Off-topic nonsense extracted from "Developing equation for fictional force created by rotation"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ultron said:
A scalar field is a tensor field of order zero,[3] and the term "scalar field" may be used to distinguish a function of this kind with a more general tensor field, density, or differential form.

Yeah, thats my worries coming true, that it should be handled as scalar field or even tensor field.
Click to expand...
I’m out of my element here. R penner would know but I haven’t seen him on in ages.

they say you can’t combine scaler and vector fields but I’m bot sure inequalities would or wouldn’t work.
 
Last edited:
Q-reeus said:
You obviously believe there are no physical inconsistencies, but I don't think you have adequately thought through the issues raised in #37.
Sorry, but imo doggedly pursuing an idea not stemming from observational evidence and having no theoretical underpinnings, and 'very complex' to boot, is a recipe for eventual self-inflicted insanity. Best dropped ASAP! I'm out.
Click to expand...
I agree. If the math is impossible and it seeks to disprove anything observationally known to contain precise math it has a slim chance of ever being anything.

the only force created by rotation is momentum, yet you have me convinced your proposal creates rotation.
 
DaveC426913 said:
In the OP's defense, he hasn't asked anyone to give their blessing or feedback on how he might use the information he seeks. Everyone is second-guessing what he plans to do with it. (If he were asking for a good place to buy a pregnancy test, it that still wouldn't be license to discuss his fitness as a parent. :p )

He's asked for an equation that will produce a desired result. He's even stated that it should be treated as a hypothetical math problem.

What he has not done - which separates him from the majority of amateurs in SciFo - is make assertions about his pet ideas applying to the real world. And that means his mind is still open to learning the tools and techniques of the discipline.

That's refreshingly novel here on SciFo, and it gives him a guarded pass in my books because it means the topic can actually be discussed mathematically without needing to fit within known physics.


Ultron: in post 28, I pointed you at a simulator to play with an see if you get any curves you like. Did you try it?
Click to expand...
Or perhaps hypotheticals are impossible to create.
 
DaveC426913 said:
OK, we'll conclude you concede all points and have nothing further to add here.
Click to expand...
Who is 'we'? And you know very well there is no basis at all in assuming any such thing. I just get sick of your chip-on-the-shoulder attempts to point score when you are incapable of actually scoring any points.
Let's not play games. There has been a long history of engagements here at SF in which you have come off second best on every occasion. You deeply resent that situation. I understand that. But your attempts to 'get even' carry no water.
 
Q-reeus said:
Who is 'we'? And you know very well there is no basis at all in assuming any such thing.
Click to expand...
Your challenge is predicated on several assertions, which I have quoted and countered (posts 70 and 72).
If you choose not to follow-up then they remain countered.


Section II: Schoolyard Insults (not read)
Q-reeus said:
I just get sick of your chip-on-the-shoulder
Click to expand...

:reported for trolling in Hard Science Forum:
 
DaveC426913 said:
Your challenge is predicated on several assertions, which I have quoted and countered (posts 70 and 72).
If you choose not to follow-up then they remain countered.


Section II: Schoolyard Insults (not read)


:reported for trolling in Hard Science Forum:
Click to expand...
Oh dear! Am I in trouble with - let me guess - your hero James R again?! 40 points racked up so far for daring to exercise actual freedom of speech. Well, shouldn't be too long to see if your petulant 'report' results in an even higher score.
Life can be hard here at SF for non PC non-conformists who have a spine stiffer than jelly. In the mean time, maybe you'd like to concentrate on dealing, as best YOU can, with Ultron's notion-not-theory!!!
 
Ultron said:
To better visualise my fictional attractive force, I will give three examples how it would work in real world.

1. If an asteroid is so called pile of rubble type, when it rotates too fast, centrifugal force would cause it to fly apart. But there are some asteroids which defy standard expectations, they rotate too fast for standard gravity to keep it together, yet they dont fly apart. If my fictional attractive force would be real, one of its effects would be exactly the same, holding fast rotating objects together thanks to counterbalancing centrifugal effect. But it is important to mention, that this doest not mean, that the attraction force helps the asteroid to spin up, it just attracts the parts ot the asteroid toward some point under surface (but not to center for most parts). On the other hand, scientists have come up with other solution, they think it is held together by van der Waals force. But nobody really confirmed this hypothesis by some experiment or some detailed study. One example of this effect is asteroid 1950 DA:
https://www.space.com/26819-potentially-dangerous-asteroid-1950da-rubble-pile.html

2. If this fictional attractive force would help to sustain rings around planets or asteroids, it would mean that if the rotation speed decreases over time, the existing rings would just drop on equator and then it would then look like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_ridge_on_Iapetus

3. If there is some big and fast rotating planet, at some point in the orbit of the planet, which is near to range of maximum of this attraction force, there should be visible some rotating spirals, which would show combination of gravity and this fictional attractive force. It would look similar to this (already posted in one of previous replies):
Click to expand...
Ok so a force that acts upon fast spinning asteroids that keeps them from flying apart…

they have the same problem with electrons which can spin very fast yet don’t fly apart either…

my suggestion… give up because normal scientists here solidly stand by known assertions and do not believe in anything new that could exist.

following that up increasing spin also increases mass which in turn increased gravity especially in a void area where you would find these asteroids and Saturn. So it is kind of the reverse of an event horizon.
 
DaveC426913 said:
It's the job of a scientist to find evidence. They leave clapping your hands and believing to the non-scientists.
Click to expand...
So every spot of actual and tangible evidence could not stand in the same position. And we would not learn anything from that which we don’t already know. Bah! Keep your high energy physics I’m sure it will one day come in handy for nanotechnology. Worlds smallest particle collider.
 
Last edited:
Beaconator said:
Bah! Keep your high energy physics.
Click to expand...
I see you have no wish to reject technology that came out of all this sciencing. Gonna give up your internet connection are you? :smile:

Beaconator said:
we would not learn anything from that that we don’t already know.
Click to expand...
Quite the opposite.

Looking for evidence is how we find things we didn't already know.

Belief is the antithesis of looking for new things - it's what is left when we reject new evidence.

We should take this elsewhere. If you wish to further discuss belief versus analysis, we should have this moved to a more appropriate forum.
 
DaveC426913 said:
I see you have no wish to reject technology that came out of all this sciencing. Gonna give up your internet connection are you? :smile:


Quite the opposite.

Looking for evidence is how we find things we didn't already know.

Belief is the antithesis of looking for new things - it's what is left when we reject new evidence.

We should take this elsewhere. If you wish to further discuss belief versus analysis, we should have this moved to a more appropriate forum.
Click to expand...
Ok but you start the argument and the thread
 
DaveC426913 said:
I can't. It's your comment about scientists; I can't formulate your complaint for you.
Click to expand...
I referred to scientists on here. Not me specifically. The little click your in. The complete adherence to “the rules” of science.

I’m still a scientist. I believe in science and all that it stands for, but many have put me down.

I doubt I am misunderstood. Just giving good ideas away for free. Yet I will concede the point just give me a moment to formulate a thought that won’t get me banned for spam and cheese.

you’ll find your thread in general science and technology
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
The world is full of bullies, telling you what they think you can and can't do...
Click to expand...
Ha ha ha ha. The irony here gets rich. Really rich: see e.g. #78 here, or a string of 'you can'ts' that was ended with silencing by way of shaming here:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/in-defence-of-space-aliens.160045/page-259#post-3682782
Some just don't know when to accept they are well and truly beat, and it's way past time to quit! I guess one advantage of selectively playing nice guy is to bag a like here and there. It's a play that works.
All math lives in an abstract space. Some math can be applied to the real world.
Click to expand...
A deep and meaningful and apt statement, or a shallow, pretentious banality? Coming from someone with demonstrably very weak math skills, imo the latter looks the better choice.
 
Last edited:
Ultron said:
it seems you are more interested in arguing than about the topic...
Click to expand...
Don't hold it against him too much. Its me he's mad at, for eviscerating him in another thread, and he can't or won't compartmentalize his feelings here. Not cool, but not your problem.
 
Ultron said:
Im not expert on particle physics, but what I know, it is not about electron flying apart, it is about the spin of electron which seems to be spinning faster than light, but is is somehow interpreted in some other way I dont understand.



Yea, kind of. Theoretically it could solve the problem with too fast growing black holes in infant Universe. If the rotation speed of black holes would increase its attraction power and the rotation would be further increased by infalling matter, that would mean rapid increasing mass of black holes. But then the question would arise, what would stop this rapid increase in mass of black holes turned quasars? And here we come again to the point where Im writing, that the whole theory is very, very complex.
Click to expand...
Stars would stop the rapid increase in mass of black holes by consuming the matter that feeds black holes. Most quasars are near spaces that make new stars

so

Xk=(R*F*8pieG)/ c^4

where R is the vector from which the torque originates.

k is Einstein’s gravitational constant

now all it needs is to integrate friction.
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
Don't hold it against him too much. Its me he's mad at, for eviscerating him in another thread, and he can't or won't compartmentalize his feelings here. Not cool, but not your problem.
Click to expand...
You made that claim. I'm calling your bluff. Link to the specific post(s) in the relevant thread where I was supposedly 'eviscerated'. Or admit you are lying.
 
Q-reeus said:
You made that claim. I'm calling your bluff. Link to the specific post(s) in the relevant thread where I was supposedly 'eviscerated'. Or admit you are lying.
Click to expand...
You know perfectly well but sure, lets give it more publicity.

Start here. Posts 4880, 4900, 4902, 4904, 4906, etc. (Just the part where you suddenly realize that you've been taking TV shows about UFOs at face-value and that the rest of the adult world is not so gullible.)

Now, take your trolling elsewhere. You will not get fed further here.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top