1 hour ago, KJW said:

What about the equivalence principle?

The equivalence principle is observed!

My theory is a practical understanding of the concept of gravity! Thanks to my theory, you can control gravity using certain equipment!

This is how the Egyptian pyramids were built! You need to process the stone!

You limited the energy flow from the rotation of electrons around protons, and the stone became soft!

My experiment demonstrates one of the principles of how to do this!

Read on.

57 minutes ago, swansont said:

1) The rotation of electrons (but not actually physically rotating) does not cause the electric field of the protons.

Yes, if you’re looking at more atoms vs fewer of the same kinds of atoms, but that wasn’t your claim. Also it’s not necessarily true if you compare different atoms. A mole of hydrogen has less mass than a tenth of a mole of iron.

Depends on the atoms, and “energy to rotate the electrons” is an awkward and ambiguous description of atomic structure.

There’s no physics that I can contort to interpret this as a valid description.

Explain your research, using some sort of rigor (i.e. we need equations) which is required by our rules

An engineer should be able to supply valid equations

Simple, and wrong. You have provided no evidence that atoms “consume energy” to “rotate their electrons” and such a description shows a decided lack of understanding of basic atomic physics.

Thank you for your interest and discussion of my theory!!

We'll create equations by calculating the power of the equipment that needs to be built into the car so it can fly, and that's reality! Before we begin, I want to explain the essence of the theory to you, and you can't help but agree with it!!!

It's all very simple!!!!

You have matter.

Matter exists when electrons revolve around protons in it, creating a crystalline lattice. Energy is needed for electrons to rotate!

Nothing happens without energy! Where does it come from? From space.

The entire Earth is made of atoms! Atoms consume this energy. The Sun also consumes this energy. Since the Sun is larger than the Earth, its consumption of this energy is significantly greater, and therefore, the Sun attracts the Earth! No equation is needed here! You have an energetic connection between the Sun and the Earth, as these two objects absorb energy in enormous quantities.

Now you want an object on the Earth to reduce gravity. You need to give this body additional energy (for example, concentrate the flow of energy on this body and the body will lose mass.) If this energy is limited, then the body will become a mouse, since the speed of rotation of the electrons will slow down.

5 hours ago, Evgen Ivashura said:

since the speed of rotation of the electrons will slow down.

So if there aren’t any electrons, for example if I have a sample consisting only of protons and neutrons (ie ionized hydrogen) in a stationary state, then this sample will exhibit no gravity?

Also, you are forgetting that gravity is generated by things other than massive particles - for example electromagnetic fields have a gravitational influence, as do pressure, stress, strain etc.

5 hours ago, Evgen Ivashura said:

No equation is needed here!

Don’t be ridiculous - if you propose an alternative theory of gravity, you need to be able to quantify its predictions. We are doing physics here. Verbal claims aren’t enough, and as an engineer you should understand this. You can’t even know yourself if your proposal is consistent with reality, if you can’t quantify things.

For example, if I’d ask you to tell me the trajectory of some test particle (eg a probe) given initial and boundary conditions, how would you do it? You have no mathematical framework, nothing at all, other than verbal claims. It’s useless.

18 hours ago, Evgen Ivashura said:

I see you know ! Excellent!

This is MAN B&W 7 cyl 900mm

70 Mt consumption of fuel per day

Engineers don't measure anything in cm! All measurements are in mm. 😄

Ah so bigger than I thought.

I used to be the product manager at Shell for the lubricants used in these engines, until I retired in 2011. It was quite a challenging application, especially when they were adapted to burn gas.

What type of ship? Tanker? Bulk dry cargo?

Edited December 4Dec 4 by exchemist

14 hours ago, Evgen Ivashura said:

  15 hours ago, KJW said:

What about the equivalence principle?

The equivalence principle is observed!

In what way is the equivalence principle observed?

9 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

  14 hours ago, Evgen Ivashura said:

since the speed of rotation of the electrons will slow down.

So if there aren’t any electrons, for example if I have a sample consisting only of protons and neutrons (ie ionized hydrogen) in a stationary state, then this sample will exhibit no gravity?

Also, you are forgetting that gravity is generated by things other than massive particles - for example electromagnetic fields have a gravitational influence, as do pressure, stress, strain etc.

Perhaps you (@Evgen Ivashura) can explain why heavy water is heavier than normal water.

9 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

So if there aren’t any electrons, for example if I have a sample consisting only of protons and neutrons (ie ionized hydrogen) in a stationary state, then this sample will exhibit no gravity?

Also, you are forgetting that gravity is generated by things other than massive particles - for example electromagnetic fields have a gravitational influence, as do pressure, stress, strain etc.

Don’t be ridiculous - if you propose an alternative theory of gravity, you need to be able to quantify its predictions. We are doing physics here. Verbal claims aren’t enough, and as an engineer you should understand this. You can’t even know yourself if your proposal is consistent with reality, if you can’t quantify things.

For example, if I’d ask you to tell me the trajectory of some test particle (eg a probe) given initial and boundary conditions, how would you do it? You have no mathematical framework, nothing at all, other than verbal claims. It’s useless.

Thank you for your reply! I truly enjoy arguing with you. Truth is born in debate! You said, "So if there aren't any electrons, for example, if I have a sample consisting only of protons and neutrons (i.e., ionized hydrogen) in a stationary state, then will this sample exhibit no gravity?" Yes, it won't exhibit gravity! It will have mass, but it won't exhibit gravity. Gravity is a consumption of energy! That's an axiom. You said, "Don't be ridiculous" - if you propose an alternative theory of gravity, you need to be able to quantify its predictions. We are doing physics here. Verbal claims aren't enough, and as an engineer, you should understand this. You can't even know if your proposal is consistent with reality if you can't quantify things. For example, if I asked you to tell me the trajectory of some test particle (e.g., a probe) given initial and boundary conditions, how would you do it? You have no mathematical framework, nothing at all, other than verbal claims. It's useless. If you were an engineer, you would know that all equations and formulas are very approximate, imprecise, and complete nonsense. All calculations contain coefficients adjusted empirically. And even then, you won't end up with a BMW engine. You need to test it, adjust it, and tune it. The same goes for building ships or airplanes. All the formulas are adjusted, and then the products are refined! Theory is one thing. In practice, everything is completely different! My theory is derived directly from practice, not from calculations, and it works! Using my theory, I can explain everything related to gravity! I can even explain what a black hole in space is! Why do all the planets rotate, etc. I can create an antigravity engine, but it requires testing!

34 minutes ago, KJW said:

In what way is the equivalence principle observed?

Perhaps you (@Evgen Ivashura) can explain why heavy water is heavier than normal water.

You said, "Perhaps you (@Evgen Ivashura) can explain why heavy water is heavier than regular water." Yes, I can explain! An atom of regular water has 8 electrons. An atom of energy-rich water has 10 electrons. Consequently, 10 electrons consume more energy for the microphone than the 8 electrons of light water.

22 minutes ago, Evgen Ivashura said:

An atom of regular water has 8 electrons. An atom of energy-rich water has 10 electrons. Consequently, 10 electrons consume more energy for the microphone than the 8 electrons of light water.

No, heavy water and normal water have the same number of electrons.

15 hours ago, Evgen Ivashura said:

We'll create equations by calculating the power of the equipment that needs to be built into the car so it can fly, and that's reality!

No.

We require equations as part of this kind of conjecture. Simply repeating your assertions is not sufficient, regardless of how many exclamation points you use.

Don’t bring the topic up again.

There was an inquiry about why this was closed.

We’re a science forum, and you need to post science. For physics, this means equations describing the phenomenon, which permits people to see if it’s supported by evidence. It’s not a WAG that you just assert multiple times.