Theory of Everything by illuusio

[swansont]

Problem with Moon is the mass. Moon mass is derived with Newtonian gravitation law. And as I have told before, G ain't constant. Moon mass is much bigger in reality than calculated. I think I can manage some University do the test in vacuum here in Finland.

We've been to the moon, and there is experimental evidence of the lower gravity there. Also, Newtonian gravity is fully consistent with the orbit of satellites the start out on the earth and go to other planets. i.e. constant G, as Klaynos pointed out earlier.

 

And, I stated, you have a third law problem. If a test object is attracted to a rotating object owing to the rotation, why is the rotating object attracted to the test object with a equal force?

 

Also, you haven't explained how your prediction is consistent with a Cavendish experiment that's in equilibrium (i.e. no motion)

[Klaynos]

There are so many problems with this idea it's not even funny. Your statements are not even self consistent. I'm still wondering why the bike wheel experiment didn't work, the airflow issue was dealt with was it not?

[illuusio]

We've been to the moon, and there is experimental evidence of the lower gravity there. Also, Newtonian gravity is fully consistent with the orbit of satellites the start out on the earth and go to other planets. i.e. constant G, as Klaynos pointed out earlier.

 

And, I stated, you have a third law problem. If a test object is attracted to a rotating object owing to the rotation, why is the rotating object attracted to the test object with a equal force?

 

Also, you haven't explained how your prediction is consistent with a Cavendish experiment that's in equilibrium (i.e. no motion)

 

On the Moon there is lower gravity for sure. But calculated weight is derived from Newton's law with G as a constant.

 

Of course rotating object is attracted to the other object. Magnus effect effects both parties.

 

No motion with Cavendish experiment? Que? There is motion alright, incoming larger ball, right? That movement generates activity in ether for sure.

 

There are so many problems with this idea it's not even funny. Your statements are not even self consistent. I'm still wondering why the bike wheel experiment didn't work, the airflow issue was dealt with was it not?

 

Force from air flow was bigger than pulling force. In vacuum that test would work, even with that bike's wheel

[Klaynos]

The airflow was blocked by the card was it not?

 

15N is a pretty big force...

[illuusio]

The airflow was blocked by the card was it not?

 

15N is a pretty big force...

 

Airflow was blocked as well as Magnus effect. Airflow won Magnus effect. Can you understand at all?

[Klaynos]

So gravity was blocked by the card?

[illuusio]

So gravity was blocked by the card?

 

I wouldn't call it gravity, just force induced by rotating object. And card blocked the essential part with pulling force, the Magnus effect. Although air flow overpowered pulling force anyway. I managed to create the effect through artificial wall, but very weak though. I'll do some more testing to check how wall with different kind of material and thickness effects the Magnus effect in ether.

Edited August 25, 2012 by illuusio

[Klaynos]

So, is gravity caused by rotation or not?

 

You say it is.

 

You say a number that the wheel should exert.

 

You then say that the air flow stops irt, this is eleviated by the card.

 

You say the card blocks this force.

 

You say this force is not gravity.

 

This doesn't make sense.

[Mellinia]

Hmm... I did an experiment with the same test object and same drill, BUT this time through ~3mm wall. Wall size was roughly 1 m^2. EFFECT IS STILL THERE !!!

I try to manage to create a video during this weekend.

 

 

Hopefully we get to see the video, because:

1) so airflow does(?!) get in the way of the "Magnus effect"

 

2) so the second bike experiment failed in spite of air flow being blocked [see imatfaal's second experiment], and so your explanation of how air flow blocks it is contradicted. If you're correct that a wall can prevent airflow problems, then your explanation that air flow causes the weight not be picked up is wrong. Vice versa, dude.

 

3)The Magnus effect is applied to rotating objects in motion in a viscous fluid, dude, not to things that are not rotating. DUDE, the Magnus effect is not a pulling force to other objects. They don't feel it. Are you trying to say that the gravity is actually caused by the "Magnus effect"of motion in the "medium" of "Force transfer ether particles(FTEP)"?

 

4)The force you're trying to explain with FTEP is what I think is called 'lift', i.e. airplanes?

 

5) Dude, if this video gets out, everything you tried to explain the weight-that-don't-picked-up-because-of-air-flow thing goes ka-put.

 

6)But Dude, we need to see the video to see that airflow does get in the way of 'gravity'.

 

7)Dude, what did you get yourself into?

 

By the way, you did not explain how your theory works on rest-mass-less particles, because that's where Newton failed. And you're using Newton's equations for your G.

 

So currently your theory:

1) can not be applied to objects that are not rotating

2) can show that "gravity" can not overcome air resistance in spite of the calculated value of gravitational force being larger than air resistance and weight.

3) can show that the predictions made by general relativity is dead wrong as G is dependent of the rps. [yes, G is needed in Einstein equations]

 

Did I miss anything?

Edited August 26, 2012 by Mellinia

[illuusio]

So, is gravity caused by rotation or not?

 

You say it is.

 

You say a number that the wheel should exert.

 

You then say that the air flow stops irt, this is eleviated by the card.

 

You say the card blocks this force.

 

You say this force is not gravity.

 

This doesn't make sense.

 

Ok, let's try another route. Picture in your mind, that every mass is surrounded by FTEPs. Bigger mass in covered with more FTEP ans so ether is thicker. When two objects rotate or move (in relation to each other), what will happen in ether? Well pressure changes because there is no gravity per se. Can you picture this? Try to be as positive as you can towards the idea and me.

 

Ether density is related to 1/r^2 so would you say that there is any differences when you measure preasure between moving objects compared to preasure behing the objects? Remember the distance r.

 

Can you picture what that preasure difference can do to the objects?

[Mellinia]

Ok, let's try another route. Picture in your mind, that every mass is surrounded by FTEPs. Bigger mass in covered with more FTEP ans so ether is thicker. When two objects rotate or move (in relation to each other), what will happen in ether? Well pressure changes because there is no gravity per se. Can you picture this? Try to be as positive as you can towards the idea and me.

 

Ether density is related to 1/r^2 so would you say that there is any differences when you measure preasure between moving objects compared to preasure behing the objects? Remember the distance r.

 

Can you picture what that preasure difference can do to the objects?

 

Dude, you know we will all ask you for the equation relating mass and density of FTEP and the distance. Show it, please...we seem to be getting somewhere with the theory.

[illuusio]

Hopefully we get to see the video, because:

1) so airflow does(?!) get in the way of the "Magnus effect"

 

2) so the second bike experiment failed in spite of air flow being blocked [see imatfaal's second experiment], and so your explanation of how air flow blocks it is contradicted. If you're correct that a wall can prevent airflow problems, then your explanation that air flow causes the weight not be picked up is wrong. Vice versa, dude.

 

3)The Magnus effect is applied to rotating objects in motion in a viscous fluid, dude, not to things that are not rotating. DUDE, the Magnus effect is not a pulling force to other objects. They don't feel it. Are you trying to say that the gravity is actually caused by the "Magnus effect"of motion in the "medium" of "Force transfer ether particles(FTEP)"?

 

4)The force you're trying to explain with FTEP is what I think is called 'lift', i.e. airplanes?

 

5) Dude, if this video gets out, everything you tried to explain the weight-that-don't-picked-up-because-of-air-flow thing goes ka-put.

 

6)But Dude, we need to see the video to see that airflow does get in the way of 'gravity'.

 

7)Dude, what did you get yourself into?

 

By the way, you did not explain how your theory works on rest-mass-less particles, because that's where Newton failed. And you're using Newton's equations for your G.

 

So currently your theory:

1) can not be applied to objects that are not rotating

2) can show that "gravity" can not overcome air resistance in spite of the calculated value of gravitational force being larger than air resistance and weight.

3) can show that general relativity is dead.

 

Did I miss anything?

 

Actually the wall blocked pulling force. I got the effect alright, but I did reruns with better system and there was not good effect. So, yes, Magnus effect can be prevented with wall.

 

ok, about my theory.

1) my theory sure applies to non-rotating objects. Pure movement without rotation causes changes in ether too, of course. According to my theory if there is no rotation or other movements there won't be any pulling force.

2) not with small mass (like bike's wheel). With heavy metal ball "gravity" overcomes air resistance nicely (no need for high rotation frequence). I thought that you got that already, hmm...

3) yes

 

Dude, you know we will all ask you for the equation relating mass and density of FTEP and the distance. Show it, please...we seem to be getting somewhere with the theory.

 

mmm... normal Newton's equation is just fine, you only have to forget the gravitation constant. That constant is actually NOT a constant, it's rotational component of force and it's varies.

 

 

I got an idea! There is relativily easy and cheap way to prevent asteroid collisions! We just have to put few large rotaing objects into space along asteroids path to make that asteroid's path change

Those "rotaters" can be in space permanently and moved to where needed.

Edited August 26, 2012 by illuusio

[Mellinia]

Actually the wall blocked pulling force. I got the effect alright, but I did reruns with better system and there was not good effect. So, yes, Magnus effect can be prevented with wall.

 

ok, about my theory.

1) my theory sure applies to non-rotating objects. Pure movement without rotation causes changes is ether too, of course. According to my theory if there is no rotation or other movements there won't be any pulling force.

 

So, the experiment failed?

 

Um, but then your equations show nothing of this. So now movements through the "ether" also produces a pulling force?!

 

2) not with small mass (like bike's wheel). With heavy metal ball "gravity" overcomes air resistance nicely (no need for high rotation frequence). I thought that you got that already, hmm...

 

 

Well, the small mass can be compensated by the high rps, right? That's what your equations say.

The reason why he don't use the heavy metal ball is that he want to show that rotation, not Newton's law of gravitation(which required a huge mass and small distance to show some visible effect) was what caused gravity. However....the experiments showed otherwise. I've already calculated that the force of two heavy lead balls of 47.54kg sitting next to each other at distance of 0.1m give each other a 0.15N pulling force(that's quite large). That is what Newton told me. I want you to tell me rotation causes it.

 

3) yes

 

 

dude. We have tons of experimental data to show GM is currently correct. Don't worry, we tried proving it wrong, of course. Problem is, everyone failed.

You just signed the letter that condemned your theory.

Newton's theory was tested. But it failed to explain some things that Einstein's theory could.

Einstein's theory was tested. But it failed to explain some things that your theory can't explain too.

Dude, i reread your paper a few times just to understand you're trying attribute the force from pulling force(that's what we see) to pushing force(from the FTEP)

 

mmm... normal Newton's equation is just fine, you only have to forget the gravitation constant. That constant is actually NOT a constant, it's rotational component of force and it's varies.

 

dude, you just said that unrotating objects also causes gravity.

 

I got an idea! There is relativily easy and cheap way to prevent asteroid collisions! We just have to put few large rotaing objects into space along asteroids path to make that asteroid's path change Those "rotaters" can be in space permanently and moved to where needed.

 

dude. The "large objects" causes gravity even if they are not rotating. we want small objects that are rotating fast(saves costs, you see)

Edited August 26, 2012 by Mellinia

[illuusio]

So, the experiment failed?

 

Um, but then your equations show nothing of this. So now movements through the "ether" also produces a pulling force?!

 

 

 

Well, the small mass can be compensated by the high rps, right? That's what your equations say.

The reason why he don't use the heavy metal ball is that he want to show that rotation, not Newton's law of gravitation(which required a huge mass and small distance to show some visible effect) was what caused gravity. However....the experiments showed otherwise. I've already calculated that the force of two heavy lead balls of 47.54kg sitting next to each other at distance of 0.1m give each other a 0.15N pulling force(that's quite large). That is what Newton told me. I want you to tell me rotation causes it.

 

 

 

dude. We have tons of experimental data to show GM is currently correct. Don't worry, we tried proving it wrong, of course. Problem is, everyone failed.

You just signed the letter that condemned your theory.

Newton's theory was tested. But it failed to explain some things that Einstein's theory could.

Einstein's theory was tested. But it failed to explain some things that your theory can't explain too.

Dude, i reread your paper a few times just to understand you're trying attribute the force from pulling force(that's what we see) to pushing force(from the FTEP)

 

 

 

dude, you just said that unrotating objects also causes gravity.

 

 

 

dude. The "large objects" causes gravity even if they are not rotating. we want small objects that are rotating fast(saves costs, you see)

 

You are wrong in so many levels dude. First, your gravitation calculations are wrong, you must measure r as distance between mass points, not as distance between surfaces. Second, if you can't understand what (any kind of) movement causes in ether, you are missing a lot in many areas of physics.

Third, if you measure GR with for example atom clocks, you will get correct results, but only because atom clocks behave differently in various densities of FTE.

Edited August 26, 2012 by illuusio

[Mellinia]

You are wrong in so many levels dude. First, your gravitation calculations are wrong, you must measure r as distance between mass points, not as distance between surfaces. Second, if you can't understand what (any kind of) movement causes in ether, you are missing a lot in many areas of physics.

Third, if you measure GR with for example atom clocks, you will get correct result, but only because atoms clocks behave differently in various densities of FTE.

 

Um, right. The force is quite small. I apologise.

 

um, you did say rotational, and ether doesn't exist, dude, it's proven.

GR isn't just used for atomic clocks, dude. Light bending is off the mark(i tried your equations)

 

I read your equations and found this

 

G=(m^3)(n^2)/(2kg)

 

it is directly proportional to distance now?!!!

 

 

 

 

 

[illuusio]

Um, right. The force is quite small. I apologise.

 

um, you did say rotational, and ether doesn't exist, dude, it's proven.

GR isn't just used for atomic clocks, dude. Light bending is off the mark(i tried your equations)

 

I read your equations and found this

 

G=(m^3)(n^2)/(2kg)

 

it is directly proportional to distance now?!!!

 

 

 

If I remember correctly, even in this Speculations area, there is conversation concerning of existence of ether. I think you can't say that it's proven that there is no ether.

Photons hava a mass (tiny one) and ether near large mass bends photons path.

 

Ok, that last part shows me that you didn't understand what you read I hope you take time to really understand that paper. If you don't do it, please, ignore it and ignore this topic.

[Mellinia]

If I remember correctly, even in this Speculations area, there is conversation concerning of existence of ether. I think you can't say that it's proven that there is no ether.

Photons hava a mass (tiny one) and ether near large mass bends photons path.

 

Ok, that last part shows me that you didn't understand what you read I hope you take time to really understand that paper. If you don't do it, please, ignore it and ignore this topic.

 

Yes, I read it. However, there was no convincing conclusion out of the discussion.

 

What kind of mass were you thinking? rest mass?

ether bends?

dude. That's what GM said.

Your paper said nothing about that.

okay, actually GM never said anything about ether.

It's spacetime.

dude, really, do you realise that you're modifying your theory so much that it looks more closely like the accepted theory of GM now?

 

even though it wasn't really an equation, more a analysis of the dimensions, what I get is this.

 

G= (N(ms / kg )^2)(1/2)(n^2)

now, N is a derived unit. it is equal to kgms^-2

Substituting , I get

G=(m^3)(n^2)/(2kg)

Of course, you never explained what does m(the distance unit), and kg(the mass unit) came from. Which object does it applies on? From your treatment of G, I guess that kg is the mass of the rotating object. Then what about m(distance?!)

Of course, unless N is something...then I couldn't just wave it away, but what is it?

Edited August 26, 2012 by Mellinia

[illuusio]

 

dude, really, do you realise that you're modifying your theory so much that it looks more closely like the accepted theory of GM now?

 

 

Of course, you never explained what does m(the distance unit), and kg(the mass unit) came from. Which object does it applies on? From your treatment of G, I guess that kg is the mass of the rotating object. Then what about m(distance?!)

Of course, unless N is something...then I couldn't just wave it away, but what is it?

 

Broader theory have to include results of previous theory.

 

Density is kg/m^3

[Mellinia]

Broader theory have to include results of previous theory.

 

Density is kg/m^3

 

Yup, and that includes the math.

 

Units do not make an equation. We are discussing physics, not maths.

I don't really understand... you're saying that G is inversely proportional to the density? of what?

 

 

[Klaynos]

It's almost as if he's making it up as he goes along...

 

You didn't address my point, just told another fanciful story.

[illuusio]

It's almost as if he's making it up as he goes along...

 

You didn't address my point, just told another fanciful story.

 

What is your point? Try to make it short.

 

Yup, and that includes the math.

 

Units do not make an equation. We are discussing physics, not maths.

I don't really understand... you're saying that G is inversely proportional to the density? of what?

 

 

 

Not necessary include math. Please, ignore my theory and this topic. You don't have to read this, ok?

[Mellinia]

Not necessary include math. Please, ignore my theory and this topic. You don't have to read this, ok?

 

...sigh.

Well, hopefully I provided something for you to improve your theory.

Maths is needed for you to show how you're right. You predict, people do experiments, the prediction is proved, your theory gets accepted (or not).

[John Cuthber]

Not necessary include math.

Yes it is.

You can't have a "theory of everything" that doesn't include maths because without maths you can't make measurable predictions.

If you are now telling us that you don't have the maths then you are (rather belatedly) telling us that you don't have a theory.

 

Is that the case?

If it is then we can close the topic.

We tried the experiment and it failed.

If the force had been anything like 15 Newtons it would have easily overcome the forces due to air drag.

It didn't.

[illuusio]

Yes it is.

You can't have a "theory of everything" that doesn't include maths because without maths you can't make measurable predictions.

If you are now telling us that you don't have the maths then you are (rather belatedly) telling us that you don't have a theory.

 

Is that the case?

If it is then we can close the topic.

We tried the experiment and it failed.

If the force had been anything like 15 Newtons it would have easily overcome the forces due to air drag.

It didn't.

 

Wow! You are very eager to close this thread Haven't you read my theory? If you have, you know that there is math involved. This theory must be eating up you badly.

[John Cuthber]

The "theory" failed: it is dead.

How long are you going to carry its corpse around asking people to look at it?