Jump to content

Mass @ c


Alpha-137
 Share

Recommended Posts

Dear insane_alein

 

Quote;

 

yes i understand how a railgun works. i've built one infact.

 

it seems here has been a misunderstanding on my part. you made it sound like you were claiming the fields propagated at g instead of c. sorry.

 

what layering of gravity fields? to all intents and purposes there is one field.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Layering is the same as if you added more coils to you railgun, each layer /or coil adds more acceleration because it add more density to the flux force lines in the fields.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

You have seen my model of an Iron Nuclei polarized; [ I doubt that I need to post again.]

 

Well can you picture that the outer core of the earth is made up of these stacked end for

 

about 1,400 miles and each and everyone adds a layer to the of fields of flux lines of

 

forces that make up the gravitational fields.

 

 

aug102006fields.jpg

 

 

If your weighted yourself standing in deathvalley at one mile below sea level you would be in a much densiter layer of gravity than if you then weighed yourself standing in mile high city of Denver.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Where would you weigh the most????

 

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

If you are in the vomit-comet or a rollercoaster and your descent is faster than [g] you will be weightless. That is because you would be over coming the pull of the on coming levels / or layers of the gravity fields.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 145
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ok fine. For the sake of argument, lets say we accept that your theory as self-consistent. You don't need to explain it anymore, you don't need to work out the details, you don't need math, you are all done with explaining your theory. Kk? Now. GIVE US SOME EVIDENCE. You know who Lemarck was? He came up with an alternative theory of development of the species, before Darwin. He said that if you cut off the tails of two mice, their children will not have any tails. So, physical changes to animals affected their children. It was a brilliant theory, self consistent, and well worked out. He was wrong, though. He died mocked and ridiculed. This could have been avoided if he had cut off the tails of mice and seen if they had children. Then he would have seen that his theory was wrong. How do we know you are not another Lemark? We don't. Prove that you are not. Give us some evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1/ you have not proven that an iron nuclei will polarize. you need to do this before your hypothesis will be anywhere above complete nonsense

 

2/ how do you explain the effect of the gravitational field stregnth decreasing as you travel further under the surface of the earth?

 

this effect is alreadt nicely explained by the fact that ALL mass and not just iron will attract all other masses. in your hypothesis we should see gravitational field stregnth increasing below the surface. this is not seen.

 

3/ why is gravitational field stregnth not proportional to the amount of iron in an object?

 

4/ why do objects with no temperature gradient still exhibit a gravitational field?

 

5/ how exactly does an infrared photon interact with an atomic nuclei? and why hasn't this been observed in the many thousands of experiments where they were looking for this sort of thing?

 

6/ why do you ignore most of what we say? we are not idiots. 90% of the people here are extremely well educated and very smart.

 

7/ you have claimed to do some very mathematically heavy studies/jobs yet you claim to be bad at maths. i know one of these is true and i'm thinking its the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awhile back you say that your theory still coincides with relativity and most modern physics...

 

according to relativity, energy is really the only thing that creates gravity, and that mass is just a really condensed form of energy.

 

So, if we have a bunch of massless photons creating gravity how does your theory coincide when its iron at different temperatures somehow doing it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

also my family is very heavily involved in the iron mining on the masabi range, I've been up there several times and know what phenomenon you are talking about.

 

In an iron mine (especially true in a taconite(type of ore) mine) the iron has been magnetised into magnetite, so almost all of the dust in and around the mines is magnetised and can exhibit some interesting behaviors, such as getting all over any kind of steel structure and or vehicle, and as soon as its kicked up it immediatly settles, in the presence of any sort of convection currents (such as would occur around a hot slab of iron) I'd imagine you'd see some very interesting dust flows.

 

and like I said before the dust is magnetised but its not very strong so it won't follow field lines or anything like that, and will tend to act like a particularly sticky dust.

 

but again this is purely a magnetic phenomenon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sort of convection currents (such as would occur around a hot slab of iron)

 

But, I imagine, the magnetization would not be strong enough to act alone, with out the extra uplift the convection current creates, am I right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Anjruu & insane_alein

 

 

Quote;

 

1/ you have not proven that iron nuclei will polarize. you need to do this before your hypothesis will be anywhere above complete nonsense

 

2/ how do you explain the effect of the gravitational field strength decreasing as you travel further under the surface of the earth?

 

this effect is alreadt nicely explained by the fact that ALL mass and not just iron will attract all other masses. in your hypothesis we should see gravitational field stregnth increasing below the surface. this is not seen.

 

3/ why is gravitational field stregnth not proportional to the amount of iron in an object?

 

4/ why do objects with no temperature gradient still exhibit a gravitational field?

 

5/ how exactly does an infrared photon interact with an atomic nuclei? and why hasn't this been observed in the many thousands of experiments where they were looking for this sort of thing?

 

6/ why do you ignore most of what we say? we are not idiots. 90% of the people here are extremely well educated and very smart.

 

7/ you have claimed to do some very mathematically heavy studies/jobs yet you claim to be bad at maths. i know one of these is true and i'm thinking its the latter.

__________________---------------------------------

 

 

[1] The experiment needs to be done on the [ larger scale that I show in these postings] and under lab interments, along with real physicists.

 

[2] WHAT?? You need to lookup miners that go down so for that they have to take time to decompress just like divers do on their way back up!

 

[3] Because it is not the fact that it is Iron, [it is the state than the mass is in.]

Didn’t you read the posting on the state of the mass in Jupiter’s core that I posted?

 

[4] That was the old way to explain gravity, that is just the electromagnetic-weak force.

 

Why don’t you use that to explain Newton’s actions at a distance / or real gravity.

 

Because that is just what I am explaining here.

 

[5] I do not always remember where I have read things, BUT yes infrared lasers have been used to COOL atoms [i know that that sounds Bass-ac-words to say COOL] , but that just means that they striped the electrons away and cooled the atom to some where near -273 k Just Google it

[6] I do not ignore you, I have answered most all of your questions to best of my abilities and time.

 

 

[7]With the trouble that I was having with Dyslexia at 17 I joined the Navy 1961 and at that time I was geek on electronics and was able to get in to Radio, Radar, and sonar Schools that got me into Sub-school also, USNB 598 G.W. [At that time and maybe still, everyone had to at lest know how to shutdown the reactor.] And even now I am a amateur radio operator call sign, [ ke5rls ]

That got me really interested in nuclear physics, but mostly I was sonar operator, and when on /off the sub at six months at a time, on land they didn’t need sonar operators so I was an SP / law enforcement. I then left the Navy and became DPS in Arkansas, and there I took some Physics at U of A. I never planned on doing anything with it other than I just love to learn. Later I moved up to The Tacoma-Settle area where I became an Investigator, there I also took some physics classes.

Then in 1975 I came back to Texas to see my Mom in the Hospital in the valley and my younger brother set me up with his English Teacher as a blind date and we have been married now for 31 years. We have two boys that are now teacher as their Mother is. In Victory Texas I took CAD at the Jr. collage mainly to be able to do my own paten drawings After retiring [22 years] for med- reasons [shot] we moved to Houston where I have taken some more physics here at the U of H, and I do part time CAD drawing for members of the Houston Inventor Club. That has about 500 members, of witch about 1/3 are people that work at NASA or their contractors, but still I never planed to do anything with my studies. I am not a scientist nor do I claim to be. I hold no degrees!

 

But, I am a very good investigator and for the past 17 years I have put all my skills to this work.

 

I really do not care if I can get my understandings over to anyone or not.

 

My studies have always been very private to me mostly because of my Dyslexia. So private that is all most like a religion need to me. I just love to understand the workings of Nature.

 

And I just thought that I should share them with all of you.

 

Now you see why I could never be a Teacher,

 

[My wife has for years tried to get me to do part time substituting.]

 

So I will just say goodbye to you.

 

It would have been nice if one of you could have understand that my work is good enough to say hay I / we have the lab and equipment to do the experiment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[1] The experiment needs to be done on the [ larger scale that I show in these postings] and under lab interments, along with real physicists.

 

in other words, you have no data. you have not even looked up on experiments that could provide even a bit of evidence for your hypothesis.

 

2] WHAT?? You need to lookup miners that go down so for that they have to take time to decompress just like divers do on their way back up!

 

pressure != gravity. the atmospheric pressure will increase because of the added weight of air abover their heads but this does not correspond to increasing gravity

 

[3] Because it is not the fact that it is Iron, [it is the state than the mass is in.]

Didn’t you read the posting on the state of the mass in Jupiter’s core that I posted?

 

they why do you continue to put the emphasis on only a few elements?

 

[4] That was the old way to explain gravity, that is just the electromagnetic-weak force.

 

i think you'll find that it isn't. the electro-weak force as a single force only exists at extremely high energy densities. at the energy densities most objects experience these forces are seperate and distinct.

 

[5] I do not always remember where I have read things, BUT yes infrared lasers have been used to COOL atoms [i know that that sounds Bass-ac-words to say COOL] , but that just means that they striped the electrons away and cooled the atom to some where near -273 k Just Google it

 

yes lasers have been used to cool things. the optical molasses effect. i know about this. but it does not interact with the nucleus of the atom. the electrons cannot be stripped away by infrared photons.infrared can at most cause an electron to jump up an energy level. nothing more. they do not have enough energy. and it was temperatures approaching 0K. negative kelvins are impossible.

 

[6] I do not ignore you, I have answered most all of your questions to best of my abilities and time.

 

by repeating yourself.

 

I did not ask for your life story. you said you had studied nuclear physics, even if it is in your spare time as a hobby, it still requires a LOT of mathematical knowledge therefore you could not have studied this to any great extent where you would be capable of contradicting thousands of scientists research in the fields of quantum mechanics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And thats your problem right there... thats a good portion of the time where "crack-pottism" springs from, and why crack pots defend there theories so vehemetly... :P

 

And when they are rebuked, they tend to storm off, usually with a goodbye along the lines of "I'm sorry that I am smarter than you and you don't understand me."

 

So I will just say goodbye to you. It would have been nice if one of you could have understand that my work is good enough to say hay I / we have the lab and equipment to do the experiment.

 

Hey! Look at that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And when they are rebuked' date=' they tend to storm off, usually with a goodbye along the lines of "I'm sorry that I am smarter than you and you don't understand me."

 

 

 

Hey! Look at that![/quote']

 

OK; I will keep posting, you talked into it, and no I am not smarter than anyone here or anywhere.

 

I just have a different understanding of how Nature works!

 

That is why we have so many theories out there.

 

I will be the last one to ever say that Iam smarter than anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[5] I do not always remember where I have read things' date=' BUT yes infrared lasers have been used to COOL atoms [i know that that sounds Bass-ac-words to say COOL'] , but that just means that they striped the electrons away and cooled the atom to some where near -273 k Just Google it

 

 

Don't need to Google it, I've done it (seven different isotopes). Happening in the lab right now, as a matter of fact, with Rb-87. The atoms remain neutral, however. The electrons are not stripped

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it was a poorly designed experiment as well, too many external forces could cause the effect. now, if it was done through a physical barrier separated by a vacuum, then it would be better.

 

EDIT:

I just have a different understanding of how Nature works!

 

That is why we have so many theories out there.

 

oh, so you have no evidence but think that it is completely different from the standard model which is tried and tested?

 

the reason there are many theories is that there are many different aspects of physics. for instance, a theory on orbital mechanics does not need to describe superfluidity. or the strong force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK; I will keep posting, you talked into it, and no I am not smarter than anyone here or anywhere. I just have a different understanding of how Nature works! That is why we have so many theories out there. I will be the last one to ever say that Iam smarter than anyone.

 

Ok, good. Now, since it seems that none of us here have the materials, or, if some of us do, then not the inclination to do your expirement, why don't you preform it to the best of your abilities, and then we'll see what happens. It looks like a relativly simple set-up except for the vaccumm chamber, but those are relativly cheap, I think. And if you are correct, the investment will be well worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK; I will keep posting' date=' you talked into it, and no I am not smarter than anyone here or anywhere.

 

I just have a different understanding of how Nature works!

 

That is why we have so many theories out there.

 

I will be the last one to ever say that Iam smarter than anyone.

 

Theories can't contradict each other, however. Having a different understanding isn't the issue, it's that you haven't demonstrated that your understanding is correct. You need to explain more than one instance of a phenomenon; it's a longer road to actually have a theory.

 

In general, scientific theories take the big picture and explain many things, within a discipline of science, and get refined when some details turn out to be incomplete. Your approach (and many "alternate theory" approaches) focus on the details, and care not a whit that the overall picture is inconsistent. e.g the objection that the phenomena under question are present even when iron is absent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

e.g the objection that the phenomena under question are present even when iron is absent.

 

Apparently, iron was just his main example. Why he put so much empasis (even naming his theory "Iron rules the universe") I don't know...

 

It's because of magnetism... and irons magnetic. That may be why he goes on about iron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Swansont;

 

Quote;

 

Don't need to Google it, I've done it (seven different isotopes). Happening in the lab right now, as a matter of fact, with Rb-87. The atoms remain neutral, however. The electrons are not stripped

 

No, I am sure that you do not need to Google it.

 

And I am sure that you are right. In that experiment that is going on at this time.

 

But, I have over the years read of experiments that where many different wave-lengths of lasers [including infrared] have been tested and used to striped the electrons away. And even to the point to take Iron, and many other masses into the plasma state, and past to the point of vaperation of the mass.

 

At the plasma state & the point of vaperation state, I would say that the electrons have been striped away.

 

And for insane_alein to say that infrared lasers can not do this is just wrong.

 

I do not care if insane_alein understands this or not.

 

Actually, it is PhDs like you that I was hopping for to really take the time and not just

 

skip-over reading my postings and pick out missed spelled words, I really believe that

 

you will see that instead of contradicting other theories actually unifying most of them

 

into one.

 

Please; I ask that you to go back and look at my postings carefully.

 

Broth postings under “Mass @ c” and “Fields of Iron Rule the Universe”

 

If, not those, please, at lest the one that is Called “My Observations” and give me

 

your Understandings on this event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alpha-137:

 

First of all, just cuz its really annoying me (lol) use the quote tags! as in QUOTE="there name here" in [ ] brackets, then whatever they said, then /QUOTE in [ ] brackets.

 

Like this:

 

If Iron doesn't rule the universe now... it will!!!!!!!!!!

 

that was obviously a joke hehe but you get what I'm saying by using quote tags.

 

That out of the way, you need to make an experiment thats VACUUM PROOFED. this is big, because of the heat / cold you are using you are creating air currents which could very easily effect your experiment.

 

Pretty much, do the entire thing over in a vacuum chamber and get some hard data on it. Do that, report back, and we'll see what you have :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have over the years read of experiments that where many different wave-lengths of lasers [including infrared] have been tested and used to striped the electrons away.

 

Do you have a reference of this? Or maybe a common application?

Remember, there is a difference between melting, exciting and ionizing (otherwise known as stripping electrons).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear CanadaAots

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by swansont

e.g the objection that the phenomena under question are present even when iron is absent.

 

Apparently, iron was just his main example. Why he put so much empasis (even naming his theory "Iron rules the universe") I don't know...

 

 

You are right;

 

It is not iron,

 

It is the two states of masses that make up the inner & outer cores of a given planet be it the earth with Iron or be it Jupiter with[H].

 

Well some one at lest is trying to understand my very bad way of saying stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have a reference of this? Or maybe a common application?

Remember' date=' there is a difference between melting, exciting and ionizing (otherwise known as stripping electrons).[/quote']

 

 

Dear BhavinB;

 

I will do my best to look that up it is some where in my files, of paten drawings and desriptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok here is why infrared can NOT strip electrons away.

 

WARNING: Mathematics follows, the first numbers as proof in this thread.

 

to remove 1 single electron from a cesium atom(it has the lowest ionization energy.) it requires

375.7 kJ/mol /6.022*10^23 = 6.23879e-19 J of energy.

 

an infra red photon at the limit of what is defined as infrared(750nm wavelegnth)

 

E=hf

E=6.63*10^-34*(c/750*10^-9)

E=2.652E-19J

 

oh look insufficient energy. even for the highest energy infrared photon for the lowest ionizing energy among the elements.

its off by a factor of 2.35. thats 3.59E-19J short. this is why infrared cannot strip electrons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, mathematics at last!

 

Do you know what the ionization energy of iron is?

 

we could figure out how energetic a photon would need to be...

 

Found it here

 

I dont know how to do the calculations though lol. but its 762.5 kJ/mol

 

Where'd you get /6.022*10^23?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

although if the infrared is used as a heating element, then it can heat the iron to the point where electrons are stripped.

 

 

 

I think I see what he is trying to say

 

He's trying to say that it is the difference in the chemical states of the matter in the outer core, and the matter in the inner core that creates the gravitational field, and the gravitational field is created by the outer core messing with the magnetic field that is created in the inner core.

 

Although the earth's gravitational field does get smaller as you move closer to the center of the earth. This is caused by the matter in the outer layers of the planet exerts a gravitational field that opposes the gravitational field of the rest of the planet. This result has been confirmed numerous times in labs.

 

Look up newton's shell theorem

Link to comment
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
 Share


×
×
  • 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.