his dismay found that all airline tickets and accommodation had been cancelled. His employment at the university was also terminated. Due to the fact that the university agreed with and paid for him attending the conference, his actual masters did not like the idea that he be allowed to indicate that global warming was not solely the results of CO2. I suspect that the government money supplied to the university was not to be used to discredit the idea of climate change being mainly the results of our production of greenhouse gasses. Phi for All. Although I have always had an deep interest in science since childhood, my present endeavour with regards to physics began when I was given the privilege of holding a gyroscope wheel located in a single frame. Whilst the wheel was stationary relative to the frame, I could easily twist it about. However, as the magnitude of its angular momentum rapidly increased, I had great difficulty changing the direction of its axis of spin. Although the instructor provided the macro reason for such a change, I wanted to gain an understanding of the micro fundamental dynamic reasons for the increase in momentum. I was 19 years of age at that time, and 32 years of age when I finally arrived at a satisfactory conclusion. All my subsequent work is based on the results of a long and determined effort to understand. You refer to pride and criticising the enormous body of accepted science without learning it first. I never set out to become a physicist, and have great respect for the enormous body of accepted science. I am only interested in the fundamental dynamic nature of matter and implications for humanity, such as that I refer to as The Gravitational Thermodynamic Effect of the Great planets on the Sun, and other consequences. After 40 years of almost complete silence with regards to a lack of official evaluation of my work, the feeling is more of disgust, and with no place for pride. I am now aged 92 years of age and rapidly running out of time, and find it difficult to understand why a work on the only comprehensive, (extending from the fundamental nature of matter to conditions at the galactic centre) conceptually explained fundamental nature of gravity and gravitation since Sir Isaac Newton made no conjecture regarding gravity, is to be so ignored and disparaged without knowledge of the physics contained therein.
  2. Hysor. Stephen Crothers is a university trained mathematician … snip
  3. Hysor. Stephen Crothers is a university trained mathematician and has the courage to state his beliefs, despite his sure knowledge that such beliefs are controversial. I clicked on the video link you supplied, but did not listen to it because of my limited monthly download, and because I am well acquainted with his mathematical challenges that do not receive mathematical replies from those whom claim to have found Black Holes. His ideas pertaining to the CMB are based on the findings of a professional in that field of research. During his student years, he challenged the concept that GR provided mathematical proof for the existence of Black Holes. External experts agreed with his professor and he was expelled. He finished his education at another university. Such is the fate of anybody challenging mainstream concepts. The fate of professional who challenge the trillion dollar year Climate Change Industry is an indication of the fate awaiting those who dare to go against generally accepted beliefs. My work on The - - - - - - - requires 152 pages and is in book form. Whilst other books can be recommended, as evidenced by some replies to this thread, even so, I dare not mention the title of my book for fear of an accusation of self promotion. My work is definitely contrary to mainstream beliefs, as are some of my posts on this forum. Although my work in part agrees with and conceptually explains the fundamental dynamics of the warping by the presence of matter of that which provides reality to that we call space, it is definitely contrary to mainstream beliefs, as are some of my posts on this forum.
  4. I do not doubt for one moment the science and technology that has been expended on reoccurring gravity wave detection; also on the attempts to detect Black Holes. Both the mentioned endeavours are critically dependent on the conceptual findings of General Relativity, which in turn depends on Professor Einstein being correct regarding his interoperation of his mathematics, that correctly required that which provides reality to space is warped due to the presence of matter. The warping of space by matter is no longer in doubt. However, it is my belief that Einstein was in error when he declared gravitation to be an illusion, and gravity only existing because matter is compelled (indicative of a force) to follow geodesic pathways. There is no description of the fundamental dynamic nature regarding how the warping occurs, except for curvature as indicated by his mathematics. According to my work on the fundamental dynamic nature of matter, then no matter how valiantly scientists pursue the reoccurring gravity wave concept, that will fail because such waves do not travel beyond inter stellar distances and do not propagate as now expected. I find that Einstein was correct when he stated that gravitation was not a force, nevertheless, it is a phenomenon in its own right, and becomes very evident on Earth and the Solar system. The above is provided in good faith.
  5. I follow the many attempts on science forums, to provide an understanding of the nature of gravity or gravitation; also such phenomena as the nature of the known forces. Because there is a requirement that a discussion on subjects such as mentioned above must not involve speculation, I am left to wonder why such subjects are allowed in the general physics category. Mainstream science has an almost religious belief and for practical reason for the General Theory of Relativity. Even so, and despite the statements made by GR regarding gravitation being an illusion, and gravity only existing because matter has the ability to warp space, there is a lingering belief that gravity and gravitation are physical extant phenomena; hence the discussions. The point I am attempting to make is as follows. I have been made aware that physicists are only prepared to consider as science, only that which can be measured, and disdain anything that has its origin in the unmeasurable realm of philosophy. With regards to the attempts to shed some light on the mysteries of gravity etcetera; would I be considered to be disobeying the rules of this forum if I proposed that the origin of gravity belongs in the philosophical domain that is well below the reach of present day physics, (everything must be capable of measurement and mathematically explained or it is not to be considered) and therefore not likely to be explained if the concepts derived from GR must be followed. My work on the subject of gravity and gravitation is conceptually and not mathematically explained. It begins in the philosophical domain, and up through the differing levels of reality to conditions at the galactic centre. It represents a lifetime of work and is now published in book form. Unfortunately, most self published work lack the sales ability of the recognised publishers, and so rapidly buried beneath the many science fiction books available. I am well aware that I am not allowed to attempt to promote the book on this forum. Even so, I am prepared to provide counter argument regarding gravity and gravitation as depicted by GR, whilst agreeing that the warping of space is a physical reality, as Einstein’s mathematics so accurately required. I am making this inquiry because on The Science Forum, I was banned for life because I could not explain in my next post, the fundamental nature of gravity and gravitation. That demand followed all my previous argument being dismissed because it was conceptually and not mathematically explained. I was subjected to criticism such as; it does not conform to QM without an explanation as to why it did not conform, or it does not conform to GR and such comments extending to ridicule involving pink unicorns. Not one of my opponents were able to provide an attempt at explaining the fundamental dynamic nature of mass and matter, but were totally not prepared to engage in the why and the how of my proposals.
  6. Thanks ajb for your extended reply regarding your number 35 post. I now have a better understanding of your intended meaning. I also believe, as I understand you do, that the rest mass of an electron would be better referred to as the invariant mass to remove concern engendered by the use of the word rest with regards the identification of the mass being referred to. There is more than enough confusion with regards to concepts referring to the fundamental nature of mass. Reference to relativistic mass is an example of now increasing doubt regarding its physical reality and I stated my reason for doubt on page one of this thread. The reason referred to is if the mass of a matter particle accelerated close to C was to undergo the relativistic mass increase required by GR, and thereby requiring rapid exponentially increasing amounts of energy to achieve a slight acceleration in the direction of motion, the other physical realities demanded by the Newtonian and GR theories regarding the concept mass, require an equal amount of energy to be expended to achieve equal acceleration in any other direction relative to the particles previous direction of motion. Unless I am wrong in my belies regarding the energy requirements to constantly increase the velocity of matter particles in our large accelerator, and implying both changes to direction and increasing speed by the use of the word velocity, then the greater magnitude of energy is expended to achieve increases in approaching speed relative to the opposite direction of motion of the other test matter particles.
  7. Hello to you ajb and I mainly agree with your posts. However, I believe you may have meant to imply that “The rest frame of an object is not a frame exclusively preferred by nature”, but it could be a convenient frame for physicists to use for a specific problem. Because in the local rest frame of an observer, the mass has the nice interpretation as the "rest mass". If I am miss-understanding the meaning contained in your post, could you please supply a clarifying statement. I have suggested the inclusion of the word exclusively, because all rest frames excepting for small distances and volumes, are only an approximation of the parameters acting to provide the total reality relevant to that particular reference frame. The above mentioned parameters extant at all distances and in relatively small volumes included in any preferred rest frame are seldom exactly the same. It is well known that Newton found it necessary to invent Calculus to provide an understanding of instantaneous changing of time, distances and directions relative to acceleration due to gravity or angular momentum.
  8. Both GR and the Newtonian theories have their correct sphere of influence. Regarding a rocket travelling past and close to Earth; Satellite Navigation requires a portion of both; GR with regards to timing of signals received and transmitted. Newtonian for the remainder. Am I incorrect in believing that for well established practical reasons, NASA preferred to regard the Pioneer Space Probes as remaining in our own special reference frame irrespective of their velocity and relatively increasing distance from Earth. In the same manner, they would have taking into their considerations, the orbit positions and directional motion of the Earth. The Newtonian instantaneous changing of distance would have been taken into account relative to slight changing of radio and laser frequencies; We call that the Doppler effect.
  9. ajb The answer to your question 2) as I perceive it to be is; the accelerating ability referred to is relative to the equal and opposite law provided by Newton, and also a disregarding of the relativistic mass idea of GR by a substitution changing to relativistic momentum. If the mass of a body changed proportionally with increasing V, then we would be compelled to remove the directional component from V, because as V is now regarded, it would require an equal amount of energy to affect acceleration in any direction relative to the direction, speed and magnitude of the mass in motion. The false idea regarding the ability to exceed the speed of C is indicated by our correct laws of thermodynamics, whereby we can only recover a given amount of work (in this case acceleration) from energy derived from fuel expended. If most of the mass of a spaceship consisted of the mass of the fuel, and disregarding all ideas derived from GR, the fuel would be completely consumed before C was reached. If we allow the acceleration to be driven by an externally provided electromagnetic force, there is no possibility of an increase in acceleration beyond C, because the potential accelerating ability of the electromagnetic energy could only equal C. In this case, all relative velocities due to gravitational influence or universal expansion are disregarded.
  10. I have no hesitation in agreeing with this statement made by ajb because physicists generally appear to refuse to go beyond the bounds referred to as scientific procedure. Any person attempting to change concepts in physics are required to supply a mathematical description; the concept must be capable of measurement and be backed by experimental evidence. General Relativity supplies the mathematics, can be subject to measurement and is backed by highly accurate measurements. Even so, the fundamental dynamic information supplied by GR although extremely accurate, does not supply any information regarding the fundamental dynamic nature of the subjects of debate in this thread because the answers so consistently sought must be in the realm covered by philosophy as indicated by the example supplied below.. Adhering to the word NOTHING to be referring to non-existence, then we are generally speaking of the existence of the fundamental dynamic reality, the separation of which confers reality on the concept we call space, etceteras. I have no idea of what happened to the quote I indicated. However it referred to the how and why of physical reality as being mainly in the realm of philosophy.
  11. MIgel. Referring to the bottom line of your post directly above that states GR "is a geometric theory of gravity". Would it be more accurate to state that GR provides a geometric substitute for the concept gravity or gravitation by declaring such concepts as redundant and only appear to exist in reality because matter is compelled to follow geodetic pathways formed by matter's curvature of what is referred to as space-time?
  12. As stated in my earlier post on this thread, I read GR as emphatically declaring that gravitation is an illusion because the concept does not have physical reality by resulting from the action of a force. GR also requires that gravity only results because matter is compelled (indicating a force is acting) to follow geodetic pathways formed by the curvature of what is referred to as space-time. Those conceptual ideas resulting from the mathematical accuracy derived from the inclusion of known measurements of physical realities in combination with the geometrical mathematics applied, and therefore providing accurate information regarding the concept gravitation not resulting from a gravitational force. If GR is to be regarded as accurate, then why is there a continued attempt to define those concepts as physical realities resulting in each case, by reference to the force of gravity or to gravitation as a force. Perhaps the answer may be because of the desire to continue with the more than thirty years of failure to directly receive a gravitational wave (a wave posses intrinsic force) emanating from the continual approach of close orbiting pulsars.
  13. The fundamental dynamic nature and origin of gravity is certainly not known or logically indicated by mainstream scientific knowledge. When a scientist attempts to describe gravity, references are made to the graviton of QM or that GR states that gravitation is an illusion and gravity only results because matter is compelled (indicating a force is acting) to follow geodetic pathways formed by the curvature of what is referred to as space-time. Despite the above, there are constant references to the pull of gravity or gravitation pull frequently made to provide an idea of the actions of this scientifically unknown phenomenon. In this regard, science will remain confused because all defenders of GR (a large majority of scientists) declare that reference to the origin of gravity as being in the realm of Philosophy is not science because of the impossibility of making measurements. Unfortunately for the advancement of the understanding of gravity and referring to other science forums, any reference by layman or professional to gravity or gravitation as being physical independent phenomena in their own right is too often greeted with ridiculing reference to the lack of knowledge of the person making such statements.
  14. According to information just supplied by a person whom has flown that aircraft, there is a control available to pilots to switch off the transponder in an emergency such as a fire. However, it requires a knowledge of how to do the switching off. All pilots flying that aircraft would know the procedure. Judging from satellite information, there has been four detection of similar sized and number of floating objects in the southern part of the Indian Ocean. Drift indicating buoys have been dropped for close to seven days, and therefore the direction and rate of drift should be known to provide accurate predictions of where an object could be expected to be found. However and if each detection is of a large whale and half grown calf, they might eventually realise that they have information regarding a portion of the return of a whale to its winter feeding area. With regards to the apparent total disappearance of that aircraft and no claims of responsibility or indications of wreckage on land or afloat on water, then world authorities should expect the eventual return of that aircraft with malicious intent.
  15. Despite our imperfections, we are an electrochemical and mechanical complexity the construction of which we are a long way from understanding. Information is gleaned from our exposure to many differing facets experienced during our lifetime, and then we form our own opinions. In that regard and to supply an illustration, there is the answer to a question addressed to an American person with regards to “what colour God would be”, the immediate answer was “she would be black of course”. No points will be awarded for guessing the gender or the skin colour of the person supplying that answer. Returning to the start question of this thread regarding cleverness extant in the universe, then because the invention of a radio transmitter and receiver or a TV transmitter and receiver is considered to be acts of exceptional cleverness, and we evolved over a long period of that we call time, and by many transformations dictated by the creative forces intrinsic with all known and unknown attributes of the universe, then and given what we know about Physics we are deluding ourselves if we do not recognise cleverness as a factual part of the universe along with all of our commendable attempts to warrant all qualities implied by the word human despite our innate savagery.
  16. Hello Linker. But now a question on physics. Question 1. My answer depends on your concept of a vacuum; if you conceive a vacuum as containing nothing, the answer is NO because the word nothing implies non-existence. For a vacuum resulting because a volume is only devoid of matter but containing the fundamental dynamic reality that enables a logical concept of space, then the answer is yes; it is referred to as Virtual Matter. Question 2 in the form of a statement. You are correct regarding a belief concerning the inability of macroscopic objects to materialise directly from quantum field theory and requires many transformations involving the passage of a long period of that we call time. And yes, the assembling together of nucleons into larger number groups to form the nuclei of elements takes a huge amount of energy. Such magnitude of heat energy eventually available, and only generated by the increasing rapidity of the random motion of earlier formed matter in the central interior of constantly evolving stars. Question 3. In our portion of the universe Planck's Constant can be and is regarded as correct and unchanging. If Planck's Constant increased in magnitude, all parameters responsible for physical dimensions would be automatically adjusted.
  17. I read as much of the originating so called original paper presented to start this thread as I could tolerate, and formed the opinion that it is a badly disguised cherry picking copy and misunderstanding of a paper that was available on The General Science Journal a year or two ago. Both papers refer to basic building blocks and follow much the same type of progress through physics except that the thread starter has completely disregarded what happens when electron makes physical contact with a positron. There is a lot of reference to and claims as to be the correct explanation of physical facts without providing any physically rational explanation of concepts such as how the pull of gravity originates. Judging from the progress of this thread, it appears to me that the starter of this thread is also the author of the paper used to start the thread. Then again that is only my opinion of the almost hostile defence of the content of the so presnted historic breakthrough to a new understanding of physics.
  18. Lizzie L it is my understanding from your posts that you basic idea of our concept time is correct. The human concept time becomes a part of that we refer to as reality, as also does a television transmitter or receiver”. That statement simply means that because we are an evolving product of the Universe provided with an intelligence that enables an awareness and curiosity regarding the universal environment, our intelligence, inventive abilities and concepts such as Time then become a small intrinsic portion of that we refer to as the Universe. In that regard, concepts such as fast, slow, velocity, acceleration, distance, space, time and so on and on to eventually become the concept we call reality. Then and only because of human ability to take and keep account does the human concept Time become a property of the physical portion of the Universe. The reality is there in the form of the precursors and magnitude of local parameters; the extent of reality being limited only by our ability to perceive and understand. The universe wide bewildering amount of relative movements – displacement - take place in conformity with the precursors and parameters active in individual local volumes. A collapsing star does so due to physical reality; we on the other hand have our concepts regarding the various stages prior to and responsible for the collapsing and aftermath that has required considerable investigation and written records. Conclusion. The concept time is a necessary human concept that allows system, order and sequence by the division of our present and hoped for future reality of existence into small portion based on the duration of the precisely similar oscillation of atoms, that in turn take place in a minute volume of that we call space. The concept that we call Time is a fundamental dynamic reality forming a part of the universe and requiring the existence of intelligent beings to observe and take account.
  19. I-try

    Balanced forces

    Hello again Function. Judging from the drawing, each of the pair of larger circles contain twice the mass that each of the group of five contain; thereby and due to their position, providing 4 units balancing 4 units on the left side of the balance; the outer 5 provide the remainder mass that due to their position enables the even balance. Perhaps the O=M signifies that mass is involved without indication of quantity.
  20. I-try

    Balanced forces

    Hello Function. Your original drawing is supposedly an exact right and left side equal balance. The small horizontals are added as a red herring and should be ignored because gravity is acting on all hanging weights according to their mass content and only leverage should be considered. There is a leverage of two on the left hand of the balance verses the differing positions of the masses on the right.
  21. Relative to humans, time certainly is not an illusion. Throughout our lifetime we observe change such as day and night constantly reoccurring. We are constantly aware of past happenings and of our instant by instant present progress into what we call the future. To keep an account of the past, we record the number of rotations of the Earth relative to the Sun DURING one orbit. To refine the measurement of Time, we have the oscillations of the atoms composing our atomic clocks to assist to regulate our interrelationships with each-other. Uniformly reoccurring oscillating type motion has to be present to provide a measurement of time, which in turn indicates and measures a portion of our existence. Therefore and due to the above, we attempt to record the reality of our existence by the shortest constantly reoccurring oscillations available to us. Also, and because of our propensity to attempt to impose our concepts on the fundamental universal reality such as beginning, end, time etceteras, we entangle ourselves in complexity and quandary. The way in which I view our idea of Time depends on the experience derived from our existence at near to the highest level of reality extant in the universe. At the fundamental dynamic level of reality, the shortest period of time relative to our concept time, would be in the form of the most rapid uniform reoccurring oscillating motion. That in turn requires human concepts involving distance, rate of acceleration, change and so on. I hope the above will allow Petrushka googol and Implicat order to get better sleep.
  22. Yahua515 In the case you refer to, you are confusing the force involved when you refer to centripetal force. The cohesion of the atoms keep them in fixed position relative to the each-other. The force on the atoms composing the disk is supplied by the axle of the disk compelling an instant by instant change of position in space. If the disk was to instantly change into individual atom by a total loss of cohesion, all the atoms would instantly follow the same straight path and velocity, due to the instantaneous conservation of momentum. Yahua515 My post you refer to was in answer to the number of others posting to this thread regarding the required need for mathematics.
  23. With regards to mathematics being a powerful tool for all disciplines including physics, then I agree. Even so, that fact should not disqualify conceptual ideas based on physical facts such as the conservation of energy and momentum laws, because the mathematics pertaining to such concepts have not been provided. In some cases, the mathematics can be correct but the concepts derived there-from misleading. There are valid physical reasons why physicists prefer to refer to relativistic momentum in preference to relativistic mass.
  24. Yahya515. You have become entangled in a portion of physics that can become confusing if you don’t adhere strictly to Newton's laws on motion. The other posts in answer to your question are generally stating the facts of the matter, and that is your experiment is misleading you if you are observing motion about the axes of your disk when you start the table rotating. A metal axes affixed to the table simply rotates with the table and a properly balanced disk would due to matter's property of inertia, not rotate relative to a reference mark on the disk and to a stationary mark. An unbalanced wheel would part rotate when the rotary table is set in motion. Otherwise, it would require adhesion between the axle and disk to make the mark on the disk describe rotation equal to the rotating table. Don't become confused by the idea that the outermost atoms of the disk appear to be travelling a grater distance than the innermost atoms due to the rotation of the table. In the case under consideration, the referred to atoms change position 180 degrees relative to the axis of the rotating table, and return to their original location during each revolution of the table.
  25. Studiot. No, I haven't read that book and the title would not attract my attention. Perhaps you may care to state more clearly the subtleties implied by your reference to that book; as I will do regarding my statement “The human concept time becomes a part of that we refer to as reality, as also does a television transmitter or receiver”. That statement simply means that because we are an evolving product of the Universe, our intelligence, inventive abilities and concepts such as Time become a small intrinsic portion of that we refer to as the Universe. In that regard, concepts such as fast, slow, velocity, acceleration, distance, space, time and so on and on to eventually become the concept we call reality. Then and only because of human ability to take and keep account does the human concept Time become a property of the physical portion of the Universe. The reality is there in the form of the precursors and magnitude of local parameters; being limited only by our ability to perceive and understand.
×
×
  • 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.