Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: sorincosofret on 07/12/2008 18:37:50
-
Electromagnetic induction fundamentals
Background and actual explanation
The Maxwell equations and their predictions constitute the starting point for special theory of relativity.
Analyzing the interaction of a magnet and a conductor in frame of these equations, two different situations are observed: when magnet is at rest and conductor is moving and opposite, when conductor is moving and magnet is at rest.
For this elementary experiment a bar magnet, a coil and a galvanometer are necessary.
When there is no movement of the magnet bar relative to coil, or there is no magnetic field, there is no movement inside the galvanometer:
B = const. or B= 0 --> ∂B/∂t = 0 and finally E = 0.
When the bar magnet is moving (fig. 1), a variable magnetic field is generated (∂B/∂t ≠ 0).
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Figure 1.
This variable magnetic field, in turn, generates induced electric field according to the first Maxwell's equation:
[ Invalid Attachment ]
When bar magnet stands still and the coil is moving (fig. 2), there is no time variation of magnetic field and there is no induced electric field, according to Maxwell's equations:
B = Const. and ∂B/∂t = 0 and E = 0
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Figure 2
However, the galvanometer needle is equally moving left and right as in the precedent case.
The explanation of this asymmetry in actual physic is related to the transformation of electric and magnetic field in different reference systems.
An observer at rest relative to a conducting loop sees a changing flux of the magnetic field B as the magnet glides through the loop. According to Faraday’s law this movement induces an electric field E, which drives a current in the loop due to the electric force qE acting on particles of charge q.
But an observer at rest relative to the magnet sees the loop sweep with velocity v; now the magnetic force qv×B drives the current.
In this way special relativity connects the phenomenon of magnetism and electricity. Magnetism arises from the motion of charge. Different observers, in different inertial frames, will record different magnetic fields. In some cases, the magnetism may disappear in a given inertial frame. However, the total electro-magnetic force will still be the same for all observers.
Based on this consideration, actual physics should reconsider the Lorenz force as being at the same level of importance as any of the Maxwell equations and to include it as a sixths equation (the fifth regard the dependence of electric and magnetic characteristics on geometry).
Why the actual explanation is wrong.
I am not a fan of actual orthodox theory so it is time to analyze in detail the actual explanation and its correlation with experimental part.
It is quite complicate to enter into detail in case of a magnet moving, because the Faraday’s law does not have a basic explanation or a mechanism of electric field generation from a variable magnetic field. Of course in the book a simple and intuitive new explanation is offered for this law.
Therefore the discussion will be focused on the well known Lorenz force expressed as:
[ Invalid Attachment ]
The first inadvertencies regard the ,,nature” of Lorenz force. By comparison with electric force, the Lorenz force changes only the direction of a charged particle without any acceleration. Therefore, in principle, this force is not able to accelerate the electrons in a region of space and to establish an electron circulation in a closed circuit.
For the sake of discussion, this absurdity is leaved aside and the detailed electron-magnet interaction is presented.
Let’s consider a magnet bar as in fig 3. and let’s establish the direction of magnetic induction B in the magnetic field generated by magnet. Magnetic induction is a vector and is tangent all the time to the line field. As consequences, for any magnet, magnetic induction changes the sign, in the space around magnet, relative to N-S axe. For a region of space around north pole, B is directed to positive x, after that turns and is directed to negative x and finally, for a region close to south pole change again to positive x direction.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Figure 3.
If the Lorenz force is correct, an electron with speed v, found in different positions with different orientation of magnetic induction B, will be acted on the same force as value, but with different orientations.
Considering a simple case of a rectangular loop, moving with speed v, directed to negative x direction, at beginning the direction of loop speed and magnetic induction are antiparallel like in fig. 4.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Figure 4
In this condition the force acting over electrons is:
[ Invalid Attachment ]
When the magnetic induction change the sign, more precisely the magnet passes through the loop as in fig 5, the Lorenz force will be:
[ Invalid Attachment ]
[ Invalid Attachment ]
When the magnetic induction change again the direction, in a position symmetric to initial case (fig. 6) again the Lorenz force is null.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Figure 6.
Of course, even the greatest interaction is along the NS magnet direction it can be argued that B is not all the time parallel or antiparallel with v.
Let’s analyze this case too, so all possibilities of interactions are covered. In order to deduce the entire interaction over the loop is necessary to observe the symmetry of magnetic field produced by magnet as in fig. 7.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Figure 7.
In the fig. 7, the interactions of electrons from two opposite parts of loop are figured. The angle between magnetic induction and direction of motion during loop movement cover all angle between 0 and 180 º. In fig. 7 a particular angle, let’s say 125º is figured.
When the formula for Lorenz force is applied, it can be observed that electrons in both part of the circuit are acted by equal forces. Therefore, due to the magnetic field symmetry, the electrons in ab and cd part of loop will run in the same direction (it is not important to establish in which direction).
The same reasoning can be made for the bc and ad part of loop.
When the general circulation of electron is counted at loop level it can be observed that simultaneously electrons are leaving the loop through both conductors, or another possibility: electrons are entering simultaneously through both conductors.
Maybe the experts in the vectors and electric current are so polite to present the ,,orthodox” explanation.
-
Read a book.
-
My favorite joke in Sorin's latest offering is
"By comparison with electric force, the Lorenz force changes only the direction of a charged particle without any acceleration. "
Does anyone else find any bits of it particulalry amusing?
-
I thought we already established that he doesn't know about the difference between vectors and scalars.
-
"By comparison with electric force, the Lorenz force changes only the direction of a charged particle without any acceleration. "
It seems we are at a literature club, where the sentence topic is important and not the content of the text.
So the sentence is reformulated:
By comparison with electric force, the Lorenz force changes only the direction of a charged particle without changing its initial acceleration.
-
It wasn't the literature that's the problem.
The sentence is still wrong.
Read Sophiecentaur's comment. Then go find out what it means.
-
The intellectual impotence of some guys, who are self considering experts in physics, but are not able to write a simple scalar or vector formula, amaze me ...
Maybe is better to be made a test of BC supporter's able to apply Lorenz formula !
-
By comparison with electric force, the Lorenz force changes only the direction of a charged particle without changing its initial acceleration.
"its initial" acceleration is Zero (i.e. before the field is applied).
Once a uniform field is applied the acceleration is of constant modulus and its direction is always normal to the motion.
Your statement is meaningless. Do you know the definition of acceleration, sorin?
Simple slips add up to discredit you yet again.
-
Sorin.
It just struck me that you have opened up your 'War' on Science on too many fronts at once. Both Napoleon and Hitler failed for that reason; they over-stretched themselves and you are doing the same.
Rome, Persia, Greece, Great Britain too - they all did it and they have no Empires now.
-
Sorin,
Since you don't seem to understand the fact, here's a reminder.
Velocity is a vector quantity- it has magnitude and direction. If you change either of those then you are producing an acceleration.
You can't change a direction without having an acceleration.
Nothing to do with literature or potency, just, as usual, you not knowing what you are on about.
Since you clearly don't understand the basics I can't be bothered to look at the details.
-
Up to date, I had presented my ideas with a part dedicated to actual interpretation, then a part with arguments and proofs against this interpretation and finally a new simpler interpretation of the phenomena. For lasts messages the new interpretation is missing, due to effervescent reactions generated to few well positioned adepts of actual interpretation.
Despite their ,,high level of knowledges in physics", their comments are only words like in a well known french song ... Parole, parole, parole...
It is time to proof their knowledge in the field of physics and to demonstrate my absurd interpretation presented in this post.
I they are not able to draw few line and to apply a simple formula known by low level schoolboy, this means they worth the title of intellectual impotent no.1 and intellectual impotent no.2.
Therefore if they will continue to make stupid comments without connection to the posted message, my answer will start with this title of ,,nobless".
Because someone must be completely stupid to affirm that Lorenz force change the acceleration of a particle when in 2000 scientific books is written the contrary.
So it is time to come with a experiment which prove this acceleration of a particle due to a Lorenz force.
-
I think that this, and other, threads by this poster serve to highlight the absolutely crucial role of peer review in science.
It is clear to anyone familiar with the peer review process that the sort of 'speculative hypothesis' featured here, and in many other postings, would not get published in any journal of repute. It is also clear, to anyone familiar with basic physics, why this is the case.
There are thousands of numpties on the internet posting their own various numpty 'theories'. Some of them (as here) seem to put an inordinate amount of work into their delusions in order to make them sound plausible. Because the internet is essentially an anonymous forum for such views, then anyone can publish any old crap and, if they are sufficiently trenchant in their support and sufficiently articulate to con the majority, they can be taken seriously by many.
-
Sorin,
The word is "knobless"
I'm a chemist BTW, I don't claim a high knowledge of physics- just rather better than yours.
-
Sorin
I don't suppose you would demean yourself to do this but could you please state your definition of acceleration in terms that we can all recognise and understand?
-
"So it is time to come with a experiment which prove this acceleration of a particle due to a Lorenz force. "
OK, here's one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sector_instrument
Next question please.
-
Bikeman,
For the beginning I please you to give me and to all readers a explanation (according to actual orthodox theory) for this simple experiment performed here. Up to date, even I've read about 2000 books about electromagnetism in English, french, German, Italian, Spanish and Romanian, I haven't found a mathematical treatment of the subject.
Some books avoid completely the subject, and the others makes reference to well known Einstein paper ,,On the electrodynamics of moving bodies". The subject is not treated properly in the reminded paper, so a detailed description from a support of actual theory should be welcome.
Related to the process of publication of this theory, at this stage I'm not interested to publish in a reputed journal. I'm content with a invitation from Natural Philosophy Alliance invitation for their next meeting in May 2009(http://www.worldnpa.org/php/DatabaseMenu.php?turn_page=1&tab=1), and I will try to convince this group of dissidents on simplicity and correctitude of my ideas.
For the orthodox scientist and their official representants I should thank you for their refuse on publishing during about 20 years. I have used this refuse in my advantage and I have build a affair from this. For the moment the actions value of my affair are very low. But who knows the future?
For the other two intellectual impotents, for the moment, I don't have enough time to present a detailed answer. It is necessary to present a clarification: a impotent mental is a person who is not able to formulate a independent idea. He knows something and all the time he applies what he knows like a robot.
Completely different is a stupid who is not able at least to learn and to understand something.
The Lorenz force and his characteristics is a banal subject learned by schoolboy at 15 years in Romania (at least). I don't have time to search for a English book related to subject, but your reference to wikipedia, denote that you are passing from a impotent to stupid.
Did you have a scientific book or the only source is wikipedia ( collection of article made by anyone) ?
And even in this article the charge passes through a succession of electric and magnetic fields so read it carefully ....
-
"The Lorenz force and his characteristics is a banal subject learned by schoolboy at 15 years in Romania "
So why do you keep asking about it?
The example you asked for was "a experiment which prove this acceleration of a particle due to a Lorenz force"
I found one and you just decided to call me silly names.
Are you trying to get banned so you can tell yourself that "The establishment wouldn't listen to me" rather than have to admit you are just plain wrong?
-
I have asked you because in 2000 books related to electromagnetism and in every school in the world, and in every university in the world, is admitted that Lorenz force does not produce a acceleration of a particle.
In the simplest case, when a particle enter into a uniform magnetic field with speed v, only the trajectory of particle is curved, but the particle escape from this uniform magnetic field with the same speed.
This is what is written and I asked you to formulate or to treat this banal subject because You have affirmed that Lorenz force produce acceleration.
The science makes reference to recognised text and you can take the subject from a well known book. You have presented a ,,revelation" on wikipedia, unrelated to the subject.
If you want, you can pay and I will give you lessons on how a Mass spectrometer works.
The sector instrument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sector_instrument), use a appropriate combination of magnetic and electric fields in order to reduce the size of a mass spectrometer or to ensure a better separation for closed mass ions. This does not means Lorenz force produce acceleration; without knowing the author of the text I think he made a good job. He presents the total force acting on the charged particle, but he does not make any reference to acceleration in magnetic field.
If you are able to point something useful at my theory, please do it. In other case, your stupid comments without any scientific fundamental, does not interest me.So, if you want to loose your time with comments unrelated to the science, avoid my posts.
Even I will be banned, I will not tolerate further stupid comments to my messages.
Do you think my theory is dependent on the nakedscientist site?
I have every month more then thousand new visitors on my site, so non me ne frega niente.
I have pointed with other occasions why I post here. You can have still another reason.
I want to see the face of professors from Cambridge physics department ( it must be reminded that Cambridge is the 2nd or 3rd ranked university in world) when this theory will be accepted, and they had this theory under their eyes. More than that, one of them (it is not important the name) as referent refuted the publication of articles from this theory.
If I will be banned, I will make a complain to the forum administrator to find his opinion.
From the people involved in physics, it is possible to separate at least 3 categories:
1. those who learn;
2. those who teach;
3. those who modify a theory of physics.
We are not in the XIX century when a brilliant mind like Faraday, without any scientific background, can change something in science. There is a huge amount of scientific information and who wants to be in 3rd category is obliged to have fullfiled the others.
I have fullfiled for decades both 1 and 2 conditions. Now I have conditions to change the fundamentals of physics.
You are at the stage 1 or 2 and you are not able to judge a new theory.
Therefore avoid to make at my posts, unscientific comments. If something is not clear, if you have any doubt, remember that you are in the 1 or 2 category and the author is in other category and you should respect him at least for his work. Of course, it is possible from my part to propose a completely wrong theory, but in this case, before making me idiot, you should demonstrate the absurdity of proposed materials. As I loose time making picture and writing math, you should respond in the same manner.
-
For having an idea that I made something in a mass spectroscopy field anyone can visit the link:
https://publications.european-patent-office.org/PublicationServer/getpdf.jsp?cc=EP&pn=1939142&ki=A1
A teacher only teach ....
A inventor should have something more...
-
sorin
Did you ever explain what you mean by acceleration? For a true Scientist, nothing should be too trivial to explain. Are you afraid to display your ignorance?
-
sorin
you are passing from a impotent to stupid.
And YOU are passing from ignorant to really offensive. Just stop it and learn to behave properly.
-
I think he's trying to get himself banned so he doesn't have to face up to being wrong. It doesn't worry me that he chooses to be wrong about my medical history- it's not as if anyone is taking him seriously.
Anyway Sorin, could you please show me any of these thousands of books etc?
All the books I have say that
1 the Lorenz force is a force
2 the particles have mass
Newton said that the acceleration is the force divided by the mass.
So, when you say "In the simplest case, when a particle enter into a uniform magnetic field with speed v, only the trajectory of particle is curved, but the particle escape from this uniform magnetic field with the same speed. "
I agree that's exactly what happens.
And the curvature of the path is due to the acceleration of the particle towards the centre of the circle that the curved path is part of.
You really need to understand that changing the direction of a particle means accelarating it even if the speed stays the same.
In English it's possible to distinguish between 2 ideas; speed and velocity by using those 2 different words.
In general use they mean the same thing, but in physics they have distinct meanings.
If I drive a car round a corner the spedometer will read (rougly)the same speed throughout. The passengers in the car will notice that they experience a force which is due to the change in velocity from (for example) North to East.
There's an acceleration (which is why the people feel a force) and the velocity changes but the speed stays the same.
BTW, I'm a chemist; I use mass spectrometers (not very often, I'm a UV/Vis spectroscopist) I know how they work, but I wouldn't take lessons (even for free) from someone who doesn't understand acceleration.
"If you are able to point something useful at my theory, please do it. "
I will, but don't hold your breath.
"In other case, your stupid comments without any scientific fundamental, does not interest me."
I think that pointing out that you are overlooking Newton's laws of motion is pretty fundamental.
"I want to see the face of professors from Cambridge physics department ( it must be reminded that Cambridge is the 2nd or 3rd ranked university in world) when this theory will be accepted, and they had this theory under their eyes."
I want to sleep with Kylie Minogue, and frankly, I think I have a better chance.
I'm sorry but I don't know what "More than that, one of them (it is not important the name) as referent refuted the publication of articles from this theory. "
"If I will be banned, I will make a complain to the forum administrator to find his opinion."
It will probably be because you are calling people rude names and ignoring repeated requests that you pay some attention to the laws of physics.
"From the people involved in physics, it is possible to separate at least 3 categories:
1. those who learn;
2. those who teach;
3. those who modify a theory of physics.
"
No, it is not possible to do that. How can anyone teach without learning?
It's also very hard to see how someone can learn without teaching. If the teacher tells me something and I misunderstand then , by that act, I show the teacher that they need to change the way they explain things.
Those who modify a theory must learn it first and, as such they are (as I said above) almost certainly teachers too.
All 3 groups are the same.
"We are not in the XIX century when a brilliant mind like Faraday, without any scientific background, can change something in science. "
True, and in this century you need both a brilliant mind and an understanding of science.
You have not shown any evidence that you posess either so I don't see how you can hope to change anything in science.
"I have fullfiled for decades both 1 and 2 conditions. Now I have conditions to change the fundamentals of physics."
You have not shown the ability to learn. You keep making the same silly mistakes- errors that a school student would be embarrased about- even after they have been pointed out.
"You are at the stage 1 or 2 and you are not able to judge a new theory. "
As I have said the categories are meaningless, but here's something you seem to have overlooked. It doesn't need a person with a degree or a doctorate to kill a new "theory". Anyone can do it. All they need to do is point out that it doesn't work.
I don't need to understand your new "theory" to show that, whereas you insist that the Lorenz force doesn't cause an accelaration, a mass spectrometer shows that it does.
Your "theory" doesn't agree with reallity and it's not reallity's fault.
"Therefore avoid to make at my posts, unscientific comments. If something is not clear, if you have any doubt, remember that you are in the 1 or 2 category and the author is in other category and you should respect him at least for his work."
Acvtually, you are not yet in the first category. Untill you learn to learn you will be in the zeroth category. Even a baby who cannot even frame a word, not yet able to understand the world round them, is better placed than you. The baby will learn but you will not.
The only people who get my respect are those who have earned it. You are a long way from that category.
"Of course, it is possible from my part to propose a completely wrong theory, but in this case, before making me idiot, you should demonstrate the absurdity of proposed materials."
How many times do I have to do this?
Your strange idea that requires a force, but no acceleration, is not only at odds with Newton's laws but it is directly observably false, in the mass spec experiment I showed earlier and in any CRT television or computer screen.
You are being absurd.
-
OK, let's make a last trial to turn the forum in a scientific discussion.
An experiment with magnetic field - charged particle interaction and another simplified experiment with electromagnetic induction are provided. Every comment must be related to scientific discusion and of course a demonstration of the absurdity of presented experiments is welcome.
charged particle in magnetic field
As reference a good text describing the actual interpretation is provided at: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/316/lectures/node73.html
For simplicity, let's consider a particle with speed v entering into a portion of magnetic field, and the same particle go out from magnetic field after a semi period, having the orientation of speed antiparalel to the original one, like in fig. 1.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Figure 1.
As is described in the link and written in every low or advanced physic book, a particle of mass m, moving in a circular orbit of radius r, with constant speed v, is acted by an acceleration expressed as mv exp(2)/r. This acceleration is always directed to the centre of the orbit so the acceleration is always perpendicular to the particle's instantaneous direction of motion.
In the same time a principle of electrodynamics admits that any charged particle when accelerate emits electromagnetic waves.
If a particle in a magnetic field is accelerated, it should emit electromagnetic waves. In the same time, at this level, the emission of electromagnetic waves is not continuous, but discrete according to Planck law.
If the charge emits electromagnetic wave how is possible to have ,,exactly” the same speed as initial one? When is the photon emitted? Does the emission take place at the entering into magnetic field, at the maximum curvature of the trajectory, at the escape from magnetic field?
Considering some usual data for v, B, it is possible to calculate the acceleration of particle and the frequency of emitted electromagnetic radiation. The specialists in the physics able to judge my theory should be able to make this calculation. I want to see this demonstration.
After performing this demonstration by actual adepts of orthodox physics interpretation, a second experiment must be performed.
A simple conductor with a current of intensity I (preferable of decades of amperes) is curved to 180 º as in fig. 2. The curvature of the conductor is supposed to be high enough in order to avoid the interaction between magnetic fields generated by the change of electric current direction.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Figure 2.
The curvature of conductor is made using mechanical action and as result of this action, acceleration over the electron moving into conductor is performed. As result of this mechanical action, two ammeter connected in the point 1 and 2 of the conductor should register for a time period a difference in the intensity of counted electric current. This is the prediction of actual orthodox physics, taking into consideration the movement of the electrons (with speed of mm/second) and the mechanical action suffered by conductor (greater then mm/second). Beside this, the change of charged particle direction of moving should lead to electromagnetic waves emission. I ask to have a complete demonstration of frequency of this emission in order to be performed an experiment to evidence it.
Electromagnetic induction simplified experiment
For the proposed experiment a circuit similar to one presented in a university course is necessary - http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/316/lectures/node88.html.
At this stage the experiments is hypothetical (even is very simple to be performed).
The circuit is composed from a conducting rod PM, moving along a U-shaped conducting frame, in the presence of a uniform magnetic field with magnetic induction B as in fig.1 . The magnetic field is directed into the page in the fig 1., perpendicular on the shape and the rod has a uniform motion to the right with constant velocity v.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Figure 1.
In the link a detailed discussion is provided, but we are interested only by origin of electric current in the shape.
Quote from site: ,,The magnetic field exerts a negligibly small force on the charge when it is traversing the non-moving part of the circuit (since the charge is moving very slowly). However, when the charge is traversing the moving rod it experiences an upward (in the figure) magnetic force of magnitude f =qvB (assuming that q>0).” In real case, the electrons are moving, so the force is downward and the electric current (according to accepted direction) is upwards.
In a previous message it was highlighted that according to actual electromagnetism there is a connection between n electromagnetism and geometry.
For the proposed experiment, only the shape of the rod PM is changed, more precisely from linear to angular. In order to have a simpler interpretation, the modified rod forms a rectangular isosceles triangle with PNM angle of 90º as in fig. 2
Let's see what the predictions of actual electromagnetism are when such rod is moving to the right with the same constant velocity v.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Figure 2. Modified rod experiment
Applying the Lorenz force in both side of the rod, it can be observed that Lorenz force is directed in both cases toward exterior of the frame. In both MN and NP sides of the rod, the Lorenz force is equal as value and opposite as direction. In this condition a ,,common sense “ interpretation should admit the non generation of an electric current in this particular case.
If, on the other side, experimentally, a current is counted in the circuit, actual physics should determine in what direction are the electrons moving: upward or downward.
In the fig. 2 a downward movement is supposed. Can be accepted as real such charge movement and it is possible to be accepted these simultaneously charge movement from two region of a circuit toward another region of circuit?
Maybe is necessary to redefine the electric current.
I wait especially from bikeman to correct my low level demonstration and after that he can express his philosophy and considerations about what is wrong and what is right.
In proposed theory, the electric current is not represented by a charge movement.
In proposed theory, a beam of charge does not emit electromagnetic radiation in an electric or magnetic field, at least for common B and E values. A beam of particle emits electromagnetic radiation when are interacting into an electric or magnetic field (see the Klystron principle as example). The case of high energy particle into accelerating field is treated separately in the future Elementary particle and nuclear physics book.
I will not tolerate further unscientific comments from those who are learning physics or from impotent intellectuals. Any demonstration of the absurdity of proposed experiment is welcomed.
-
Sorin,
First you said there was no acceleration, now you say there are two. The one that makes the paths circular and the one caused by energy lost to "synchrotron radiation".
Why the change of heart? Did you realise you were wrong?
-
BC, if you want to pass over the category of intellectual impotent, demonstrate your talents, make picture and math in my comments.
I had specified that experiment is performed with common B, v, etc values. I had specified that for high energy particle there will be a further treatment.
In the link specified http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/316/lectures/node73.html, (and in any book of low level physics) a particle entering into a magnetic field does not emits electromagnetic waves.
So you should demonstrate how a magnetic fields operate. It curved the actual trajectory (according to a classical mechanic is accelerated, according to a general relativity the curvature is a illusion because there are no ,,force", only the space around particle is modified), but in the same time it does not modify the absolute value of particle velocity, only its direction.
Does the magnetic interaction respect the third Newton law too? Why actual demonstration does not make any reference of ,,reaction" of magnetic field"? Of course is a small reaction, but it should implemented in the demonstration.
Long time ago lived a great man called Newton, who besides a huge and correct work in physics domain, made some mistakes. Two are more visible: the centrifugal-centripetal force related to absolute space and second the deviation of photons as result of mass attraction.
The next generations of physicists fought and still fight for the interpretation of this two errors.
The nature of the centripetal force and a entire new perspective of this problem is formulated in Gravitation theory, Relativity theory and in a further text called ,,Cinematic of motion".
The problem of photon deviation is solved in a book related to corpuscular nature of light.
First you demonstrate me and to other readers that you are able to write few math and to demonstrate the absurdity of upward experiments and after that maybe I will loose my time to explain you the centripetal acceleration.
-
Sorin, you are one rude young man!
-
Dear Sorin,
I'm sorry to say the time has come that I, and the other moderators, feel that the forum would be better off without your presence. There are a number of reasons, but I will highlight the 2 prime ones:
1. You are continually rude. This is a forum for science discussion - you have posted your ideas, and people are welcome to discuss the science in them. Often, people point out mistakes or misunderstandings on your part - these are not personal slights, but comments on the science in your posts. Your responses are frequently rude and you fail or refuse to adapt your ideas, or explain yourself. On occasion, others have been rude in response, and they have resultantly been asked to stick to the science. Accusing people of "intellectual impotence" whilst being unable to take on criticism is both offensive and hypocritical.
2. Our forum is not a place for people to put unpublished work in the hope that the association with Cambridge University will offer some credence to your ideas. Furthermore we will not be used to intentionally embarrass anyone from Cambridge, as is your intention stated here:
I want to see the face of professors from Cambridge physics department ( it must be reminded that Cambridge is the 2nd or 3rd ranked university in world) when this theory will be accepted, and they had this theory under their eyes. More than that, one of them (it is not important the name) as referent refuted the publication of articles from this theory.
If I will be banned, I will make a complain to the forum administrator to find his opinion.
You may complain to the forum administrator - he will agree with the moderators, who have discussed what action is appropriate.
As such, we will be banning you from the forum and deleting the majority of your posts. I wish you good luck with your research and hope you find the humility to accept the comments and advice of others. I'm sorry you were not able to engage with the forum in a mutually beneficial way as so many others have.
Ben