My new theory offering new view on inertia/gravity/relativity

Hey, it seems that you have finally read it. Now you can start to try to understand the table. It is predicting which object will have or will not have ring.
Yes, I can calculate the approximate orbit of ring of maximum additional gravitational attraction, I will add it to the second version.

If you dont understand it, it does not automatically mean, it is pseudoscience. It is science, because it is making specific predictions which can be confirmated or falsified.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks for your common sense approach, but I was kind of frustrated by approach of this Toad, who has for example asked for more math in the paper at a time when there was zero downloads of paper, meaning that he was criticizing it without even trying to read it. Dr Toad is generally only spamming insults without having even basic knowledge of physics.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are of course correct.
Earlier tonight I had the privledge of watching on TV a clip about same.
It was about a chap who is a member of the astronomy forum that I belong who discovered a galaxy and a young girl who has a list of discovery new marine species.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/10/03/teens-strongmen-meet-australias-citizen-scientists

Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I read your piece of shit paper ages ago. Nothing has changed.

You picked an idiotic prediction that nobody could possibly believe. Show us that you can predict the orbit of a planet.

There is nothing to understand as of yet.

Actually, forget the orbit. Show how your theory handles simple elastic and inelastic collisions. Given what you have written, it should fail.

 

Well the key is you must expect reactions that may anger you and be prepared to be patient.
You do your best and someone dismissing it is to be expected, that's the way it goes for everyone, remain cool and work thru it.
There is no gain in upsetting yourself or others if you remain polite you have a chance of a discussion.
Alex

 

Also negative feedback can show you aspects you may need to improve.
Think of playing chess with a computer each higher level becomes more difficult but if you are to win you must improve your game.
Alex

 

I have no problem with negative feedback, but it should be specific or constructive feedback, which can be very usefull. But until today all I have got was rather unfounded nonspecific feedback, for example from Toad, which have not read it at all.

 

OK, when I write, that I will add the orbit, you respond that it is irrelevant? Why the change of mind?

Regarding elastic collisions, the main point how to solve the heat problem of push gravity in my theory is that the collision is inellastic and converting into energy causing inertia/gravity force, not into heat. It is described in the paper, but I plan to describe it in more detail in second version.

 

So Physbang, tell me why did you lie and boast that you are a PhD?

Tell me why should I not report your excessive street urchinish use of F word, but never mind you have a company in Dr Toad who has liked your post, oh another PhD!?

 

Since your paper violates Newton's third law, I eagerly await its ability to handle collisions of any sort.

 

If I read on and go deeply into UGKT, will I see a wave-particle description of the "kineton" particle? I'm asking if particles are point like in nature or do they have some internal composition that enables them to act as waves in some circumstances, and particles in others?

 

I downloaded from your link.
I must share this with you.
Living in the bush I had time to think and came up with the idea that gravity must work as a push mechanism.
I knew no science and was obsessed with the idea for years.
It was a shock to finally find out that Let Sage had the idea back in 1745.
I could not take the idea anywhere because well I had way insufficient education.
I wondered about the heat problem and think it may be insurmountable.
Moreover when I found out about GR I was happy to see the math was taken care of and science did not need my help.
Good luck with developing your idea.
The benefit I took away was thinking about gravity caused me to read up on all that I could as to how real scientists are working on gravity.
But push gravity is not new.
Alex

 

Here is another link re the galaxy find.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act...nio-discovers-new-galaxy-20160105-gm04iz.html

Alex

 

I dont know yet if kinetons have wave-particle behavior. I have only some assumptions, which are not written in the published paper. I would guess that kinetons are particles without waves, but have nothing to back it up.

 

Surely push gravity is nothing new. It is clearly written in my paper, that it was proposed by Fatio and later by Le Sage. What is new is solution of main problems which plagued push gravity theories in the past. So my theory solves problems like for example where the particles come from and also heat problem.

 

Actually it is based on Third law and it uses Third law to replace the First law. Also handling of collisions is central issue. Collisions are inellastic and particles are converted to energy in line with Conversation law. The main difference to standard approach is that I assume that energy caused by inellastic collision is converted to inertial/gravitational force and not to heat. This difference is solving so called heat problem of push gravity. I guess I have focus more on explaining this point in second version.

 

That's the way I read it.

I understand that is what you seek to do.
Alex

 

I'm sure you think that.

Forget "explaining". Try to do an actual physics problem. Until you can do even one problem, you cannot do physics.

 

Thanks for the reply. I'll just toss this out for you in case you have time to think about off topic ideas.

Particles and gravity are difficult to sort out mechanistically. When you look beyond the standard model, I find that an explanation for both, and the mechanics of how they work together, can be speculated on, where all particles have a wave-particle behavior, and objects composed of particles have a wave-particle behavior or their own, usually too small to detect. I can't imagine a particle without wave energy, and I suspect that the solution for gravity will be a quantum mechanical solution.

If you haven't reached the point where you propose the nature of the Kineton in terms of wave energy, then I would ask if you agree that the standard view of gravitational waves is that they are waves of energy that traverse space. The recent LIGO discovery shows gravitational waves that appear to be out flowing wave energy from the in spiralling collision of two black holes. Do you propose the Kineton to be a force that replaces those type of gravitational waves?

A simple layman like me might conclude that there could be out flowing gravitational wave energy from small objects as well as will as black hole sized objects, but too weak to be detected, as yet. And perhaps the out flowing wave energy from one object is absorbed by other objects, making gravity an exchange of energy with inflowing and out flowing wave energy components; a sort of standing wave pattern. Just thinking, how would that work if Kinetons are not wave particles? No response is expected or necessary since I am out of the scope of the paper.

I'll follow along.

 

"kinetons" sounded amusing. However photons also carry inertia, and they have no mass, so case closed. Close down the circus and go home.

Hard to believe it, but in this case Physbang was spot on. You would think he would be the wrong guy to ask about a theory related to the Big Bang, if only because he is always equivocating force with energy. That's mainly why he's still on my "ignore" list. Try it.

Why isn't this thread already shut down for profanity and ad hominem attacks? Aren't any moderators paying attention?