| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"REM460" |
| Date: |
22 Apr 2004 02:03:33 AM |
| Object: |
Physical FORCE -- What Force REALLY IS |
Physical FORCE -- What It REALLY IS
Most orthodox physicists do NOT know what a force REALLY
IS. The best that they can do is to define it in terms of
what it DOES--accelerate a mass, (F = ma). Yet, they
ARROGANTLY use the terms "PSEUDO-FORCE" and "FICTIONAL FORCE"
to describe forces like CENTRIFUGAL FORCE and the CORIOLIS
FORCE. The physicists have FAILED to pick up the CLUE, about
what a force really IS, from the fact that these so-called
"pseudo-forces" result from MOTIONS.
According to the GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the Physical
Universe developed by the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson,
each force is a MOTION, or a COMBINATION OF MOTIONS, or a
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOTIONS, including INWARD and OUTWARD
SCALAR MOTIONS, in the form of TRANSLATIONAL, VIBRATIONAL,
ROTATIONAL, or ROTATIONAL-VIBRATIONAL motions.
For example, the expansion of the Physical Universe is
simply an OUTWARD SCALAR MOTION, which is an INHERENT
PROPERTY of the Universe and NOT a result of a "big bang",
[which means that "Hubble's constant", whatever its correct
value, can NOT be used to determine the age of the Physical
Universe.].
Gravitation is an INWARD SCALAR MOTION that obeys the
inverse square law. MOTION is what makes a homogeneous
gravitational field "EQUIVALENT" to a uniformly accelerated
reference frame, (which is in a certain kind of MOTION).
For objects moving at speeds close to the speed of
light, acceleration drops toward zero, (a = F/m), NOT because
"mass increases toward infinity" (mass really STAYS
CONSTANT), but because FORCE decreases toward ZERO (because
of the RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOTIONS of the near-light speed
of the object and the OUTWARD SCALAR MOTION of light at the
speed of light).
In Larson's Theory, the "strong nuclear force" and the
"weak nuclear force" DO NOT EXIST. They are merely AD HOC
ASSUMPTIONS, resulting from an ERRONEOUS model of the atom.
A WEALTH of information about Physicist Dewey B.
Larson's GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the Physical Universe,
("The Reciprocal System of Theory"), can now be found at the
web site http://www.rsystem.org/isus/index.htm or /dbl/index.htm .
Robert E. McElwaine
B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
http://members.aol.com/rem547 PLUS
http://members.aol.com/rem460
P.S.: PASS IT ON !
"EVERYTHING you know is WRONG."
"The Truth IS stranger than fiction."
"The Truth is ALWAYS the FIRST CASUALTY OF WAR."
"OFFICIAL LIES are ALWAYS the BIGGEST LIES OF ALL."
"The more things change, the more they STAY THE SAME."
.
|
|
| User: "Michael Varney" |
|
| Title: Re: Physical FORCE -- What Force REALLY IS |
28 Apr 2004 08:30:45 PM |
|
|
"REM460" <rem460@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040422030333.17796.00000074@mb-m18.aol.com...
Physical FORCE -- What It REALLY IS
Most orthodox physicists do NOT know what a force REALLY
IS.
Go away, crank.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Physical FORCE -- What Force REALLY IS |
22 Apr 2004 11:57:47 AM |
|
|
"REM460" <rem460@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040422030333.17796.00000074@mb-m18.aol.com...
Physical FORCE -- What It REALLY IS
Here we go..... another high priest in the offing.
According to the GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the
Physical
Universe developed by the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson,
each force is a MOTION, or a COMBINATION OF MOTIONS,
And what might a motion be, or indeed a combination of motions? Are
you referring to my daily session on the lavatory seat?
[snip]
In the crap which I snipped, you referred to a scalar motion. Would
that be a motion without any direction?
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Physical FORCE -- What Force REALLY IS |
29 Apr 2004 02:53:10 AM |
|
|
(REM460) wrote in message news:<20040422030333.17796.00000074@mb-m18.aol.com>...
Physical FORCE -- What It REALLY IS
Most orthodox physicists do NOT know what a force REALLY
IS. The best that they can do is to define it in terms of
what it DOES--accelerate a mass, (F = ma). Yet, they
ARROGANTLY use the terms "PSEUDO-FORCE" and "FICTIONAL FORCE"
to describe forces like CENTRIFUGAL FORCE and the CORIOLIS
FORCE. The physicists have FAILED to pick up the CLUE, about
what a force really IS, from the fact that these so-called
"pseudo-forces" result from MOTIONS.
According to the GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the Physical
Universe developed by the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson,
each force is a MOTION, or a COMBINATION OF MOTIONS, or a
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOTIONS, including INWARD and OUTWARD
SCALAR MOTIONS, in the form of TRANSLATIONAL, VIBRATIONAL,
ROTATIONAL, or ROTATIONAL-VIBRATIONAL motions....
[snip]
Could you please define 'scalar motions' for me? What is that? Is it
motion what can never change direction? And if that is true, how do
you convert a velocity vector to a scalar velocity and preserve the
units at the same time?
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Leon Rapaport" |
|
| Title: Re: Physical FORCE -- What Force REALLY IS |
03 May 2004 10:10:10 AM |
|
|
I can see that you have put great thought into this. I am seeking an
answer just as you are. I am not trying to push my theory over yours.
My theory is that we are in a goo. We are made of goo. and all matter
is a manifestation of the goo. Nothing is real.
Please read my hypothesis as I have read yours. Go to
http://www.startronics.net and click on universe.
Leon Rapaport.
eleatis@yahoo.gr (Mike) wrote in message news:<9c1b39be.0404282353.a589830@posting.google.com>...
rem460@aol.com (REM460) wrote in message news:<20040422030333.17796.00000074@mb-m18.aol.com>...
Physical FORCE -- What It REALLY IS
Most orthodox physicists do NOT know what a force REALLY
IS. The best that they can do is to define it in terms of
what it DOES--accelerate a mass, (F = ma). Yet, they
ARROGANTLY use the terms "PSEUDO-FORCE" and "FICTIONAL FORCE"
to describe forces like CENTRIFUGAL FORCE and the CORIOLIS
FORCE. The physicists have FAILED to pick up the CLUE, about
what a force really IS, from the fact that these so-called
"pseudo-forces" result from MOTIONS.
According to the GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the Physical
Universe developed by the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson,
each force is a MOTION, or a COMBINATION OF MOTIONS, or a
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOTIONS, including INWARD and OUTWARD
SCALAR MOTIONS, in the form of TRANSLATIONAL, VIBRATIONAL,
ROTATIONAL, or ROTATIONAL-VIBRATIONAL motions....
[snip]
Could you please define 'scalar motions' for me? What is that? Is it
motion what can never change direction? And if that is true, how do
you convert a velocity vector to a scalar velocity and preserve the
units at the same time?
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "MorituriMax" |
|
| Title: Re: Physical FORCE -- What Force REALLY IS |
04 May 2004 12:07:18 AM |
|
|
Leon Rapaport wrote:
I can see that you have put great thought into this. I am seeking an
answer just as you are. I am not trying to push my theory over yours.
My theory is that we are in a goo. We are made of goo. and all matter
is a manifestation of the goo. Nothing is real.
Please read my hypothesis as I have read yours. Go to
http://www.startronics.net and click on universe.
Leon Rapaport.
I'd read it, but it's not real.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Physical FORCE -- What Force REALLY IS |
27 Apr 2004 04:17:06 PM |
|
|
Physical FORCE -- What It REALLY IS
Most orthodox physicists do NOT know what a force REALLY
IS. The best that they can do is to define it in terms of
what it DOES--accelerate a mass, (F = ma). Yet, they
ARROGANTLY use the terms "PSEUDO-FORCE" and "FICTIONAL FORCE"
to describe forces like CENTRIFUGAL FORCE and the CORIOLIS
FORCE. The physicists have FAILED to pick up the CLUE, about
what a force really IS, from the fact that these so-called
"pseudo-forces" result from MOTIONS.
According to the GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the Physical
Universe developed by the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson,
each force is a MOTION, or a COMBINATION OF MOTIONS, or a
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOTIONS, including INWARD and OUTWARD
SCALAR MOTIONS, in the form of TRANSLATIONAL, VIBRATIONAL,
ROTATIONAL, or ROTATIONAL-VIBRATIONAL motions.
For example, the expansion of the Physical Universe is
simply an OUTWARD SCALAR MOTION, which is an INHERENT
PROPERTY of the Universe and NOT a result of a "big bang",
[which means that "Hubble's constant", whatever its correct
value, can NOT be used to determine the age of the Physical
Universe.].
Gravitation is an INWARD SCALAR MOTION that obeys the
inverse square law. MOTION is what makes a homogeneous
gravitational field "EQUIVALENT" to a uniformly accelerated
reference frame, (which is in a certain kind of MOTION).
For objects moving at speeds close to the speed of
light, acceleration drops toward zero, (a = F/m), NOT because
"mass increases toward infinity" (mass really STAYS
CONSTANT), but because FORCE decreases toward ZERO (because
of the RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOTIONS of the near-light speed
of the object and the OUTWARD SCALAR MOTION of light at the
speed of light).
In Larson's Theory, the "strong nuclear force" and the
"weak nuclear force" DO NOT EXIST. They are merely AD HOC
ASSUMPTIONS, resulting from an ERRONEOUS model of the atom.
A WEALTH of information about Physicist Dewey B.
Larson's GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the Physical Universe,
("The Reciprocal System of Theory"), can now be found at the
web site http://www.rsystem.org/isus/index.htm or /dbl/index.htm .
Robert E. McElwaine
B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
http://members.aol.com/rem547 PLUS
http://members.aol.com/rem460
P.S.: PASS IT ON !
"EVERYTHING you know is WRONG."
"The Truth IS stranger than fiction."
"The Truth is ALWAYS the FIRST CASUALTY OF WAR."
"OFFICIAL LIES are ALWAYS the BIGGEST LIES OF ALL."
"The more things change, the more they STAY THE SAME."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Physical FORCE -- What Force REALLY IS |
27 Apr 2004 04:59:27 PM |
|
|
<galactcfed@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a860f813.0404271317.1b99099f@posting.google.com...
Physical FORCE -- What It REALLY IS
Most orthodox physicists do NOT know what a force REALLY
IS. The best that they can do is to define it in terms of
what it DOES--accelerate a mass, (F = ma). Yet, they
ARROGANTLY use the terms "PSEUDO-FORCE" and "FICTIONAL FORCE"
to describe forces like CENTRIFUGAL FORCE and the CORIOLIS
FORCE. The physicists have FAILED to pick up the CLUE, about
what a force really IS, from the fact that these so-called
"pseudo-forces" result from MOTIONS.
According to the GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the Physical
Universe developed by the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson,
each force is a MOTION, or a COMBINATION OF MOTIONS, or a
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOTIONS, including INWARD and OUTWARD
SCALAR MOTIONS, in the form of TRANSLATIONAL, VIBRATIONAL,
ROTATIONAL, or ROTATIONAL-VIBRATIONAL motions.
So force is a result of motions? Exactly what do think F=MA is saying - it
is the result of some invisible angel or something?
Thanks
Bill
For example, the expansion of the Physical Universe is
simply an OUTWARD SCALAR MOTION, which is an INHERENT
PROPERTY of the Universe and NOT a result of a "big bang",
[which means that "Hubble's constant", whatever its correct
value, can NOT be used to determine the age of the Physical
Universe.].
Gravitation is an INWARD SCALAR MOTION that obeys the
inverse square law. MOTION is what makes a homogeneous
gravitational field "EQUIVALENT" to a uniformly accelerated
reference frame, (which is in a certain kind of MOTION).
For objects moving at speeds close to the speed of
light, acceleration drops toward zero, (a = F/m), NOT because
"mass increases toward infinity" (mass really STAYS
CONSTANT), but because FORCE decreases toward ZERO (because
of the RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOTIONS of the near-light speed
of the object and the OUTWARD SCALAR MOTION of light at the
speed of light).
In Larson's Theory, the "strong nuclear force" and the
"weak nuclear force" DO NOT EXIST. They are merely AD HOC
ASSUMPTIONS, resulting from an ERRONEOUS model of the atom.
A WEALTH of information about Physicist Dewey B.
Larson's GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the Physical Universe,
("The Reciprocal System of Theory"), can now be found at the
web site http://www.rsystem.org/isus/index.htm or /dbl/index.htm
..
Robert E. McElwaine
B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
http://members.aol.com/rem547 PLUS
http://members.aol.com/rem460
P.S.: PASS IT ON !
"EVERYTHING you know is WRONG."
"The Truth IS stranger than fiction."
"The Truth is ALWAYS the FIRST CASUALTY OF WAR."
"OFFICIAL LIES are ALWAYS the BIGGEST LIES OF ALL."
"The more things change, the more they STAY THE SAME."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gordon D. Pusch" |
|
| Title: Re: Physical FORCE -- What Force REALLY IS |
27 Apr 2004 10:36:30 PM |
|
|
(gnus-kill "From" "galactcfed@aol.com")
<*!PLONK!*>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Varney" |
|
| Title: Re: Physical FORCE -- What Force REALLY IS |
28 Apr 2004 08:34:42 PM |
|
|
"Gordon D. Pusch" <g_d_pusch_remove_underscores@xnet.com> wrote in message
news:gipt9ssri9.fsf@pusch.xnet.com...
(gnus-kill "From" "galactcfed@aol.com")
<*!PLONK!*>
Do it quietly, jackass.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Physical FORCE -- What Force REALLY IS |
27 Apr 2004 04:34:08 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Physical FORCE -- What It REALLY IS
Most orthodox physicists do NOT know what a force REALLY
IS.
[snip]
Robert E. McElwaine
[snip]
Even NASA can get it up, McElwaine. You cannot.
http://www.asi.org/adb/06/07/04/11/rocket-eqn-primer.html
http://www.neofuel.com/optimum/
Force that up your bunghole.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "EjP" |
|
| Title: Re: Physical FORCE -- What Force REALLY IS |
28 Apr 2004 03:12:17 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Physical FORCE -- What It REALLY IS
Most orthodox physicists do NOT know what a force REALLY
IS. The best that they can do is to define it in terms of
what it DOES--accelerate a mass, (F = ma). Yet, they
ARROGANTLY use the terms "PSEUDO-FORCE" and "FICTIONAL FORCE"
to describe forces like CENTRIFUGAL FORCE and the CORIOLIS
FORCE. The physicists have FAILED to pick up the CLUE, about
what a force really IS, from the fact that these so-called
"pseudo-forces" result from MOTIONS.
According to the GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the Physical
Universe developed by the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson,
each force is a MOTION, or a COMBINATION OF MOTIONS, or a
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOTIONS, including INWARD and OUTWARD
SCALAR MOTIONS, in the form of TRANSLATIONAL, VIBRATIONAL,
ROTATIONAL, or ROTATIONAL-VIBRATIONAL motions.
For example, the expansion of the Physical Universe is
simply an OUTWARD SCALAR MOTION, which is an INHERENT
PROPERTY of the Universe and NOT a result of a "big bang",
[which means that "Hubble's constant", whatever its correct
value, can NOT be used to determine the age of the Physical
Universe.].
Gravitation is an INWARD SCALAR MOTION that obeys the
inverse square law. MOTION is what makes a homogeneous
gravitational field "EQUIVALENT" to a uniformly accelerated
reference frame, (which is in a certain kind of MOTION).
For objects moving at speeds close to the speed of
light, acceleration drops toward zero, (a = F/m), NOT because
"mass increases toward infinity" (mass really STAYS
CONSTANT), but because FORCE decreases toward ZERO (because
of the RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOTIONS of the near-light speed
of the object and the OUTWARD SCALAR MOTION of light at the
speed of light).
In Larson's Theory, the "strong nuclear force" and the
"weak nuclear force" DO NOT EXIST. They are merely AD HOC
ASSUMPTIONS, resulting from an ERRONEOUS model of the atom.
A WEALTH of information about Physicist Dewey B.
Larson's GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the Physical Universe,
("The Reciprocal System of Theory"), can now be found at the
web site http://www.rsystem.org/isus/index.htm or /dbl/index.htm .
Robert E. McElwaine
B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
http://members.aol.com/rem547 PLUS
http://members.aol.com/rem460
P.S.: PASS IT ON !
Wow, that gets well over 300 points on the crackpot index
from capital letters alone (5 points per word):
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
-E
"EVERYTHING you know is WRONG."
"The Truth IS stranger than fiction."
"The Truth is ALWAYS the FIRST CASUALTY OF WAR."
"OFFICIAL LIES are ALWAYS the BIGGEST LIES OF ALL."
"The more things change, the more they STAY THE SAME."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bernd Kassler" |
|
| Title: Re: Physical FORCE -- What Force REALLY IS |
28 Apr 2004 11:24:38 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Physical FORCE -- What It REALLY IS
Most orthodox physicists do NOT know what a force REALLY
IS. The best that they can do is to define it in terms of
what it DOES--accelerate a mass, (F = ma). (...)
According to the GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the Physical
Universe developed by the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson,
each force is a MOTION,
Fortunately acceleration has absolutely nothing to do with MOTION... ;-)
Otherwise I would have to call the assembly of meaningless words from Mr
galactcfed as BS.
B.
--
http://www.kassler.de
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "GRAVITYMECHANIC2" |
|
| Title: Re: Physical FORCE -- What Force REALLY IS |
22 Apr 2004 11:22:32 AM |
|
|
PLANETS ORBIT THE SUN TO CONSERVE TOTAL ENERGY
THE FORCE OF GRAVITY IS AN ILLUSION
Copyright 1984-2004 Allen C. Goodrich
Gravitational effect is the result of an acceleration
of mass. Galileo demonstrated this. Newton assumed
that this was caused by a force of gravity between
all masses. Was this a correct assumption? Einstein
and many other scientists felt that there must be
more to gravitation than an attraction at a distance.
Action at a distance was considered to be impossible
in the absence of a transfer of energy at the speed
of light.
Hubble then showed that the distant Galaxies were
moving away from the earth and that the universe
was expanding in all directions. If this is true ,
What else must be true?
1. The potential energy of the rest of the universe
must be decreasing relative to the mass of the earth.
It has long been assumed that the first law of
thermodynamics, which says that the total energy of
the universe is a constant, was a fact of nature.
If this is true what then.
2. The kinetic energy of the universe must be
increasing at the same rate that the potential
energy is decreasing as the universe expands.
How is this possible? Masses must be accelerating,
because, kinetic energy change is the result of an
acceleration. But all orbital masses are
accelerating toward the center of the earth or
some other mass. Why would this occur otherwise?
3. Orbital motion could then be the result of the
expansion of the universe. The Gravitational
illusion could be the result.
Based on the first law of thermodynamics
The total mass energy of the universe is a constant.
(total kinetic (mass) energy plus total potential
energy is a constant).
m(2 pi L)^2 / t^2 + G (M-m)m / L = A constant.
m is any mass say that of the earth.
From this equation the equation
Delta m (2 pi L)^2 / t^2 = - Delta G (M-m)m/L
follows mathematically.
From this equation the equation
Delta m 4 pi^2 L /t^2 = Delta - G (M-m)m / L^2
or the modified Newton equation for gravity can
be derived,but only when L is the orbital distance.
The earth orbit is a result of an energy equilibrium,
( the absence of a change of total energy )
and not the result of a force of gravity between masses.
Force of gravity is the resulting illusion
assumed by Newton to be a force.
If a planet (say earth) moved away from the sun
its potential energy would decrease as L increased.
Its kinetic energy would decrease because it is
no longer accelerating toward the sun in orbital
motion. Total energy would have to decrease. A very
great change of total energy would have to take place.
POTENTIAL ENERGY = G(M-m)m/L
KINETIC ENERGY = m(2 pi L)^2/t^2
m(2 pi L)^2/t^2 + G(M-m)m/L = A constant = M
G= Gravitational constant; M = total energy
of the universe (or effective universe) ;
m = mass in question.
t = time ; L = radial distance.
No mechanism exists for this to occur rapidly.
So it could not happen. The magnitudes of kinetic
and potential energies of planets and moons
travelling in orbital motion are equal and any
increase or decrease of orbital distance L results
in an equal change in magnitude of both.This is
the only value of L where no change of total energy
will occur if the value of L changes. At any other
distance L, an increase of kinetic energy will be at a
different rate than potential energy decreases.
Orbital motion conserves total energy.
Force of gravity isn't needed to explain orbital
motion or any other motion at a distance.
GRAVITY MECHANICS AND
RESEARCH ON ASTRONOMICAL OCEAN TIDES
Copyright 1984 to 2002 Allen C. Goodrich
An examination of United States Coast and Geodetic
Survey Tidal Data, which was gathered by extensive
measurements over long periods of time,was compared
with astronomical data showing the phases of the
moon at corresponding times for many years. This
correlation of the two sets of data revealed a
very interesting fact, in a manner that had never
before been mentioned in the literature.
It is invariably and exactly
the lowest tide that exists directly under the
full and new moons at deep ocean ports.
TABULATED co-op.nos.noaa.gov and
space.jpl.nasa.gov DATA:
OCEAN TIDES AND PHASES OF THE MOON
AT DEEP OCEAN PORT- MYRTLE BEACH
LOWEST TIDE (YEARS 1992 AND 1993)
1992 FULL MOON---1992 NEW MOON
(at moons highest point in the sky)
DATE---TIME(std)-DATE---TIME(std)
Mar.18--12:00Mid-Mar.3---12:00Noon
Apr.17--12:00Mid-Apr.2---12:00Noon
May.17--12:00Mid-May.2---12:00Noon
Jun.15--12:00Mid-Jun.29--12:00Noon
July.13-12:00Mid-July.29-12:00Noon
Aug.12--12:00Mid-Aug.27--12:00Noon
Sept.11-12:00Mid-Sept.26-12:00Noon
Oct.11--12:00Mid-Oct.26--12:00Noon
Nov.10--12:00Mid-Mov.25--12:00noon
Dec.10--12:00Mid-Dec.25--12:00noon
1993 FULL MOON---1993 NEW MOON
(at moons highest point in the sky)
DATE---TIME(sdt)-DATE---TIME(sdt)
Jan.8--12:00Mid--Jan.24-12:00Noon
Feb.6--12:00Mid--Feb.21-12:00Noon
Mar.8--12:00Mid--Mar.23-12:00Noon
Apr.6--12:00Mid--Apr.21-12:00Noon
May.6--12:00Mid--May.20-12:00Noon
Jun.4--12:00Mid--Jun.19-12:00Noon
July.3-12:00Mid--Juy.18-12:00Noon
Aug.2--12:00Mid--Aug.17-12:00Noon
Sep.1--12:00Mid--Sep.16-12:00Noon
Sep.30-12:00MId--Oct.15-12:00Noon
Oct.30-12:00Mid--Nov.14-12:00Noon
Nov.29-12:00Mid--Dec.13-12:00Noon
Dec.28-12:00Mid--Jan.12-12:00Noon
This was a very interesting discovery because
current physics,based on the gravitational theory,
discussed in the following U.S.Gov. documents:
PREDICT THE OCEAN TIDES
http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/restles1.html
SEE PHASES OF THE MOON FROM EARTH
http://space.jpl.nasa.gov/
,would lead one to believe that,except for many
possible reasons, the highest tides tend to be
under the full and new moons. The dictionary and
encyclopedia as well as physics texts predict this
with pictures of the earth and oceans bulging on
the side facing the full moon. Of course it never
happens as the gravitational theory predicts,
and many reasons are given for the discrepancies.
CONCLUSION:
No discrepancies were found in the occurence of
exactly the lowest tide directly under the full
and new moons, at deep ocean ports. A lowest tide
also occurs on the earth's ocean directly opposite
to the new and full moons.
SIGNIFICANCE:
One must admit that this is beyond
question one of the most important discoveries
of modern physics research. It indicates that a
change must be made in the theory of gravitation.
One can no longer assume that a force between
the moon and the water of the earth's oceans,
is causing the ocean tides. The force of
gravity must be an illusion caused by some other,
more basic, reason. What would this be?
If the total energy ( kinetic and potential ) of
the universe is assumed to be a constant,from this
fundamental equation, many interesting things follow.
If the rest of the universe is expanding ( potential
energy decreasing) relative to masses, the masses
must be shrinking ( increasing in kinetic energy )
(gravitation) relative to the rest of the universe.
THE FIRST LAW OF MOTION-(GOODRICH)
Copyright 1984 to 2002 ALLEN C. GOODRICH
A body (m) continues in a state of rest (equilibrium)
or motion in a straight or curved line (equilibrium)
as long as no change occurs in its total (kinetic and
potential) energy, relative to the rest of the
effective universe (M-m),
Delta m(2 pi L)^2/t^2 = - Delta K(M-m)m/L
equilibrium = no change in the total energy
relative to the rest of the effective universe (M-m).
^ = to the power of.
Orbital motion complies with this equation.
This equation is derived from the fundamental
equation of the universe which states that
the total energy of the universe is a constant.
The sum of kinetic and potential energies is a
constant.
m(2 pi L)^2/t^2 + K(M-m)m/L = A constant.
INERTIA AND MOMENTUM are the properties of a mass
that evidence its reluctance to change its total
energy, or it is its need to maintain a constant total
energy. If it could more easily obtain or lose energy,
it would have less inertia or momentum.
SEE
THE UNIVERSE- A GRAND UNIFIED THEORY OF MASS ENERGY
SPACE TIME FRAME MECHANICS-APPEARING IN NEWSLETTER
"SPECTRUM" OF THE BUFFALO ASTRONOMICAL ASSOCIATION
INC. NOV.1996 TO FEB.1997
See http://ourworld.cs.com/gravitymechanic2/myhomepage/business.html
FUNDAMENTAL EQUATION OF THE UNIVERSE
http://ourworld.cs.com/gravitymechanic2/myhomepage/profile.html
TIDES AND GRAVITY MECHANICS
http://ourworld.cs.com/gravitymechanic2/myhomepage/resume.html
A new theory of gravitation is given, which
predicted, stimulated the above research,and is
consistent with, the new findings.
The universe has been found to be expanding at an
accelerating rate as predicted in 1984 by this new
theory.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Varney" |
|
| Title: Re: Physical FORCE -- What Force REALLY IS |
28 Apr 2004 08:33:22 PM |
|
|
"GRAVITYMECHANIC2" <gravitymechanic2@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20040422122232.17793.00000208@mb-m06.news.cs.com...
PLANETS ORBIT THE SUN TO CONSERVE TOTAL ENERGY
THE FORCE OF GRAVITY IS AN ILLUSION
Copyright 1984-2004 Allen C. Goodrich
Watch out! The cranks are strutting around each other in a display of
bright colors and loud noises. Goodrich is making farting noises in an
attempt to intimidate McElwaine and drive him from his territory!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Physical FORCE -- What Force REALLY IS |
22 Apr 2004 10:37:05 AM |
|
|
REM460 wrote:
Physical FORCE -- What It REALLY IS
Most orthodox physicists do NOT know what a force REALLY
IS.
[snip]
Robert E. McElwaine
Admire the moron for enthusiastically puking into his own lap.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MorituriMax" |
|
| Title: Re: Physical FORCE -- What Force REALLY IS |
22 Apr 2004 03:11:46 AM |
|
|
REM460 wrote:
Physical FORCE -- What It REALLY IS
Most orthodox physicists do NOT know what a force REALLY
Russian clergy masquerading as scientists? I'll buy that..
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
