Pinch Paxton Posted March 3, 2004 Author Share Posted March 3, 2004 I've never seen any mathematical formulas for any scientific theory, so I have nothing to base my theory on. But I have lived my whole life this way, and I still know that magnets exist. Show me the mathematical formula for magnetism, and I shall see if I can calculate my formula. I also need the mathematic formula for gravity, and a formula for wave/energy transferance. Oh yeah I have seen a formula..E=mc2, but I believe that it was innacurate, slightly higher than it should be. Pincho. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 MrL, you really need to explain better. Same with Pincho. So you say gravity is wave, right? And objects "ride" on it? Just clarifying. E=MC2 is accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1917 Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Why dont you lok up a TEXT BOOK. Mathematical formulas exist for EVERYTHING IN PHYSICS. The fact you claim they dont exist only underlines the fact you have nowhere near the grasp of basic physics you seem to think you have. In fact, if you have no grasp of mathemtics then you have absolutely no clue about physics. Ill just say that again. You have NO CLUE about physics. That was no clue. About physics. No clue about physics. Of course formulas exist for magnets. They link the strength of the magnet to the separation of said magnets. The waves you feel the need to lecture us on? They can all be described in terms of formulae. Thats how physicists describe things. With maths. Not with badly drawn pictures and 'i know im right, just disregard everything because I have a new crackpot theory'. What next week? Pincho does chemistry with pictures of barney and the teletubbies? Why do you think I moved this thread to pseudoscience? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted March 4, 2004 Author Share Posted March 4, 2004 The fact you claim they dont exist only underlines the fact you have nowhere near the grasp of basic physics you seem to think you have. In fact, if you have no grasp of mathemtics then you have absolutely no clue about physics. Hmm, maybe you can't follow words just maths. I didn't say that the mathematical formulas didn't exist, I said that I haven't seen any, so I don't know how to write them. This is pseudoscience I suppose to people that can't understand it. To others, it is the start of a career proving it. Not me though, because I just posted it so that the right people could see it. This is the end of my posts on this subject, I have found too much immaturity to bother with this site anymore. Pincho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1917 Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Of course I can follow words. In this case, your words are wrong. The reason they are wrong is that you are trying to describe physical phenonomen with irrelevant pictures. If you had used equations like a real physicist this thread might not be in pseudoscience. If you have never seen equations yet feel qualified to make grandiose theories like this then clearly physics isnt your thing. At all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Don't you think maybe people are having trouble understanding it because you are presenting it in a subjective and imprecise way? Learn how to reduce your theory into its mathematical form and people will know precisely what you're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 You know the saying"The dancer says the floor is bumpy" ? You're acting the same. No one understands you, and instead of taking the hint and trying EXPLAINING better, you keep blaiming it on us. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Pinch Paxton said in post # :This is funny! Do you guys go to the beach? Because I can imagine you all waiting for the mathematical formula of water before you would go there. The chemical formula of water was discovered long before I was born, so even if your statement was accurate, it'd be pointless. Unless you're talking of fluid dynamics, which is a much more interesting topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted March 4, 2004 Author Share Posted March 4, 2004 Snooker physics? If an object is at rest, and an energy transferance take place, then the object at rest takes over the momentum in the opposite direction to the point of impact. If an atom were at rest, and a wave passed energy to the atom, then the atom would move away from the point at which the wave passed the energy to it. This would be a fluctuating energy. When two atoms collide in opposite directions as a result of this energy they stand still, but energy is still being exerted to them from the wave. The wave is cancelled out at the point between the two atoms. Eventually you will get a group of atoms, a planet, but the atoms can't all be colliding directly, so there is some spin, they are spinning. The wave is cancelled out throughout the radius of the planet. This is a flatline wave. All objects are determined to reach a flatline wave, all objects are attracted towards a planet, or any other flatline wave in that area. Like someone putting their finger on a guitar string. Is that any clearer? Pincho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Yes, it's a bit clearer. And it sounds completely bogus. Everything you said now, I can explain MUCH BETTER with current theories of string theory and quantum theory, without going to much higher unfounded assumptions of waves of energy. How does gravity fit into that wave? If I got what you said right, then we're supposed to move UP and DOWN from gravity, because it's a wave... I got the idea that waves cancel each other, but if that's your way of proving why earth is being attracted to the sun or the moon spins around the earth it's fine, it fits, but you're explaining gravity (the Newtonian gravity, actually, not even Einstain's gravity) by calling it WAVES. Call it toast. Same thing. I am sorry, I understand your theory, I just seriously don't see how its more benefitial and explanatory than any other better and already existing theory. And don't think I'm not trying.. I seriously am.. I just.. don't find reason in this one. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Gravity is a wave of a sort, in terms of exchange particles. But it doesn't mean he's right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 mooeypoo said in post # :How is it a wave Because it has a theorised exchange particle. And particle wave duality means that it's a wave. Sort of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Err I still don't get it.. you have any resources I can go to maybe? to read about this? I don't see how gravity is a wave.. or how it exchanges particles.. unless you mean gravitons (which i am still having troubles understanding as it is) ...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 Gravitons, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 Okay I'll hve to study more about them,... I know they're some sort of abstract "particles" ... err but I never really got the entire concept. I'll google it up. Thanks, MrL ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted March 8, 2004 Author Share Posted March 8, 2004 I thought that I would have another attempt to explain this with some more drawings. I think that the vibrations would be due to some sort of shockwave. Maybe to do with the big bang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 But you're still only proposing effects and not causes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted March 8, 2004 Author Share Posted March 8, 2004 Explain....What's the current cause of gravity? I'm saying that the cause of gravity is a wave that pushes atoms. A wave that all things travel on including photons. A wave that can be stimulated by photons, and magnets, and held still by heavy objects like molecules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 I was under the impression you were rejecting the current theory, so I don't see how that's relevant to the cause of the effects you are describing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted March 8, 2004 Author Share Posted March 8, 2004 I am rejecting the current theory but I need an analogy of the understanding that is required to make scientific people understand my own theory. I need to know what you can understand, before I can tell you what you need to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted March 8, 2004 Author Share Posted March 8, 2004 Wow there are a lot of sites about pushing gravity, but none of them use the same idea as me, and none of them have the anti-gravity. I thought that the two things would be related every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Pinch Paxton said in post # :I am rejecting the current theory but I need an analogy of the understanding that is required to make scientific people understand my own theory. I need to know what you can understand, before I can tell you what you need to know. Nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted March 8, 2004 Author Share Posted March 8, 2004 Oh that! Well I find it so simple to understand, that it's hard for me to imagine that you will ever follow it. I mean, I had to work from nothing upwards, but you have been given all of the facts, so you have a massive head start over me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 If it's anti-gravity between planets, how can we be orbiting the sun? It's anti-gravity, so you can't orbit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted March 9, 2004 Author Share Posted March 9, 2004 The anti gravity is a hump in the middle, the rest of the distance is normal gravity. The hump is flattened as you approach it. A smaller object than the earth might not flatten the hump completely. A smaller object might be repelled slightly by the hump. NASA scientists have to make a course correction of their satellites between planets that they can't explain. I think that this would be a small hump of anti-gravity. Even that picture I posted of balls spinning around on a cloth that is dipped in the middle would have a bump created where the ball passed around it. It would in effect have some anti-gravity. Imagine the cloth dipping where the Earth is situated, you would get a bump between it, and the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now