Jump to content

Question: Cause of Movement?


Kramer
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

Kramer say:

A vise man said: If ones has clear concept in his brain, it easy to explain those concept in other people: if this “other people is a scientist” --- with high math, if the other is a plain intellectual --- with numerical and unities examples, if is a low educated --- with rubber sheet, balloons, peas, etc.

Do you think that advanced concept are only for the elite to understand? We see that the elites between them have disarrays concepts, and concept disarray every day. This gave people to think that something wrong in the some “basic”.

Now you tell me why I am wrong if my simple math. show me that, in free fall of a body, kinetic orbital energy is equal gravity energy , even though that direction of them are perpendicular? Why if there is something doubt in basic?

-------

 

No, absolutely not. I am encouraging you to learn physics. How can that be construed as thinking advanced concepts are only for the elite? What is does men, however, is there is no way you are going to be able to construct a working model of an advanced concept if you don't understand the basics, much like you would not be able to drive a racing car if you have never driven before.

 

Kinetic energy in an orbit is not equal to the gravitational potential energy. But again, this is something you should be able to demonstrate yourself rather than have it shown to you, if you have any hope of developing any concepts that are more involved than this. Also, it puts you in no position to critique the advanced science, which you clearly do not understand.

 

!

Moderator Note

And, regarding your hypothetical sub-particles, we've been over this before. If you don't have a model, or evidence to present, or a way to test your hypothesis, then don't broach the topic. You've been told this too many times for you to plead ignorance or feign surprise at this warning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ajb says:
You are considering classical particles, so write out the equations of motion form the particles and see what you get for their trajectories. Just use F=ma.

Kramer says:
Yes. I use classic Newton’s formulas, which are discarded from modern physics, even though they are generally used in every day life. But with a huge but simple concept: Perceivable mass in common particles electron, proton, photon, neutrino and their antimatter particles are structured by simple “sub particles”, which are able to create electricity and mass “only interacting” with one or two partners of the same kind.
Electric and gravity force between “ two hypothetic speculative sub-particles” are:

Fex = (1 / Rx^2) * (( e / (4 * Pi * ε ) ^0.5))^2 = (1 / Rx^2) * (1. 518906534*10^-14)^2

Fgx = (1 /Rx^2) * ((G^0.5) * (Ms))^2 = (1 /Rx^2) *(1.518906534*10^-14)^2

Fex = Electric force of interaction between “electric charges” that are in a what ever distance Rx. Not confound necessarily between two electron particles.
Rx = Compton radius (that result from Compton wave length) between two electric charges.
”Ms - not perceivable mass” of sub-particle:
Ms = Mplank * α^0.5 = 1.859389987* 10^-9
“Rs = not achievable” distance between two sub-particle
Rs = Lplank * α^0.5
Fgx = Gravity force between two subs. for a what ever distance Rx.

Here is used Coulomb and Newton laws for static positions. Three numerical examples:
For electron particle:
Fme.e = (1/(2.8179401*10^-15)^2 * (1. 518906534*10^-14)^2 = 29.05350857 N.
Eme = Fme.e * Re = (29.05350857)* (2.8179401*10^-15) = 8.187104685*10^-14 J.
me = mas of electron = Energy / C^2 = 9.109382486* 10 ^31 m.
The same will have if we use Force of gravity potential.
So the “mass of electron particle” that we perceive, is result of gravity potential between two sub particles.

If we use in above simple formulas Rx = Rs = Lplank * α^0.5 will have the mass of Plank particle = 1.849389987 * 10 ^-9 kg.
Exist or no this kind of particle, I am not sure. I speculate that “neutrino” to have:
two sub particles ((-e/(4*Pi* ε )^0.5 / -(G)^0.5)) and ((+e / (4*Pi* ε )^0.5 /-(G)^0.5 which create an unstable structure ( Electric force attractive, gravity force attractive too means the radius diminished the mass of particle augmented ( The flavor change ha!) until Plank size ?????)”

Why “stabile common elementary particles” are the only
“electron particle” and “proton particle” I have vague ideas, may be this is linked with status of anti matter sub particles. (Where they are?)
But I have doubt that you show any interest on the above tirade, and have discarded it in total.
------------------

 


Swanson says:
------No, absolutely not. I am encouraging you to learn physics. How can that be construed as thinking advanced concepts are only for the elite? What is does men, however, is there is no way you are going to be able to construct a working model of an advanced concept if you don't understand the basics, much like you would not be able to drive a racing car if you have never driven before.

------ Kinetic energy in an orbit is not equal to the gravitational potential energy. But again, this is something you should be able to demonstrate yourself rather than have it shown to you, if you have any hope of developing any concepts that are more involved than this. Also, it puts you in no position to critique the advanced science, which you clearly do not understand.
-------------
Kramer say:
-----I am not trying to create an working model, I know who I am. I only display some speculative thoughts that may be used by “ anyone able driver” to be free and use them to go further and maybe create a model that link “the corrected classic physic” with it’s branch “quantum” stripped by weird aspects of “metaphysics”. -----
---- I only give an example with system Earth - moon.

Ek.m = ((G * Me) / (dis.e.m.)) * Mm = Vm^2 * Mm =
= (1018.206068) ^2* (7.36* 10^19) = 1.985024161* 10^17 m^2. kg.S^-2

Eg.e.m. = ((g.e.m. )* (Mm)) * Distance = ((G*Me / (dis.e.m.)^2) * (Mm.) * (dis.e,m,)) =

= (7.016242707 * 10 ^-12 ) * (7.39*10^19 ) * (384400000 ) = 1.985024161* 10^17 m^2 kg s^-2
That seems to me equal Ek.m =Eg.e.m
!
Moderator Note
And, regarding your hypothetical sub-particles, we've been over this before. If you don't have a model, or evidence to present, or a way to test your hypothesis, then don't broach the topic. You've been told this too many times for you to plead ignorance or feign surprise at this warning.
----If you want to get rid from a nuisance for moderators, it is your prerogative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 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.