"Что, если существует только один тип частиц, но их физические свойства меняются в зависимости от того, с каким полем они взаимодействуют"? Посты 149, 156, 166. Раздел "Альтернативные теории".
Can Gravity be derived without using Newton's Gravitational constant?
- Thread starter quant
- Start date
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
It's just a statement
Pinball1970, I will start with why don't you want to listen and evaluate new ideas? Is science your God? As regards Augmented Newtonian Mechanics Theory (AND), what makes you think it is a random idea? Every aspect from electricity (QM has all of these wrong) to radio waves, magnetism, atomic structure, propagation of light, gravity, magnetism, superconductivity, the CMBR, dark matter and so on, is explained and accounted for in a manner that facilitates immediate use with mathematical accuracy of a high degree. I sincerely hope, (this is not exaggeration but a heartfelt sentiment) that your post is not as dense as it sounds. In reality nothing works, it is just an illusion that it works. Look at the propagation of light, it is utterly ridiculous and non-existent as a logical explanation. Look at the atomic structure, yes much of it is true, thanks to Bohr's early work but post that it is just a horrible mess. Look at radio waves, supposed to emanate from the vibration of ions in the lattice structure. Augmented Newtonian Dynamics AND gives structure and formalism to every physics topic that one can think of. However, if you are content to live with the beliefs that you have, I have no problem with it. I will as a parting shot point out that for at least the past decade or so I have been predicting that quantum computing will not work. Guess what it turns out to be true. Results from quantum computing are absolutely random and unconnected, it was all a mare's nest.
Если бы вы прочитали эту идею, то поняли бы, что она не опровергает физику, а только немного дополняет и объясняет то, что было уже подтверждено в экспериментах. Я просто собрала уже имеющиеся паззлы в одну картину.
[B]ольга[/B] that is a perfect description of Augmented Newtonian Dynamics. Translation of ольга post: "If you read this idea, you would understand that it does not refute physics, but only slightly complements and explains what has already been confirmed in experiments. I simply assembled the existing puzzles into one picture." A perfect description of Augmented Newtonian dynamics (AND).
Gravity is about rotation on all levels . From the macro to the micro ( galaxies to the quantum ) . Without rotation there is little gravity . Imagine Earth with no rotation , where would gravity reside ? The dynamics of gravity is rotational . Mainly . Not just mass attracting mass .
Last edited:
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
I do, from physicists.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Reported for stupid trolling.
Exactly .
Gravity is about the physical mass and rotation of the mass . The vortex of rotation going down to the surface of the Earth .
By this logic the playground merry-go-round should suck me in towards the middle. My experience tells me differently.
Rotation is both centripetal and centrifugal .
What does your experience tell you ?
If that were true, why do we observe objects with more mass always having more gravity than objects with less mass, regardless of their rotations?
You didn't answer the question. Do you understand the question?
What has that got to do with deriving a law of gravity without using Newton's gravitational constant?
Sounds like a completely different topic that should be in a different thread if you want to discuss it.
(Also, this is the "main problem with science today"? You really think that?)
Your objection that quantum mechanics is too complicated for you does nothing to show that it's wrong. You realise that, right?
That's incorrect. For example, the nucleus has its own quantised energy levels, evidenced by the discrete energies involved in radioactive decay.
Wait!? You accept quantum field theory but you reject atomic wave mechanics? Are you aware of how inconsistent that stance is?
You've made an assertion, but you have made no attempt to argue for it. I think that's because you wouldn't know where to start. Am I wrong?
Do you think that quantum field theories don't incorporate ideas of wave-particle duality? What led you to that error?
Oh, I see. So, despite the fact that you seemingly don't understand what you're talking about, you still feel qualified to comment on what physicists who do know what they are talking about are or are not "heavily invested in", and why that's a problem? How interesting.
Then you're back to the drawing board. Have you got an alternative theory that explains all the phenomena that quantum mechanics explains? If so, why haven't you published it? Why aren't all physicists using it? Wait, let me guess. They are all closed minded and too "invested" in wave-particle duality, right? *yawn*
This is all bluster from you, quant. You're making no real arguments. I don't think you can make any. Not on this particular topic.
Prove me wrong, if you can. Take it to a different thread, though.
river:
For example, can you derive the surface gravitational acceleration on the Moon and on the Earth based on their rotational periods? If so, please show me your calculation.
If not, then perhaps you should stop making silly claims you can't support. What do you think?
Is it your assertion that gravity is caused by rotation? What is it about the rotation that determines the strength of the gravity, then?
For example, can you derive the surface gravitational acceleration on the Moon and on the Earth based on their rotational periods? If so, please show me your calculation.
If not, then perhaps you should stop making silly claims you can't support. What do you think?
In the mass - like Newton and Einstein said. Gravity is associated with mass.
Prove it.
In the mass - like Newton and Einstein said. Gravity is associated with mass. Agreed .
Sure but gravity has also direction. Without rotation gravity has no direction .