Theredbarron Posted October 20, 2018 Author Share Posted October 20, 2018 It even says its twisted by the planets rotation. How can you still think that movement has nothing to do with it? What it sounds like its describing to me is just simply existence. Gravity is what holds us to the moving part. If it wasn't moving we would be here. So maybe relativity is about time and existence and not gravity. That what I got from that. If the planet can twist reality with its movement then why cant it hold us here with its movement? Very confusing. Is gravity existence or attraction of matter? Ok so I'm going to do some research and come back. If you have any specific things I should research to get answers then let me know please. Believe it or not I have made 4 things so far based on these conversations. I will use this info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theredbarron Posted October 20, 2018 Author Share Posted October 20, 2018 Not all are made in this reality yet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 3 hours ago, Theredbarron said: It even says its twisted by the planets rotation. How can you still think that movement has nothing to do with it? What it sounds like its describing to me is just simply existence. Gravity is what holds us to the moving part. If it wasn't moving we would be here. So maybe relativity is about time and existence and not gravity. That what I got from that. If the planet can twist reality with its movement then why cant it hold us here with its movement? Very confusing. Is gravity existence or attraction of matter? Ok so I'm going to do some research and come back. If you have any specific things I should research to get answers then let me know please. Believe it or not I have made 4 things so far based on these conversations. I will use this info. Great!if you do the research honestly and capably, you should arrive at the same conclusions as hundreds of reputable physicists have for the last hundred years or so, and which incidentally are still being tested and validated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theredbarron Posted October 20, 2018 Author Share Posted October 20, 2018 It wont take me years to validate fact dont worry about that. Maybe just this year 10 minutes ago, beecee said: Great!if you do the research honestly and capably, you should arrive at the same conclusions as hundreds of reputable physicists have for the last hundred years or so, and which incidentally are still being tested and validated Did the sun just come up over there? I could look this up but I thought it would be interesting to see it in person! the time differential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 You misunderstand...I don't really care how long the research takes, the relevant factors are your capabilities and your honesty and impartiality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theredbarron Posted October 20, 2018 Author Share Posted October 20, 2018 (edited) It must have. So if the answers of what you have dont solve the problems of what you need then change the perception of the answers to get different solutions. I dont know if someone else said that just it makes sense. and it works Edited October 20, 2018 by Theredbarron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 4 hours ago, Theredbarron said: It must have. So if the answers of what you have dont solve the problems of what you need then change the perception of the answers to get different solutions. I dont know if someone else said that just it makes sense. and it works In your own mind maybe, but in reality the pretentious bravado in your posts just don't cut it, sorry. But hey! If I see you in Stockholm next November, then I'll be shown to be wrong, won't I ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 11 hours ago, Theredbarron said: 12 hours ago, studiot said: Well I don't understand this comment, sorry. I totally missed this. What I mean is that the methods is flawed for this understanding due to facts that were ignored. I meant that people believe in it due to the numbers always working. Im dont think the numbers are wrong. I think the initial understanding is where mistakes were made. I am still no wiser as to wht this has to do with my offering ( I only made one so it should be simple to identify it) No facts were ignored. No understanding was offered and no members of SF were trampled during it's production. They were a table of actual measurements. Nothing more, nothing less. They were the best available in 2003. Since then there have been more and better measurments with new spacecraft, but they have not markedly changed results for the purpose of your proposal. 19 hours ago, Theredbarron said: Then I noticed that the planets with the magnetic field have an atmosphere. As the density of the atmosphere increases so does the magnetic field I don't think anyone has shown that Venus has suddenly grown an enormous magnetic field. Yet Venus possesses a substantial atmosphere. If you wish to widen this discussion to a comparative study of planetary properties, as it appears from posts after I went to bed, I don't object. But I suggest you get hold of the book my table came from as there is much useful background information in it, including colour diagrams of the different distortions of the magnetic fields of the planets. The Cambridge Guide to the Solar System Kenneth Lang (Tufts University Mass) Cambridge University Press. Finally Moontanman (I think) said somewhere that the msource of magnetism of the planets is well known. Perhaps its source is, but the magnetospheres of the planets is a far cry from being fully understood. Its relationship with the atmosphere is even less understood. In the last few years, there has been very significant work on the Aurora which is a glorious demonstration of this relationship. Much of this work is still only in research papers but there is a 2016 book Aurora by Plasma Physicist, Melanie Windridge Which details much of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghideon Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 (edited) It was not possible for me to immediately respond, this may already be covered by other members. 21 hours ago, Theredbarron said: The drafting thing that I was mentioning. It creates a low spot behind whatever is moving. Now take the surface of earth and all its imperfections and move it at 1000 mph. Mountains moving at that speed. The draft behind a semi is lower pressure and density because the matter thats following it is not moving fast enough to occupy the space behind it. This makes it less dense. There seems to be many problems with the explanation. For instance, the semi is moving relative to something. Is relative movement your explanation for gravity? The following does not clarify anything: 20 hours ago, Theredbarron said: If nothing in our existence is sitting still then it cant be just matter because it is in motion. How can anyone on earth confirm that is just matter thats creating gravity if all if it is moving. No mention of motion on how gravity works but everything that is producing gravity has we can observe is moving. Where did that get eliminated throughout history? A question intended to move the discussion forward. How do you define moving in this context? Maybe you only intend to talk about rotation? Not that it makes the statements correct but it explains why it is hard to understand the semi and draft analogy. Edited October 20, 2018 by Ghideon grammar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theredbarron Posted October 22, 2018 Author Share Posted October 22, 2018 On 10/20/2018 at 12:25 PM, Ghideon said: It was not possible for me to immediately respond, this may already be covered by other members. There seems to be many problems with the explanation. For instance, the semi is moving relative to something. Is relative movement your explanation for gravity? The following does not clarify anything: A question intended to move the discussion forward. How do you define moving in this context? Maybe you only intend to talk about rotation? Not that it makes the statements correct but it explains why it is hard to understand the semi and draft analogy. Yes moving in relationship to whatever its near. When a semi passes you at a light or intersection you can feel it move you or the vehicle your in. The draft is as it passes it attract in the same direction as its traveling. Like the total direction of travel of the surface of the planet is moving and everything on it. The imperfections of the surface of earth like mountains and canyons and everything thats not smooth is moving in relation to space at around 1000. If your moving with it you wont feel the difference. On 10/20/2018 at 2:53 AM, studiot said: I am still no wiser as to wht this has to do with my offering ( I only made one so it should be simple to identify it) No facts were ignored. No understanding was offered and no members of SF were trampled during it's production. They were a table of actual measurements. Nothing more, nothing less. They were the best available in 2003. Since then there have been more and better measurments with new spacecraft, but they have not markedly changed results for the purpose of your proposal. I don't think anyone has shown that Venus has suddenly grown an enormous magnetic field. Yet Venus possesses a substantial atmosphere. If you wish to widen this discussion to a comparative study of planetary properties, as it appears from posts after I went to bed, I don't object. But I suggest you get hold of the book my table came from as there is much useful background information in it, including colour diagrams of the different distortions of the magnetic fields of the planets. The Cambridge Guide to the Solar System Kenneth Lang (Tufts University Mass) Cambridge University Press. Finally Moontanman (I think) said somewhere that the msource of magnetism of the planets is well known. Perhaps its source is, but the magnetospheres of the planets is a far cry from being fully understood. Its relationship with the atmosphere is even less understood. In the last few years, there has been very significant work on the Aurora which is a glorious demonstration of this relationship. Much of this work is still only in research papers but there is a 2016 book Aurora by Plasma Physicist, Melanie Windridge Which details much of this. Yes Venus doesn't have a giant magnetic field. The makeup of all the elements of that planet and it atmosphere or gases that moves around it. If it has lower gravity it has less of a magnetic effect depending on the elements. So just by the solar winds alone is leaving electrons behind on planet which is the static charges. Now with said static charges as the elements that are charged move they generate a magnetic field in the right conditions. Speed, size, and type of elements involved. So maybe it is magnetosphere that I'm thinking of. The movement like when in static electricity is generated. When the matter separate's there is enough positive charge strength to attract electrons from weaker matter structurally leaving it on the other matter involved. This is movement that creates magnetism at a level observable and measurable from the moving away action like drafting for example. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghideon Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, Theredbarron said: Yes moving in relationship to whatever its near. When a semi passes you at a light or intersection you can feel it move you or the vehicle your in. The draft is as it passes it attract in the same direction as its traveling. Like the total direction of travel of the surface of the planet is moving and everything on it. The imperfections of the surface of earth like mountains and canyons and everything thats not smooth is moving in relation to space at around 1000. If your moving with it you wont feel the difference. First; I've been close enough to passing semis to know about the draft you talk about. Riding a motorbike behind a semi and then turning the throttle to drive past the semi can be a shaky experience . The description above seems to contradict a few things in mainstream physics. I'll try to make a few statements* about physics to see some consequences of your idea. I have seen in other threads that you prefer limited use of math so I'll try without math (for now). -When "movement" is used in your idea only rotation counts. The fact that earth moves at a great speed through space relative to the sun, or at a great speed relative to other planets does not count. -The rotation, "moving in relation to space at around 1000", somehow creates a "draft". The movement of 19 miles per second along the orbit around the sun fails to generate a "draft". -Imperfections on the surface of a rotating planet drags the atmosphere along and hold it in place. This means that a smooth planet such as one with a global ocean or ice surface cannot have an atmosphere? -A planet that does not rotate cannot have an atmosphere? I deliberately left magnetism and gravity out for now, there are enough issues already. *) The statements are not intended to be correct in the context of mainstream physics, they are intended to display issues with the ideas about draft/mountains/movement posted by OP. Edited October 22, 2018 by Ghideon grammar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 On 10/19/2018 at 4:45 PM, Theredbarron said: The separation of matter cause static electrical charges. This is the sign of the magnetic attraction between none magnetic matter. It would be the electrostatic attraction. You know, because of static electrical charges (it's in the name) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theredbarron Posted October 22, 2018 Author Share Posted October 22, 2018 3 minutes ago, swansont said: It would be the electrostatic attraction. You know, because of static electrical charges (it's in the name) Right. So if it could magnetically attract electrons from matter when matter moves why couldn't it attract the matter itself? Since the electrons are part of the matter just saying. 2 hours ago, Ghideon said: First; I've been close enough to passing semis to know about the draft you talk about. Riding a motorbike behind a semi and then turning the throttle to drive past the semi can be a shaky experience . The description above seems to contradict a few things in mainstream physics. I'll try to make a few statements* about physics to see some consequences of your idea. I have seen in other threads that you prefer limited use of math so I'll try without math (for now). -When "movement" is used in your idea only rotation counts. The fact that earth moves at a great speed through space relative to the sun, or at a great speed relative to other planets does not count. -The rotation, "moving in relation to space at around 1000", somehow creates a "draft". The movement of 19 miles per second along the orbit around the sun fails to generate a "draft". -Imperfections on the surface of a rotating planet drags the atmosphere along and hold it in place. This means that a smooth planet such as one with a global ocean or ice surface cannot have an atmosphere? -A planet that does not rotate cannot have an atmosphere? I deliberately left magnetism and gravity out for now, there are enough issues already. *) The statements are not intended to be correct in the context of mainstream physics, they are intended to display issues with the ideas about draft/mountains/movement posted by OP. Not only rotation. When the earth is moving in the direction of obit it could also cause a draft behind it as well. This is what I would say explains the shape of the magnetosphere. I'm pretty sure earths atmosphere is pretty shaky when entering and exiting it at some point. It would be shaky behind a semi because the air that is passing and air is trying to fill the space behind the semi which is where the draft is. Smooth planets can have an atmosphere. I never said I have all the details worked out. So a smooth planet with moving water or even ice would have to be very smooth not just from the outside point of view. I mean millions of waves at 2 feet tall could collect air. It may not be dense or a lot but it can be there. Plus whatever it generates from water evaporation will put air there. The air itself attracts more air as long as it can hold it so an accumulated amount based on speed and density of whats moving. The differential that is created in a draft is less pressure and density. If you put water in an air tight chamber and cooled it off it pulls on the walls. When close the lid of warm water and the bottle shrinks. Its attracting in the bottle. The total electrical value is decreased in size which is density. That is happening. We understand it as pressure or vacuum in relationship to its surroundings. The draft does the same thing just not by temp. It changes density by movement. The bottle walls are all the other matter in the area so without walls that means everything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 18 minutes ago, Theredbarron said: Right. So if it could magnetically attract electrons from matter when matter moves why couldn't it attract the matter itself? Since the electrons are part of the matter just saying. 1. It is nothing to do with magnetism. 2. Static electricity can attract matter. Have you never does that experiment where you rub a balloon on your jumper and then use it to pick up little bits of paper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theredbarron Posted October 22, 2018 Author Share Posted October 22, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Strange said: 1. It is nothing to do with magnetism. 2. Static electricity can attract matter. Have you never does that experiment where you rub a balloon on your jumper and then use it to pick up little bits of paper? You just said it yourself. Its picking up matter with this thing called magnetism. So it does have to do with magnetism. How else do you think that electron leaves the other matter to create static electrical energy difference. But only when there is an electrical differential there is an attraction. Doesn't mean that the properties of matter stop existing. So to create a differential without magnetism is to change the total electrical value. 12v pushes into 6v but they are still the same polarity. The same goes for density. You can magnetism metal by rubbing it against a magnet. Rubbing dissimilar materials together in static electricity is much similar to how to magnetise metal. What about the magnetic interactions from solar winds? Magnets push and pull so do opposites and like charges Edited October 22, 2018 by Theredbarron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 21 minutes ago, Theredbarron said: You just said it yourself. Its picking up matter with this thing called magnetism. IT’S NOT MAGNETISM. 22 minutes ago, Theredbarron said: Rubbing dissimilar materials together in static electricity is much similar to how to magnetise metal. It has almost nothing in common. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theredbarron Posted October 22, 2018 Author Share Posted October 22, 2018 2 minutes ago, Strange said: IT’S NOT MAGNETISM. It has almost nothing in common. The magnetic attraction between charges from the imbalance of electrical properties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 2 minutes ago, Theredbarron said: The magnetic attraction between charges from the imbalance of electrical properties. Hey, guess what: IT’S NOT MAGNETISM. The clue is in the word “electrical” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theredbarron Posted October 23, 2018 Author Share Posted October 23, 2018 When it has a charge it is magnetism at a degree in comparison to the amount of total electrons on the surface and in comparison to what it was rubbing on to get it thats where the differential of electrical charge is. Thats the magnetic properties between the matter effected by this. otherwise most matter has a 0 charge. Changing the amount of electrical values of matter is just like 12v is stronger then 3v even though its the same polarity the 12v pushes the 3. Thats what I'm talking about. This is just like magnetism but on the complete electrical value of the matter not just a charge. If you had 2 areas of the same volume. One filled with ice and one filled with water to the same level. The water will weigh more do to density. Density is the makeup of electrons, protons and neutrons. There are more in the space of water. Gravity attract all of it at one time. Your right its not magnetism. Its gravity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 7 hours ago, Theredbarron said: When it has a charge it is magnetism No it doesn’t. (Unless it is moving, but you are talking about static charges.) 7 hours ago, Theredbarron said: Changing the amount of electrical values of matter is just like 12v is stronger then 3v even though its the same polarity the 12v pushes the 3. Charge is not measured in volts. And 12V doesn’t push 3V. 7 hours ago, Theredbarron said: Your right its not magnetism. Its gravity. *facepalm* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 12 hours ago, Theredbarron said: Right. So if it could magnetically attract electrons from matter when matter moves why couldn't it attract the matter itself? Since the electrons are part of the matter just saying. It would. This is something that can be calculated. Can you calculate it? 11 hours ago, Theredbarron said: You just said it yourself. Its picking up matter with this thing called magnetism. If there is no motion of the charges it is not magnetism. That's not the source of the attraction — it's electrostatic. Magnetism will affect the trajectory of the motion, but is not an attraction between charges. 11 hours ago, Theredbarron said: You can magnetism metal by rubbing it against a magnet. Rubbing dissimilar materials together in static electricity is much similar to how to magnetise metal. No, it's not. 11 hours ago, Theredbarron said: What about the magnetic interactions from solar winds? Magnets push and pull so do opposites and like charges Related phenomena, but there are distinct differences. You would do well to learn these basics before making pronouncements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 On 10/19/2018 at 7:38 PM, Theredbarron said: Mine is less mythical then your spacetime stuff that has no physical prove of being true only some numbers. My version is actually happening all the time and in plane site. you being confused on how drafting causes density changes is not my fault. ! Moderator Note This is your thread and you own the burden of actually providing some sort of evidence or model that can be used to make predictions. Hand-wavy assertions do not rise to the level of rigor we require. It's put-up-or-shut-up time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 (edited) 19 hours ago, Theredbarron said: Mine is less mythical then your spacetime stuff that has no physical prove of being true only some numbers. My version is actually happening all the time and in plane site. you being confused on how drafting causes density changes is not my fault. Your posts are totally ignorant of modern day physics and GR, or you are trolling. Spacetime is that which we observe to be curved, bent, and twisted in the presence of mass/energy.The concept of spacetime follows from the observation that the speed of light is invariant. Mathematics, or numbers as you put it is the language of physics. Your version is no more real and/or evidenced then the Tooth fairy, and apparently just some nonsense you seem to have fabricated in your spare time. Edited October 23, 2018 by beecee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghideon Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 21 hours ago, Theredbarron said: I never said I have all the details worked out. That is ok. In this case however there are problems on a more general level than a few details. 21 hours ago, Theredbarron said: When the earth is moving in the direction of obit it could also cause a draft behind it as well. If a planet creates “draft” behind it along the orbital path then it sounds like the planet must be moving relative to some substance? Theories of such a substance are not supported by scientific evidence as far as I know, see for instance wikipedia/Aether_theories. I fail to see how the analogy with the semi can be applied to a planet in space; a few issues: -The draft near a semi occurs since the semi is moving relative to earth’s atmosphere. The semi is small compared to earth and atmosphere, the semi has no significant gravitational impact of the movement of air. -A planet moves through the vacuum of space. The gravitation of the planet holds the atmosphere in place, it is not “draft” that holds the atmosphere in place. 21 hours ago, Theredbarron said: Smooth planets can have an atmosphere. I never said I have all the details worked out. So a smooth planet with moving water or even ice would have to be very smooth not just from the outside point of view. I mean millions of waves at 2 feet tall could collect air. It may not be dense or a lot but it can be there. So if oceans on earth freezes so that the earth's surface is smoother than it is now, how much of the atmosphere is lost? Where does it go? An also, from my previous post: A planet that does not rotate cannot have an atmosphere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 10 minutes ago, Ghideon said: A planet that does not rotate cannot have an atmosphere? Yeah another great observational point re the claims being made...Venus takes 243 days to rotate on its axis, and 224 days to orbit the Sun, making a day longer then the Venusian year, and of course it has a very dense atmosphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts