Gravitational Fields and Gravitational Waves
- Thread starter TonyYuan
- Start date
- Status
In other words NOT a professor.
Through an educational institution? Or just by picking and choosing what youtube to watch and reading various websites? Either way, it didn't teach you much.
[quote3.T.O.E[/quote]
Where was this published? Im which journal?
A made up bullshit institution. Like I said, you simply decided to call yourself professor. (Which is quite possibly illegal).
It is not illegal to be a professor of your own institute period .
I have done some studying at Cambridge and I have also studied at the Xavier school for special talents .
Ah, right. So all of your details will on be file, since you obviously registered your institute with the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.
Or, more likely, you simply decided that you'd call yourself an institute but are, in actual fact, not one.
When you say that do you mean you went to Cambridge on a bus trip and read a book in the park?
No such school. Not even in fiction.
Well I am not a big fan of Dover sole and you keep fishing on the Trent , I have a self employment card so I don't need to register anything but my tax returns .
Off the grid you'll never understand , Xavier school exists and I was a Xclass student .
Quite clearly G=F<E reads true and this should be a lesson to you .
So you're not actually a professor. And you don't actually have an institute to be a professor at.
Many Xavier schools exist. But not the one you referred to. And being in X class would place you pretty near the bottom of the pile, wouldn't it? (Only Y and Z below you).
You're delusional. And massively ignorant.
perhaps I am delusional hey , maybe you are joking and are a Turing test .
Do you have a lass at home ma dear to keep you company ? I feel bad for you now , you are just lonely aren't you and I was ignorant to that .
Hello Dy , let us start again
+G=F<E
U know contraction
Bullshit.
So you now admit that you're not a professor. Good, at least we've cleared that up.
I'm more of a professor than you are for certain !
The number of times you use the word bullshit , I now suspect you're a farmer .
You quite clearly aren't discussing science relational therapy that you may need now after talking to me .
Well luvy I must say you awesome mwah
Shall we date soon ma timid friend
Wrong.
Really ? Ok , we'll see .
Can you explain to the viewers the force that curves the ether ?
Space-time is not bent, and the gravitational waves caused by the revolution of the sun affect the surrounding gravity.
The orbital precession of Venus calculated by GR of 8.6" is wrong, the correct result is about 240".
We can focus on this topic and don't quarrel fearlessly.
First, let’s look at the characteristics of Venus: Venus’s eccentricity is abnormally low (e = 0.0068), which makes its perihelion extremely sensitive to small disturbances [7]. But the angle between its orbit and the vertical plane of the sun is very large 3.39°, so we have reason to believe that gravitational waves will have a great influence on the orbital precession of Venus. 240” will be more credible.
So why is the data of Venus (240” vs 8.6”) so different? GR does not consider the angle between the orbital surface and the vertical surface of the sun. So we want to ask GR a question: Under different angles, is the precession data calculated by GR still the same? I am not a GR scholar. I hope that the GR scholar can give an explanation.
Space-time is a coordinate system , The Higg's field ''ether'' is q1+q2 , gravitational waves do not exist , quantum field fluctuations are a ripple effect caused by the motion of bodies and the transition of hf . The +ve stress tensor of the Higg's field is G=F<E , any element within the interior is a tuple (x1,y1,z1) , all tuples are q1+q2 thus allowing freedom of movement without impedance of the ether . An interior tuple and the ether is likewise in electrical neutral charge q1+q2=0 net charge .
Angles are subjective in regards to spatial coordinates .
Maybe that's why !
Can your theory be used to calculate the orbits of planets? I want to know the planetary precession data you calculated.
No , calculations are measures , my formulas are the physics involved . Calculating orbits isn't that important if you have a steering system and can successfully land . The problem with calculating any orbit is simultaneity therefore the uncertainty principle applies . Additionally science presently has a problem with distance and time , time based on Earths rotation , which equates to 1.s=0.28820601851m .
Edited .
The theory must be consistent with the actual phenomenon, otherwise it is a fantasy.
If you are interested in my theory of gravity. You can post your thoughts on academia.edu. I am challenging GR.
https://www.academia.edu/45604411/Gravitational_Fields_and_Gravitational_Waves
My facts are consistent with the facts , I don't have theories !
Your theory fails on the abstract , example ''What is the speed of the gravitational field?''
There isn't a gravitational field but if there was you should of asked :
What is the potential maximum speed mass is attracted to mass ?
Your wording reads as if the gravitational field was a car .
Gravitational waves have been measured by LIGO and others. Gravitational waves are caused by disturbances in the gravitational field. We need to respect these facts. Make scientific thinking around these facts.
The gravitational waves caused by the revolution of the sun will affect the surrounding gravitational field, thereby affecting the orbit of the planet.
Ligo detected a quantum field fluctuation , it is subjective to say that the detection was a gravitational wave . We could of declared the disturbance a solar burst or many other possibles that fluctuated the ''ether'' . Also as I said , a gravitational field is not the reality .
''Hypothesis 1: The speed of the gravitational field is equal to the speed of light.''
The speed of light is 0 , the momentum of light is an energy transition .
Haven't you ever wondered why flames point ''up'' (excluding wind affect) ?
The high energy state of the flame is attracted to the lesser energy state of the Stratosphere and the force can be described F=<E
More technically a gravitational transition .
Last edited:
If you read my paper carefully, you can know that this Hypothesis is wrong. If the gravitational field has a speed, then this speed will be much greater than the speed of light c.
You must apply your theory to specific scientific calculations, such as planetary orbits, otherwise it is not convincing.
Last edited:
- Status