| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Don1" |
| Date: |
07 Aug 2005 09:26:25 AM |
| Object: |
mimical force |
All forces are physical thrusts; where any two or more body's restrain
each other from simultaneously occupying, and/or passing through the
exact same place. See _impenetrability_ in the dictionary.
There are no forces at a distance _except_ where that distance contains
some sort of electric or magnetic field. Then the fields cause pseudo
forces which closly mimic forces of attraction.
Don
.
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: mimical force |
07 Aug 2005 09:52:22 AM |
|
|
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1123424785.707670.123880@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
All forces are physical thrusts; where any two or more body's restrain
each other from simultaneously occupying, and/or passing through the
exact same place. See _impenetrability_ in the dictionary.
There are no forces at a distance _except_ where that distance contains
some sort of electric or magnetic field. Then the fields cause pseudo
forces which closly mimic forces of attraction.
Don
Explain the weak force. Use your idea to produce something that isn't
explained (better) by other theories.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don1" |
|
| Title: Re: mimical force |
07 Aug 2005 10:26:27 AM |
|
|
T Wake wrote:
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1123424785.707670.123880@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
All forces are physical thrusts; where any two or more body's restrain
each other from simultaneously occupying, and/or passing through the
exact same place. See _impenetrability_ in the dictionary.
There are no forces at a distance _except_ where that distance contains
some sort of electric or magnetic field. Then the fields cause pseudo
forces which closly mimic forces of attraction.
Don
Explain the weak force. Use your idea to produce something that isn't
explained (better) by other theories.
This isn't an idea lunkhead, it's a fact!
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: mimical force |
07 Aug 2005 12:00:21 PM |
|
|
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1123428387.536810.277850@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
T Wake wrote:
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1123424785.707670.123880@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
All forces are physical thrusts; where any two or more body's restrain
each other from simultaneously occupying, and/or passing through the
exact same place. See _impenetrability_ in the dictionary.
There are no forces at a distance _except_ where that distance contains
some sort of electric or magnetic field. Then the fields cause pseudo
forces which closly mimic forces of attraction.
Don
Explain the weak force. Use your idea to produce something that isn't
explained (better) by other theories.
This isn't an idea lunkhead, it's a fact!
Don
No need to start getting rude Don, it shows you are losing control. Could
that be because your theory is wrong?
Moving on though.
Its not a "fact" at all. It is simply your idea at the moment. Most, if not
all the things you trumpet out are based on theories which are simply the
best we have. Is this your meaning of the word fact?
However, if it is a "fact" then use your "fact" to produce something that
isn't explained better by other theories.
Explain the weak force.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Aydin" |
|
| Title: Re: mimical force |
07 Aug 2005 10:42:43 AM |
|
|
Don, give references to these facts then (whether they be books' names
with page and paragraph numbers or links to webpages), so that we know
that they're solid facts and not some ideas that you've come up with...
Aydin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Clemens W" |
|
| Title: Re: mimical force |
08 Aug 2005 09:45:23 AM |
|
|
Don, the wannabe-physicist, wrote:
There are no forces at a distance _except_ where that distance contains
some sort of electric or magnetic field.
This isn't an idea lunkhead, it's a fact!
No gravitational forces at a distance, Don? And that's a "fact", huh?
Well, why don't you jump from a roof, then? You don't have physical
contact with earth, so gravity will not affect you, so this mustn't be
perilous, right?
Come back after you tried...
Your turn,
A. Friend
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don1" |
|
| Title: Re: mimical force |
08 Aug 2005 10:43:19 AM |
|
|
Clemens W wrote:
Don, the wannabe-physicist, wrote:
There are no forces at a distance _except_ where that distance contains
some sort of electric or magnetic field.
This isn't an idea lunkhead, it's a fact!
No gravitational forces at a distance, Don? And that's a "fact", huh?
Well, why don't you jump from a roof, then? You don't have physical
contact with earth, so gravity will not affect you, so this mustn't be
perilous, right?
Come back after you tried...
Your turn,
A. Friend
Are you the same lunkhead who has suggested this before? It ain't the
fall due to gravitation that kills, it's the sudden stop at the bottom
that does you in.
I hope nobody takes you seriously, they might get hurt.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clemens W" |
|
| Title: Re: mimical force |
08 Aug 2005 11:06:11 AM |
|
|
Don, the real lunkhead, wrote:
Clemens W wrote:
Don, the wannabe-physicist, wrote:
There are no forces at a distance _except_ where that distance contains
some sort of electric or magnetic field.
This isn't an idea lunkhead, it's a fact!
No gravitational forces at a distance, Don? And that's a "fact", huh?
Well, why don't you jump from a roof, then? You don't have physical
contact with earth, so gravity will not affect you, so this mustn't be
perilous, right?
Are you the same lunkhead who has suggested this before? It ain't the
fall due to gravitation that kills, it's the sudden stop at the bottom
that does you in.
Well, but since gravity doesn't work over a distance, you wouldn't fall
anyway, right?
So much for proving your "facts", Don. Even Galilei knew more than
you...
Your turn,
A. Friend
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: mimical force for morons |
09 Aug 2005 09:54:44 AM |
|
|
ALL the parts orbit the center of the atom .
IF the shape of the orbit changes ,,the center of G changes.
The GAIN in mass is 1/2 the atom gains and 1/2 lost mass per time
unit.
The atom is pushing its self down the energy slope.
The gain in mass on one side of the atom is pushing the atom to less
mass.
THE gain in mass has moved the center of G from the center of mass.
IF you have full controle over a moon 10% as big as a planet far out in
deep space..
you could dive that planet around corners .
You could use gravity distance and an elipitical orbit and put the
planet in motion.
***** YOU IN ADVANCE WAKE ..
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: mimical force for morons |
09 Aug 2005 11:21:28 AM |
|
|
"tj Frazir" <GravityPhysics@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:2788-42F8C3B4-957@storefull-3211.bay.webtv.net...
***** YOU IN ADVANCE WAKE ..
See, you know you are talking rubbish and you are getting used to this being
pointed out. Glad to see Pavlov was pretty close to the mark.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: mimical force for morons |
09 Aug 2005 12:12:01 PM |
|
|
What the ***** is wrong with it dumbass ?
Any change in the shape of all te orbiting parts of the atom is a
change in the center of G in that atom.
That works evry time.
It the standard and you morons dont understand the standard modle yet.
.............................................
tell us dumbass wake .;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Will an atom next to a mass have all its orbiting parts paths afected
?????????
.....................................................................
the gravity of a near planet will change the orbital paths of evry
partical in evry atom equal its
mass.............................................
So then the center of G in the atom has changed and the atom moved its
self.
.........................................................
more of its mass is falling in one direction than the other. it stays
in motion.
................................
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: mimical force for morons |
09 Aug 2005 01:12:06 PM |
|
|
"tj Frazir" <GravityPhysics@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:11173-42F8E3E1-1166@storefull-3216.bay.webtv.net...
What the ***** is wrong with it dumbass ?
Well, you said it for a start. That means, even without being able to
translate what you are gibbering on about it is probably nonsense.
Make your questions / statements coherent and I will answer you. Spout
illiterate gibberish and I will remind you about your actions.
I would like to take this opportunity to point out that you totally failed
to respond to any of my questions or statements from a few weeks ago and,
basically, you are full of crap.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: mimical force for morons |
09 Aug 2005 06:24:22 PM |
|
|
Your bitching again because you wount answer the question again.
You never ever posted anything.
Easy question nailed with the standard modle ..and you dont know or
understand the standard modle.
My post was identical to the standard modle.
What youdont understand is the standard modle.
..........................................................
DUMBASS...
your questin was ...
" will all the orbiting parts of the atom have all thier orbit paths
affected near the G of a planet ?"
will there be a change in the path of evry particals orbit
??????????????????
yes OR no !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IF YOU SAAY YES then include the direction the center of G of the atom
moved to .
IF YOU say all the orbiting particals paths are effected then the G
of the near planet changed the shape of all the orbits of evry atom.
.................................................................
then you say evry atom gained mass on one side .
The gain in mass is pushing the center of the atom in a direction.
No atom can be moved without changing the orbits and resistance to
motion is a resistance to change in orbital direction.
You never answe a question ,,you rant like a dumbass .
Im kckin yer brains out using the standard modle.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: mimical force for morons |
10 Aug 2005 03:14:41 PM |
|
|
"tj Frazir" <GravityPhysics@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:2788-42F93B26-1083@storefull-3211.bay.webtv.net...
gibberish
You are an idiot.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: mimical force for morons |
09 Aug 2005 12:15:44 PM |
|
|
resistance to motion is resistance to change directions.
resistance to changing orbital paths is motion.
where the orbits move the atoms center of G.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: mimical force |
07 Aug 2005 09:33:20 AM |
|
|
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1123424785.707670.123880@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
All forces are physical thrusts; where any two or more body's restrain
each other from simultaneously occupying, and/or passing through the
exact same place. See _impenetrability_ in the dictionary.
There are no forces at a distance _except_ where that distance contains
some sort of electric or magnetic field. Then the fields cause pseudo
forces which closly mimic forces of attraction.
Don
Thanks for some Sunday afternoon tripe.
What about nuclear forces then, idiot? Or do you think the
atom is held together by rubber bands?
sr
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don1" |
|
| Title: Re: mimical force |
07 Aug 2005 10:28:38 AM |
|
|
Steve Ralph wrote:
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1123424785.707670.123880@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
All forces are physical thrusts; where any two or more body's restrain
each other from simultaneously occupying, and/or passing through the
exact same place. See _impenetrability_ in the dictionary.
There are no forces at a distance _except_ where that distance contains
some sort of electric or magnetic field. Then the fields cause pseudo
forces which closly mimic forces of attraction.
Don
Thanks for some Sunday afternoon tripe.
What about nuclear forces then, idiot? Or do you think the
atom is held together by rubber bands?
sr
Define the atom Stevie.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: mimical force |
07 Aug 2005 12:02:48 PM |
|
|
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1123428518.525389.108510@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Steve Ralph wrote:
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1123424785.707670.123880@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
All forces are physical thrusts; where any two or more body's restrain
each other from simultaneously occupying, and/or passing through the
exact same place. See _impenetrability_ in the dictionary.
There are no forces at a distance _except_ where that distance contains
some sort of electric or magnetic field. Then the fields cause pseudo
forces which closly mimic forces of attraction.
Don
Thanks for some Sunday afternoon tripe.
What about nuclear forces then, idiot? Or do you think the
atom is held together by rubber bands?
sr
Define the atom Stevie.
Naaa - lets hear *your* definition. It sounds like an absolute hoot.
Anyone else wanna see Dons model of the atom?
sr
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: mimical force |
07 Aug 2005 12:18:17 PM |
|
|
"Steve Ralph" <steve@steveralph.f9.co.uk> wrote in message
news:42f63eaa$0$91543$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1123428518.525389.108510@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Steve Ralph wrote:
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1123424785.707670.123880@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
All forces are physical thrusts; where any two or more body's restrain
each other from simultaneously occupying, and/or passing through the
exact same place. See _impenetrability_ in the dictionary.
There are no forces at a distance _except_ where that distance
contains
some sort of electric or magnetic field. Then the fields cause pseudo
forces which closly mimic forces of attraction.
Don
Thanks for some Sunday afternoon tripe.
What about nuclear forces then, idiot? Or do you think the
atom is held together by rubber bands?
sr
Define the atom Stevie.
Naaa - lets hear *your* definition. It sounds like an absolute hoot.
Anyone else wanna see Dons model of the atom?
sr
It would be interesting to see how he models it with his, unusual, theories.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: mimical force |
07 Aug 2005 01:27:40 PM |
|
|
Don1 wrote:
All forces are physical thrusts
*****--Gravity is an attractive force
Ref: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Gravity.html
Ref: Hartle, "Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General Relativity", Addison
Wesley (2003)
"A few properties of the gravitational interaction that help explain when
gravity is important can already be seen from the gravitational force law
F_grav = G m_1 m_2 / r_12^2
o Gravity is a universal interaction in Newtonian theory between all mass, and,
since E = mc^2, in relativistic gravity between all forms of energy.
o Gravity is unscreened. There are no negative gravitational charges to cancel
positive ones, and therefore it is not possible to shield (screen) the gravitational
interaction. Gravity is always attractive.
o Gravity is a long-range interaction. The Newtonian force law ia a 1/r^2
interaction. There is no length scale that sets a range for gravitational
interactions as there is for the strong and weak interactions.
o Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental interactions acting between
individual elementary particles at accessible energy scales. The ratio of
the gravitational attraction to the electromagnetic repulsion between two
protons separated by a distance r is
F_grav G m_p^2 / r^2 G m_p^2
-------- = -------------------- = ------------- ~ 10^-36
F_elec e^2 / (4 pi e_0 r^2) (e^2/4pi e_0)
where m_p is the mass of the proton and e is its charge.
These four facts explain a great deal about the role gravity plays in physical
phenomena. They explain, for example, why, although it is the weakest force,
gravity governs the organization of the universe on the largest distance
scales of astrophysics and cosmology. These distance scales are far beyond
the subatomic ranges of the strong and the weak interactions. Electromagnetic
interactions COULD be long range were there any large-scale objects with net
electric charge. But the universe is electrically neutral, and electromagnetic
forces are so much stronger than gravitational forces that any large-scale net
charge is quickly neutralized. Gravity is left to govern the structure of the
universe on the largest scales.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: mimical force |
07 Aug 2005 04:52:56 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Don1 wrote:
All forces are physical thrusts
*****--Gravity is an attractive force
Gravity is a space push.
From the POV of matter its a pull; from
space it is a push.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: mimical force |
07 Aug 2005 05:55:07 PM |
|
|
<macromitch@internetCDS.com> wrote in message
news:1123451576.095726.150280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Sam Wormley wrote:
Don1 wrote:
All forces are physical thrusts
*****--Gravity is an attractive force
Gravity is a space push.
From the POV of matter its a pull; from
space it is a push.
Can you prove this theory?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: mimical force |
08 Aug 2005 02:50:38 AM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:oI2dnepPJt7TDGvfRVnyuQ@pipex.net...
<macromitch@internetCDS.com> wrote in message
news:1123451576.095726.150280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Sam Wormley wrote:
Don1 wrote:
All forces are physical thrusts
*****--Gravity is an attractive force
Gravity is a space push.
From the POV of matter its a pull; from
space it is a push.
Can you prove this theory?
Don has gone beyond string theory, he is about to expound
spring balance theory to our astonished ears
sr
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: mimical force |
08 Aug 2005 11:24:00 AM |
|
|
"Steve Ralph" <steve@steveralph.f9.co.uk> wrote in message
news:42f70ebe$0$3515$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:oI2dnepPJt7TDGvfRVnyuQ@pipex.net...
<macromitch@internetCDS.com> wrote in message
news:1123451576.095726.150280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Sam Wormley wrote:
Don1 wrote:
All forces are physical thrusts
*****--Gravity is an attractive force
Gravity is a space push.
From the POV of matter its a pull; from
space it is a push.
Can you prove this theory?
Don has gone beyond string theory, he is about to expound
spring balance theory to our astonished ears
sr
Fantastic. I await Don's latest explanations of the depths of science with
baited breath.......
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: mimical force |
08 Aug 2005 05:57:25 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eaOdnUqde8n7GmrfRVnygQ@pipex.net...
"Steve Ralph" <steve@steveralph.f9.co.uk> wrote in message
news:42f70ebe$0$3515$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:oI2dnepPJt7TDGvfRVnyuQ@pipex.net...
<macromitch@internetCDS.com> wrote in message
news:1123451576.095726.150280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Sam Wormley wrote:
Don1 wrote:
All forces are physical thrusts
*****--Gravity is an attractive force
Gravity is a space push.
From the POV of matter its a pull; from
space it is a push.
Can you prove this theory?
Don has gone beyond string theory, he is about to expound
spring balance theory to our astonished ears
sr
Fantastic. I await Don's latest explanations of the depths of science with
baited breath.......
"The Minical Universe"
Author - Don1
Abstract:
Don Won traces the history of physical science in terms of
the units and conventions. He demonstrates with devastatingly simple
logic how Newtons overbearing manner led to flawed but very subtle
misconceptions about the nature of the universe itself.
He shows how the fundamental quantities used in physics (that is mass,
length and time)
are incorrect - force, length and time are the correct fundamental
quantities, and
how the great but misunderstood Isaac Newton was manipulated by politcians
and rutheless business interests to adopt the incorrect units system. He
seamlessly
demonstrates why differential calculus is useless, and why quantum mechanics
is produced by imbalances in the typical scientific brain.
His tour-de-force is the simple and elegant proof that the universe is
actually built
out of bridge railings, as proven by spring balance theory.
sr
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don1" |
|
| Title: Re: mimical force |
09 Aug 2005 07:05:15 AM |
|
|
Steve Ralph wrote:
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eaOdnUqde8n7GmrfRVnygQ@pipex.net...
"Steve Ralph" <steve@steveralph.f9.co.uk> wrote in message
news:42f70ebe$0$3515$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:oI2dnepPJt7TDGvfRVnyuQ@pipex.net...
<macromitch@internetCDS.com> wrote in message
news:1123451576.095726.150280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Sam Wormley wrote:
Don1 wrote:
All forces are physical thrusts
*****--Gravity is an attractive force
Gravity is a space push.
From the POV of matter its a pull; from
space it is a push.
Can you prove this theory?
Don has gone beyond string theory, he is about to expound
spring balance theory to our astonished ears
sr
Fantastic. I await Don's latest explanations of the depths of science with
baited breath.......
"The Minical Universe"
Hey Rube, I was talking about gravity mimiking force at a distance in
force fields; not about minical universes.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: mimical force |
09 Aug 2005 08:20:25 AM |
|
|
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1123589115.353138.111430@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Steve Ralph wrote:
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eaOdnUqde8n7GmrfRVnygQ@pipex.net...
"Steve Ralph" <steve@steveralph.f9.co.uk> wrote in message
news:42f70ebe$0$3515$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:oI2dnepPJt7TDGvfRVnyuQ@pipex.net...
<macromitch@internetCDS.com> wrote in message
news:1123451576.095726.150280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Sam Wormley wrote:
Don1 wrote:
All forces are physical thrusts
*****--Gravity is an attractive force
Gravity is a space push.
From the POV of matter its a pull; from
space it is a push.
Can you prove this theory?
Don has gone beyond string theory, he is about to expound
spring balance theory to our astonished ears
sr
Fantastic. I await Don's latest explanations of the depths of science
with
baited breath.......
"The Minical Universe"
Hey Rube, I was talking about gravity mimiking force at a distance in
force fields; not about minical universes.
So this mimik effect is not universal? Just how localised is it? And how
does it relate to the structure of the atom?
sr
Don
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: mimical force |
10 Aug 2005 06:33:39 PM |
|
|
Hi T Wake I would say the smallest force is the decaying force of a
proton. Beert
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: mimical force |
11 Aug 2005 12:42:17 PM |
|
|
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbertglazier@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:3314-42FA8ED3-104@storefull-3338.bay.webtv.net...
Hi T Wake I would say the smallest force is the decaying force of a
proton. Beert
Generally speaking the "Weak Nuclear" force is not really very weak at all.
Decay of a proton (if it exists) is simply slow not weak.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: mimical force |
10 Aug 2005 06:49:01 PM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Hi T Wake I would say the smallest force is the decaying force of a
proton.
The weakest force is gravity, Herb--look at this table
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/FundamentalForces.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: mimical force |
07 Aug 2005 07:06:21 PM |
|
|
2 POV's. One from matter One for space
From matter's its an attraction from space
its a push.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
