Jump to content
MavricheAdrian

Electric charge – a different approach

Recommended Posts

Hello!

Because I'm not how to take pictures, I put this link:

which the moderators removed per Rule 2.7

I hope to get feedback.

Edited by Phi for All
discussions must take place here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, MavricheAdrian said:

I hope to get feedback.

Hello. Can you post something more than just a link?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

Our rules state members must be able to participate without going offsite. Please, can you copy/paste an abstract or overview of your idea here? Thanks for understanding.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello!

I copied the material, but I can't put the drawings ... it's hard to understand without drawings...

I do not know what I can do to upload the drawings....

 

Electric charge – a different approach
Abstract:
It is a parallel theory with the one of quantum mechanics, and is trying in an approximately-simplistic manner to describe the world of atomic processes.
Starting from the similarity between an electric field with a gravitational field, it is demonstrated why (and how) the elementary electrical charge has this value.
Keywords: elementary electrical charge - it is one of the basic properties of matter, which indi-cates a fundamental property of the fundamental particles; physical field – fundamental notion to ex-plain the transmission of interactions from close to close, and from a distance; space-time – space and time seen as components of a single four-dimensional space-time system; inflation – astronomy (General relativity) ; mechanical work – a form of energy exchange (changing the dynamic state of the system); oscillation(vibration) – energy transformation from one form to another;
2
I. Introduction:
In general we find many articles relating to (and about) electrical charge, but nowhere does it say from where it has this value, it’s being considered an intrinsic property of elementary particles.
[It will be considered as elementary particles, only those particles that have a "real existence", namely, those which have a bigger life of, let's say, 5 min, - therefore, the electron, the proton and the neutron - the other particles live such a short time, disintegrating almost instantaneously after it's being formed, so that we do not know if it can be considered particles or only "resonances" (oscillations) of determined energy[6]. "Confusion" between the action of an oscillation with the action of a "mass", we find it in Einstein's famous formulas of the energy too, namely ε = m and ε = hν. Describing the energy, they can be considered equal, namely m =hν. But we notice that on each side of equality there is a constant and one variable. So, by re-ducing constants, which are always the same, the variables will remain, that is m≈ ν, which means that the action of a mass, in our case of a one particle, can be confused with the action of a oscillation, and vice versa. It is also known that the proton and the neutron have an internal structure (quarks), but its are considered in all experiments as the standalone particles [1], therefore this is how it will be considerated also in this case.]
II. Basic Ideas:
In this material is starting from the similarity between electric field and the gravitational field, and without contradicting or entering into conflicting with quantum mechanics, it will be explain "why" the elementary electrical charge has this value.
Between the gravitational field and the electric field, both with sources at rest, we will find the following:
- similarities:
- the mathematical formulas of the two physical fields (of the fields forces) are similars – directly proportional with the masses (respectively with the electrical charges) and inversely proportional to the square of the distances [3];
- the intensities of both fields are described by similar mathematical formulas;
- and I would add, as manifestations of the fields:
- different masses have the same gravitational acceleration (it moves identically in the field) [2] [4];
- different masses (the electron and the proton) have the same electrical charge (as a value) [1];
- differences:
- gravitational forces are just attractive [2];
- electric forces can be both attractive and repulsive [6];
3
III. Background of the study:
Since the similarities between the two fields are very high, it will apply what is known about the gravitational field [2], and to the electrical field, namely, to give it to the latter, a form which will be described by space-time geometry.
If we were to simplistically interpret the gravitational field (which is just attractive), in the presence of the masses [2], the geometric shape of the space-time curve would be (let's call it positive curvature – downward) as in fig.1.
Attempting to give a geometrical shape to the electric field too, we have the model for attractive force, the one from fig.1, but for the repulsive force we should have a negative curvature (let's call it upward) as in fig.2.
4
But how would make the space-time membrane to pass from the positive curve (downward) to the negative curvature (upward)? How would "feel" space-time membrane that it has to do with electrical charges of the same kind, to change its curvature? What would be the process of changing the curves?
Something like this is not possible. It can't happen something like this.
Its mean that there is another way to explain the part of the repulsive forces? Is there another phenomenon capable to explaining repulsive force?
Yes, there is a phenomenon that it manifests itself throughout all the Universe and it influence all outerspace bodies. It's about the universe's inflation [2][3][4].
(If we ask atomic physicists, if they "believe" in the phenomenon of inflation, all of them will affirmative answer, but none introduced the effects of this process into the "atomic world")
It is clear that this inflation phenomenon, which influences (and pushes away) massive bodies (outerspace bodies) from Universe, it will influence all elementary particles too. It’s not possible that "disturbing" massive bodies, to not influence the elementary particles too.
This phenomenon best explains " fugue" (rejection) of the particles, one from other.
IV. Development of the study:
Trough inflation we understand „the swelling” of space-time [2][3][4] and it can be imagined like a balloon which has a some dots marked on it, and when it’s swelling, the points are push it away, one from other [3], without being actualy „ moved”( to support the action of any forces), as in fig.3.
5
This will also happen with elementary particles. They are not dots on the surface, but will be "pulled" by the space-time which is in the inflation process, as in fig.4, and for an external observer it will seem that they are moving away, one from another, as if it will be under the influence of any field.
Now we have the explanation for the phenomenon of fugue (rejection) of the atomic particles, but in this case we can no longer explain the case of attraction between them.
However, one can notice that there is a limit (let say, a critical mass), from where rejection no longer has effect, but prevail only attraction between particles. The mass of the neutron is this „critical mass”, and it is at the limit, between stability and instability.
[Through the critical mass we understand the limit from where the space-time influences the matter, and from where the matter influences the space-time membrane, deforming it. It's like the Brownian movement(thermal agitation movement), see the"effect of colloidal emulsion" (in my case, of the space-time membrane) at the test particles, up to a certain mass (critical mass), but from this upwards mass value, the effect of colloidal emulsion (in my case, of the space-time membrane) it is no longer possible. From the critical mass value up, the curvature of the space-time membrane appears under the action of the mass.]
6
V. Completion of the study:
From the ideas presented above, we can draw the following conclusions:
- the attraction of particles is the bending of space-time in”downward”;
- rejection is constituted by "pulling" the particles by the space-time surface, in the inflation process;
- we have a critical mass, between stability and instability, from where the down-bending process of space-time it may oppose to the inflation process;
Based on these conclusions, we can deduce that when two (or more) masses, which insummeded have at least critical mass, are influenced to approaching, „surface tension of the space-time membrane” it will break locally, and it will bend downward. Thus, the bending of the space-time membrane it will keep the masses together (“rolling one to another”), opposing to the pulls of the masses by the surface inflation process, as in fig.5
But it is noticeable that when the space-time membrane it's bending, it's doing a mechanical work, transmitting a vibration (an oscillation)„ε” to the whole surface, fig. 6. These oscillations behave like a particle [6], generating what we call neutrino.
7
But, as I said, this critical mass (obtained from the summation of the masses) is at the limit of stability (in a state of unstable equilibrium) and any smal perturbation (and under the influence of the inflation process) it will disintegrate into the component parts, and the space-time membrane will once again perform a mechanical work, releasing another neutrino,as in fig. 7.
8
VI. The advantages of this interpretation:
This interpretation doesn't get in conflict with quantum mechanics and has the following advantages:
a) shows that everything that we call electrical charge is actually the action of the inflation process on the particles with a lower mass than the critical mass. The inflation process gives the quantitative value of electrical charges;
b) because the "electrical charge property" is actually a property (a process) of the space-time, the problem of infinite masses and of electrical charges of the electron disappears [5];
c) neutrinos being a very, very, very small oscillation of space-time(compared with the gravitational waves), it influences very hardly the materia (small energy), making-them very difficult to be detected [1][5][6]. At the same time, being an oscillation whose action can be considered (confuse with) the action of a particle [6], it's easy to understand why it can change from one type to another (metamorphosis of neutrinos), and why it can be mistaken with its own antiparticle;
Conclusion:
This material shows that electrical charge is actually a "property" (a process [8])of space-time, and that its value is given by the inflation of the Universe. Therefore, it means that one of the properties, intrinsic, that were attributed to the elementary particles, belongs in fact to a process of the space-time.
If one of the elementary particles properties belongs to space-time, then, by extrapolation, we might consider that all the properties belongs to it (even quantification), and that the matter is actually devoid of properties. This makes all constants to "belong" in fact the space-time and explains more easily the "strange" properties of the matter.
At the same time, the critical mass shows the limit between quantum theory and the "classical" (see also the proposal of Roger Penrose, respectively Lajos Diosi)[5] – it shows the limit from which space-time influences the matter, and from where the matter influences the space-time, deforming it.
The theory exposed above is in agreement with the Correspondence Principle.
 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, MavricheAdrian said:

I do not know what I can do to upload the drawings....

I usually copy/paste or drag and drop images into the edit box. Works fine from computer. 

 

29 minutes ago, MavricheAdrian said:

it's hard to understand without drawings...

Ok.

29 minutes ago, MavricheAdrian said:

It's about the universe's inflation

Do you mean cosmic inflation? Cosmological inflation, or just inflation, is as far as I know a theory of exponential expansion of space in the early universe. 

Edited by Ghideon
inflation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I look forward to the upload of your drawings.

Since you are having trouble with this, look at my uploaded picture (screenshot)

It's very easy - I have circled the place to look.

Click on 'choose files' and follw the instructions - it will search your computer for your drawings.

Once they are uploaded, place the cursor in your text where you want to insert them and just click on the assembled image at the bottom.

upload1.thumb.jpg.718465037d64bf74db9199166f6a3b71.jpg

 

As regards your idea of comparing gravity with electrical forces.

This is already done in very elementary work.

But this only gives us electrostatics.
All the dynamic effects need an electric theory quite different from that of gravitation.
Have you considered this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MavricheAdrian said:

"Confusion" between the action of an oscillation with the action of a "mass", we find it in Einstein's famous formulas of the energy too, namely ε = m and ε = hν. Describing the energy, they can be considered equal, namely m =hν. But we notice that on each side of equality there is a constant and one variable. So, by re-ducing constants, which are always the same, the variables will remain, that is m≈ ν, which means that the action of a mass, in our case of a one particle, can be confused with the action of a oscillation, and vice versa.

Neither one of those equations was by Einstein.  No physicist came up with E = m.  

your claim that mass approximately equals frequency makes no sense that I can see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Ghideon said:

.

Do you mean cosmic inflation? Cosmological inflation, or just inflation, is as far as I know a theory of exponential expansion of space in the early universe. 

Yes, this is about cosmological inflation....I do not know that there are differences between the Universe and the Cosmos...

Edited by MavricheAdrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MavricheAdrian said:

Yes, this is about cosmological inflation....I do not know that there are differences between the Universe and the Cosmos...

According to current theories inflation ended at some early time. You write as it is an ongoing phenomena:

22 hours ago, MavricheAdrian said:

(If we ask atomic physicists, if they "believe" in the phenomenon of inflation, all of them will affirmative answer, but none introduced the effects of this process into the "atomic world") It is clear that this inflation phenomenon, which influences (and pushes away) massive bodies (outerspace bodies) from Universe, it will influence all elementary particles too.

1: Do you have a reference where atomic physicists state that inflation is pushing objects away?

2: Do you maybe mean the current expansion of the universe instead of the theory of early cosmic inflation?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, studiot said:

Well I look forward to the upload of your drawings.

Since you are having trouble with this, look at my uploaded picture (screenshot)

It's very easy - I have circled the place to look.

Click on 'choose files' and follw the instructions - it will search your computer for your drawings.

Once they are uploaded, place the cursor in your text where you want to insert them and just click on the assembled image at the bottom.

upload1.thumb.jpg.718465037d64bf74db9199166f6a3b71.jpg

 

As regards your idea of comparing gravity with electrical forces.

This is already done in very elementary work.

But this only gives us electrostatics.
All the dynamic effects need an electric theory quite different from that of gravitation.
Have you considered this?

Thanks for your help! I hope I succeeded...

 How about..."This is already done in very elementary work"...true, but not my approach.

"All the dynamic effects need an electric theory quite different from that of gravitation.
Have you considered this?"

That's what I did with this theory

 

 

 

electric charge.docx

Edited by MavricheAdrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

As always, I will warn people to be very careful about downloading Microsoft Word documents from an unknown source. (I certainly wouldn't do it.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your fig 2 implies something dramatically different from current theory.

 

elec1.jpg.f77886b47f21913db8698543df9353c3.jpg

It seems to imply a position of (possibly unstable) equilibrium where m1 and m2 (should that not be q1 and q2 for chrage ?) actually touch!

By the way make your images jpegs not pngs.

The point of a word doc is that you can past the doc directly into the entry editor here.

Edited by studiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Strange said:
!

Moderator Note

As always, I will warn people to be very careful about downloading Microsoft Word documents from an unknown source. (I certainly wouldn't do it.)

 

Please forgive me, but I do not know how to do otherwise ... I followed the advice ... I guarantee that I do not deal with viruses ... I just want to discuss my theory ... I apologize one more time

Tell me how to proceed, please

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, MavricheAdrian said:

Please forgive me, but I do not know how to do otherwise ...

I would “save as” PDF and upload that. Or, better still, post the information on the forum directly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

31 minutes ago, Strange said:

I would “save as” PDF and upload that. Or, better still, post the information on the forum directly. 

Fine, thank you. That's what I did

 

electric charge.pdf

21 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

Neither one of those equations was by Einstein.  No physicist came up with E = m.  

your claim that mass approximately equals frequency makes no sense that I can see.

It didn't load properly. In fact it is ε = mc^2 

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

According to current theories inflation ended at some early time. You write as it is an ongoing phenomena:

1: Do you have a reference where atomic physicists state that inflation is pushing objects away?

2: Do you maybe mean the current expansion of the universe instead of the theory of early cosmic inflation?

 

I'm already confused. ....

I didn't say that "atomic physicists state that inflation is pushing objects away". Where did you read this statement in my material?

Is the difference between inflation and expansion of the universe? Both express the same thing, and it is considered a continuous process .... it has even been found that it is faster than it is believed.....I have always found both expressions, which express the same thing ... the removal of the heavenly bodies, one against the other

Edited by MavricheAdrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, swansont said:

Please upload the math, too.

I have no mathematical apparatus ye

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Your fig 2 implies something dramatically different from current theory.

 

elec1.jpg.f77886b47f21913db8698543df9353c3.jpg

It seems to imply a position of (possibly unstable) equilibrium where m1 and m2 (should that not be q1 and q2 for chrage ?) actually touch!

By the way make your images jpegs not pngs.

The point of a word doc is that you can past the doc directly into the entry editor here.

If you read till to the end, the theory, you'll see why I didn't say "q1 and q2"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, MavricheAdrian said:

 

If you read till to the end, the theory, you'll see why I didn't say "q1 and q2"

 

It is a pity for your hypothesis that it is at variance with too many observations in the real world.

 

Quote

  shows that everything that we call electrical charge is actually the action of the inflation process on the particles with a lower mass than the critical mass. The inflation process gives the quantitative value of electrical charges;

As I understand what you have said, you are hypothesising that electrical charges do not actually exist.
Electrical effects are actually some sort of chnage in spacetime.

 

So how do you account for the difference in repulsion between a proton and another proton and the repulsion between a proton and a neutron?

Both have essentially the same mass, so why is there a difference in this 'spactime effect' ?

You also seem to be suggesting that mass somehow plays a role in electrical effects.

Again that is against common experience. Two platinum ions exert exactly the same mutual repulsive force as two hydrogen ions.

You say that your article explains the dynamical effects of electricity.

How do you explain the other startling difference from gravity?
Viz the ability of a moving charge to interact with its own field.

In other words I don't see an explanation of Lenz / Faraday's laws or 'back EMF'

 

Finally I would like a proper response to / discussion of my comment on your diagram 2

 

 

Edited by studiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/3/2019 at 7:45 PM, MavricheAdrian said:

didn't say that "atomic physicists state that inflation is pushing objects away". Where did you read this statement in my material?

I may have misinterpreted the following:

Quote

(If we ask atomic physicists, if they "believe" in the phenomenon of inflation, all of them will affirmative answer...

Cosmic inflation does not seem to be as widely accepted as the expansion of the universe. Not all physicists* think there is enough evidence to support the phenomenon.

Quote

It is clear that this inflation phenomenon, which influences (and pushes away) massive bodies (outerspace bodies) from Universe, it will influence all elementary particles too. It’s not possible that "disturbing" massive bodies, to not influence the elementary particles too.

The inflation phenomenon does not push away massive bodies. The inflation ended before massive bodies formed, inflation is an early period of accelerated expansion. Therefore I asked for a reference supporting your statements.

Here is paper on cosmic inflation that might be a good introduction. https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9901124.pdf

 

*)  See for instance criticisms section on wikipedia:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)#Criticisms

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/3/2019 at 10:37 PM, studiot said:

 

It is a pity for your hypothesis that it is at variance with too many observations in the real world.

In atomic physics there are no real observations, they are just interpretations. I'm not saying that my approach(which is still in development) would have no problems, but it is also an interpretation.

 

I'm glad you understood my approach.

 

[/quote]So how do you account for the difference in repulsion between a proton and another proton and the repulsion between a proton and a neutron?

Both have essentially the same mass, so why is there a difference in this 'spactime effect' ?[/quote]

 "Have essentially the same mass", but not the same. This little difference ... makes a difference....Imagine a boat whose maximum load is one tonne, what is put over this quantity, even a gram, sink the  boat. If we talk "grosso modo", a ton or a ton and a gram are "essentially the same mass", but this little difference, it radically changes the problem. (See also the explanation of the critical mass)

[/quote]You also seem to be suggesting that mass somehow plays a role in electrical effects.[/quote]

Its a process of the space-time on the particles with a lower mass than the critical mass.

[/quote]Again that is against common experience. Two platinum ions exert exactly the same mutual repulsive force as two hydrogen ions.[/quote]

As I told you above,  my approach is still in development, and I have not yet extended the model to the atomic level, but I think that at this level, everything would be related to "horizon gravitational curves" (similar to the horizon of a black hole)....I'm still working on that

[/quote]You say that your article explains the dynamical effects of electricity.[/quote]

Not "the dynamical effects of electricity", but its a process of the space-time on the particles with a lower mass than the critical mass.

[/quote]How do you explain the other startling difference from gravity?
Viz the ability of a moving charge to interact with its own field.[/quote]

I do not understand the question...

[/quote]In other words I don't see an explanation of Lenz / Faraday's laws or 'back EMF'[/quote]

I'm still working on that

[/quote]Finally I would like a proper response to / discussion of my comment on your diagram 2[/quote]

Can you be more detailed?

 

As I understand what you have said, you are hypothesising that electrical charges do not actually exist.
Electrical effects are actually some sort of chnage in spacetime.

 

Quote

 

 

Edited by MavricheAdrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your response.

Please do not answer in that fashion as the quote function on this site cannot handle it properly.
There have been heated arguments here as a result of this with members being accused of deliberately falsifying or misreporting the words of others.

So please separate your words from those of others as in the examples in this thread.

 

You say this

21 minutes ago, MavricheAdrian said:

I have not yet extended the model to the atomic level,

 

Which directly contradicts your failed answer to this

21 minutes ago, MavricheAdrian said:

[/quote]So how do you account for the difference in repulsion between a proton and another proton and the repulsion between a proton and a neutron?

Both have essentially the same mass, so why is there a difference in this 'spactime effect' ?[/quote]

 "Have essentially the same mass", but not the same. This little difference ... makes a difference....Imagine a boat whose maximum load is one tonne, what is put over this quantity, even a gram, sink the  boat. If we talk "grosso modo", a ton or a ton and a gram are "essentially the same mass", but this little difference, it radically changes the problem. (See also the explanation of the critical mass)

 

Do you know what the difference in repulsion between a proton and another proton and the repulsion between a proton and a neutron actually is ?

Can you draw one of your diagrams to explain how either or peferably both these forces are generated?

 

21 minutes ago, MavricheAdrian said:

[/quote]You say that your article explains the dynamical effects of electricity.[/quote]

Not "the dynamical effects of electricity", but its a process of the space-time on the particles with a lower mass than the critical mass.

[/quote]How do you explain the other startling difference from gravity?
Viz the ability of a moving charge to interact with its own field.[/quote]

I do not understand the question...

[/quote]In other words I don't see an explanation of Lenz / Faraday's laws or 'back EMF'[/quote]

I'm still working on that

[/quote]Finally I would like a proper response to / discussion of my comment on your diagram 2[/quote]

Can you be more detailed?

 

And yet when I asked the selfsame question with less detail before you said

On 9/3/2019 at 5:49 PM, MavricheAdrian said:

That's what I did with this theory

yet now you say you don't understand or are working on it.

 

 

I respectfully suggest you find out what has already been discovered over the past couple of centuries of human investigation into electrical phenomena, instead of guessing.

Edited by studiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/3/2019 at 6:45 PM, MavricheAdrian said:

Is the difference between inflation and expansion of the universe? Both express the same thing, and it is considered a continuous process ....

 

21 minutes ago, MavricheAdrian said:

In atomic physics there are no real observations

 

!

Moderator Note

These (and other statements you have made) are incorrect and demonstrate a profound ignorance of physics. If you keep making factually incorrect statements such as this, the thread will be closed. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/5/2019 at 12:13 AM, Ghideon said:

I may have misinterpreted the following:

Cosmic inflation does not seem to be as widely accepted as the expansion of the universe. Not all physicists* think there is enough evidence to support the phenomenon.

The inflation phenomenon does not push away massive bodies. The inflation ended before massive bodies formed, inflation is an early period of accelerated expansion. Therefore I asked for a reference supporting your statements.

Here is paper on cosmic inflation that might be a good introduction. https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9901124.pdf

 

*)  See for instance criticisms section on wikipedia:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)#Criticisms

 

First of all, I apologize, because English is not my native language.

Now I understand what you wanted to say....In my native language, inflation and expansion have the same meaning. Even in the link you put we find "...inflation, is a theory of exponential expansion of space..." ....I missed that one "exponential", although in the link sent by you, reference is also made to "Eternal inflation", this means that, in this case, it can be confused with the expansion of the universe. 

 

I do mea culpa, and I rectify, saying that when I referred to inflation, I equated it with expansion of the universe.

Therefore, where I wrote inflation, I thought of the expansion of the universe

On 9/5/2019 at 12:13 AM, Ghideon said:

 

 

 

 

Edited by MavricheAdrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strange said:

 

 

!

Moderator Note

These (and other statements you have made) are incorrect and demonstrate a profound ignorance of physics. If you keep making factually incorrect statements such as this, the thread will be closed. 

 

First of all, I apologize, because English is not my native language.

For the first statement(Is the difference between inflation and expansion of the universe? Both express the same thing, and it is considered a continuous process ....), I recognized my mistake, and I answered to Ghideon.

Regarding the second statement(In atomic physics there are no real observations), I mentioned that at the atomic level we use uncertainty, probability, disturbance, which shows that we have no certainties of the real observation. Is also shown by the multitude of theories proposed to describe this subatomic world : M theory, Standard theory, Supergravity, problem of dark mater, dark energy, the collapse of the wave of probability, renormalization. All this shows us that we are only interpreting and we have no real observation(by this we mean that we do not have something visible or tangible).This is what I wanted to say

3 hours ago, Strange said:

 

 

!

Moderator Note

These (and other statements you have made) are incorrect and demonstrate a profound ignorance of physics. If you keep making factually incorrect statements such as this, the thread will be closed. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • 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.