The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Theory for Gravity, dark matter and negative gravity  (Read 4697 times)

Offline LB7

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Hi,

I resumed here a lot of my thoughts, like that you have a brief summary:

1/ Mass don't exist: it is an electromagnetism repulsive force follows by an electromagnetic attraction, the sum is not 0 and the frequency is high
2/ The kinetics energy don't exist, it is the modification of the potential energy stored in the electrostatic matter, like a capacitor when the distance between plates are increasing. When the velocity increases, the shape of capacitors changes so the potential energy too.
3/ Relativity is the time for the system for make its full round, like the clock of a microprocessor
4/ The Dark Matter don't exist because the mass can change, it's the amplitude of the signal
5/ Inertial mass = Gravitationnal mass because it's the same thing: the shape of the capacitor
6/ The formula of gravitation is like the formula of electrostatic and it's logical
7/ Galaxies can repulse themselves because the gravitation is the cosinus of the phase angle
8/ The photon is attracked by gravity because the photon has an electrostatic field

« Last Edit: 08/11/2015 16:18:52 by LB7 »


 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: Theory for Gravity, dark matter and negative gravity
« Reply #1 on: 08/06/2015 01:34:14 »
Although I don't quite follow your ideas, basically they appear good to me. You are trying to produce gravitational attraction using electrical forces. this is correct. Gravity is an electrical attraction. Yet it is a very small force compared to the usual electrical forces. Now consider an electron outside the proton and spinning around it. Also consider that the distance between proton and electron is expanding very slowly. Do you now see a current flow? Another atom under the same condition will have the same current flow. Two current flows in the same direction attract and there is gravity. Anyway see if you can produce charts for such events. Negative gravity would be antimatter verses matter. The dark energy is merely the energy of expansion of the atoms since big bang. then you have everything. Think about it!
 

Offline LB7

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Theory for Gravity, dark matter and negative gravity
« Reply #2 on: 08/06/2015 08:19:09 »
Thanks for your reply Jerry  :)

Maybe it's not clear what I explained, tell me where. Even I don't know where come from the basic "system" inside the matter, with this method I can attrack to 2 objects at a high distance like gravity does. If I build N macroscopic electrostatic rotors in a laboratory, I could reproduce the gravity. With a computer I can simulate gravity easily. I don't know another method for attack 2 objects at high distance (without an external object). The formulas for electrostatic and gravity varies by approximately a factor. This can explain the repulsive gravity. This can explain the modification of the mass. This method is simple. I think about Ludwig Boltzmann when he explained the origin of heating is collisions between atoms (really simple theory) nobody want to hear about its theory and humanity must wait 50 years for approuve it.

Quote
Do you now see a current flow?
yes, but someone explain to me that there is no field outside an atoms, maybe it's the mean that is at 0 not the snapshot of the field. But there is another problem: an electron, alone, has a mass, so the "system" must be in it. I prefer the point that rotates, even in 3d it must be okay, imagine the matrix in 3d, there will have an alternate of positive and negative too. The oscillation generate a dispertion at high distance, even Earth distance.

I'm not a physicist, I don't understand the string theory, I don't know 1% of the work of Einstein ( maybe it's 0.01%:) ). I'm engineer, specialized after in electric field, and I think with basic physics. I don't know and I can't explain or find where the basic "system" come from but I think the "oscillation" or the "angular velocity" is so small that it's difficult to detect it, maybe in this theory it's possible to find the origin of that macroscopic effect ? And the difficulty is: all sensors will be synchronized themselves with matters, so they can't detect nothing (execpt the macroscopic effect: gravity), or maybe someone has an idea for detect this field ?

Have a good day :)
« Last Edit: 14/06/2015 21:47:59 by LB7 »
 

Offline LB7

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Theory for Gravity, dark matter and negative gravity
« Reply #3 on: 10/06/2015 12:51:47 »
I give an example with Earth and Sun, it's not for have the same result but only for approximate and see if the rotor of Earth can attrack the rotor of Sun:


« Last Edit: 08/11/2015 16:19:11 by LB7 »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Theory for Gravity, dark matter and negative gravity
« Reply #4 on: 11/06/2015 15:21:25 »
Quote from: jerrygg38
Although I don't quite follow your ideas, basically they appear good to me. You are trying to produce gravitational attraction using electrical forces. this is correct. Gravity is an electrical attraction.
That's incorrect. Electricity and gravity are two different things which means that gravity is most definitely not an electrical attraction. Electrical attraction between a body and the source is defined by the charge on the body and the charge of the source. The acceleration of the body as a result of the force created by the source will depend on both the mass and charge of the body and the charge of the source.  Because of this the acceleration is a function of charge. However a charged body in a gravitational field due to an uncharged source accelerates at a rate which is independent of both the charge of the body and its mass and depends only on the mass of the source. Your idea cannot explain the gravitational attraction between two electrically neutral bodies which proves its wrong. For example, a neutron falls at the same rate as a proton and that acceleration depends only on the mass of the source (e.g. the mass of a planet)

Quote from: jerrygg38
Negative gravity would be antimatter verses matter.
That too is quite incorrect. Antimatter is merely matter with different values of charge and spin as its associated particle. But its just another particle just like any other particle. In fact it's quite literally impossible to determine whether a particle is antimatter or not since the particle which is called the antimatter is merely a matter of choice. All one can say is that two particles are matter/antimatter pairs. Therefore it would have been perfectly fine to define the electron as antimatter and the positron as matter.

Quote from: jerrygg38
The dark energy is merely the energy of expansion of the atoms since big bang. then you have everything. Think about it!
That too is incorrect. That's not what dark matter is. Dark matter is that matter which causes the universe to expand at an accelerating rate.
 

Offline LB7

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Theory for Gravity, dark matter and negative gravity
« Reply #5 on: 11/06/2015 17:30:23 »
Thanks for your reply PmbPhy

That's incorrect. Electricity and gravity are two different things which means that gravity is most definitely not an electrical attraction. Electrical attraction between a body and the source is defined by the charge on the body and the charge of the source. The acceleration of the body as a result of the force created by the source will depend on both the mass and charge of the body and the charge of the source.  Because of this the acceleration is a function of charge. However a charged body in a gravitational field due to an uncharged source accelerates at a rate which is independent of both the charge of the body and its mass and depends only on the mass of the source.
Why ? I can have a charge with a rotationnal field on it. The charge is the mean (with time). The mass is the amplitude and the angle phase of a rotationnal electrostatic field. The field turns very quickly. The field can't be detect because all matter will be in phase with it so the only thing it can detect is the mass...

The only problem I need to resolv is the inertia, where come from the inertia with this theory ? I'm working on it.An idea: Maybe the kinetic energy is only the energy stocks in the capacitor of the particle. When an object increase its linear velocity, the field move faster in the direction of the velocity. This difference of velocity (like an helice of an helicopter) maybe change the distance between charges. The energy stocked in a capacitor is a4f6e0e081dfb4acec08fa12358be816.gif charges don't change but the distance between charges can change. If the distance between charges increases the energy increases. In this case, the inertia is the difficulty to separate the charges.

An another problem is the time (relativity), it's possible to explain the slower time when the velocity is higher. When the "system" turn like a helice a part of particule move at 05837d5a03933e146c6004c88ea5ca56.gif after the particule move like a02355bce38120ba6aad2f25bdc8cf0a.gif, with 1791b5e4b496e18f88bf40c5a5012635.gif and like the particule must move a full round for restart a round, more 9ef5db61af0c0d69875ff753a249bd2f.gif is higher more the time for make a round is higher. So this could explain why the time is slower, it's not the universal time but the time for the particle for "live" its "internal clock". I hope it's clear enough:

The Universal time is always the same. The linear velocity change only the internal clock of the particule and like this internal clock drives all things from the particle like the physical or chimist features, it's possible to measure it with physical sensors and sure the life (human life) goes slower. It's like change the clock of a computer.

Your idea cannot explain the gravitational attraction between two electrically neutral bodies which proves its wrong. For example, a neutron falls at the same rate as a proton and that acceleration depends only on the mass of the source (e.g. the mass of a planet)
This theory could explain how a neutron can attrack a neutron, because a neutron is composed of quarks, and a quark has an electrostatic charge, all charges in a neutron can give an attraction, like I explain with another particles. Each charge could have a mass.


That too is quite incorrect. Antimatter is merely matter with different values of charge and spin as its associated particle. But its just another particle just like any other particle. In fact it's quite literally impossible to determine whether a particle is antimatter or not since the particle which is called the antimatter is merely a matter of choice. All one can say is that two particles are matter/antimatter pairs.
I'm agree, nothing in relation with the antimatter.

Therefore it would have been perfectly fine to define the electron as antimatter and the positron as matter.
Why, would you explain please ?

This theory can explain easily:

1/ Repulsive gravity: change the angle phase for that
2/ Attraction of a photon by a mass
3/ Dark matter and dark energy: with this theory it's possible to change the mass, for that change the amplitude of the signal
4/ The analogy between the formula of electrostatic and the formula of the gravity
5/ The gravitationnal waves
6/ Time and relativity
7/ Inertia
8/ Inertial mass = gravitationnal mass
« Last Edit: 08/11/2015 16:19:34 by LB7 »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Theory for Gravity, dark matter and negative gravity
« Reply #6 on: 13/06/2015 02:33:33 »
Quote from: LB7
Why ? I can have a charge with a rotationnal field on it.
What kind of engineer did you say you are? I myself am a physicist whose specialty is relativity. I have a strong understanding of relativistic electrodynamics and that includes the fields generated by moving sources.

What I want to ask you is what do you mean by rotational field? You do understand, don't you, that the idea of a field that is moving is physically meaningless. In fact it leads to a few paradoxes. The only notion even remotely connected with moving fields are EM waves. Even then the field isn't really moving. It's the disturbance that moves. The field itself at a particular place varies with time in such a way (i.e. using Fourier analysis) that a wave propagates.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: Theory for Gravity, dark matter and negative gravity
« Reply #7 on: 13/06/2015 09:03:19 »
Quote from: LB7
Why ? I can have a charge with a rotationnal field on it.
What kind of engineer did you say you are? I myself am a physicist whose specialty is relativity. I have a strong understanding of relativistic electrodynamics and that includes the fields generated by moving sources.

What I want to ask you is what do you mean by rotational field? You do understand, don't you, that the idea of a field that is moving is physically meaningless. In fact it leads to a few paradoxes. The only notion even remotely connected with moving fields are EM waves. Even then the field isn't really moving. It's the disturbance that moves. The field itself at a particular place varies with time in such a way (i.e. using Fourier analysis) that a wave propagates.

Hi Pete, the only rotational electrical field I can think about is Faraday's electromagnetic field.

Sorry LB I am not qualified to understand your idea in full.
 

Offline LB7

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Theory for Gravity, dark matter and negative gravity
« Reply #8 on: 13/06/2015 09:12:42 »
PmbPhy:

I'm engineer in technical factory area. But my title "agrégé" is a master degree in electric area, but sure not in physics not in particule area. I know what you want to say, "an electron don't turn": ok, but in a magnet if electrons don't turn there is no magnet, so I know it's a global "rotation" not a true like mind can imagine. I speak with someone in Lapp lab (it's near my University) and the problem for her is not the "rotation", for her the problem it's the time (relativity) and the quantic model. I give an explanation for the time but it's true I can't explain why a positive charge attrack a negative charge. In the week I will speak with someone in another lab.

If you could let down one time the origin of the "rotating" field. Take like hypothesis: there is one. And think with that hypothesis to look if this can explain negative g, the attraction of a photon, etc. If a theory can explain all these things, and with a simple theory, it's great. After, and after, it's necessary to look if there is something like that in the matter. If this theory can work, maybe the matter works like that, it's not sure.

Thebox:

I think the "rotating" field that is not discovered for now. An hypothesis field. Maybe 24cf53eee75e6b0c55df2c0cd098c789.gif. Something that it's not possible to measure with sensor because sensors will be in phase with the "rotating" field. Like I said maybe take the hypothesis that the field exist and look if all strange problems like negative g is resolved with it ?

I hope I use good words, have a good day :)
« Last Edit: 13/06/2015 09:19:43 by LB7 »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: Theory for Gravity, dark matter and negative gravity
« Reply #9 on: 13/06/2015 09:18:20 »
I'm engineer in technical factory area. But my title "agrégé" is a master degree in electric area, but sure not in physics not in particule area. I know what you want to say, "an electron don't turn": ok, but in a magnet if electrons don't turn there is no magnet, so I know it's a global "rotation" not a true like mind can imagine. I speak with someone in Lapp lab (it's near my University) and the problem for her is not the "rotation", for her the problem it's the time (relativity) and the quantic model. I give an explanation for the time but it's true I can't explain why a positive charge attrack a negative charge. In the week I will speak with someone in another lab.

If you could let down one time the origin of the "rotating" field. Take like hypothesis: there is one. And think with that hypothesis to look if this can explain negative g, the attraction of a photon, etc. If a theory can explain all these things, and with a simple theory, it's great. After, and after, it's necessary to look if there is something like that in the matter. If this theory can work, maybe the matter works like that, it's not sure.

I hope I use good words, have a good day :)

You said you was teacher at university and now you say you are ''I'm engineer in technical factory area.''


are you a troll?

And surely a teacher know's to put I am a teacher, rather than i'm teacher.

 
« Last Edit: 13/06/2015 09:20:12 by Thebox »
 

Offline LB7

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Theory for Gravity, dark matter and negative gravity
« Reply #10 on: 13/06/2015 09:23:23 »
Not a troll  [:(!], I graduated engineer and I worked like an engineer, after I passed an exam "agrégé" what's the problem ? ask to admin to look at my University address if you want to verify, and he can verify I'm working near the Lapp. You read something only if someone has the good graduate ? Really ?

You said you was teacher at university and now you say you are ''I'm engineer in technical factory area.''
are you a troll?
And surely a teacher know's to put I am a teacher, rather than i'm teacher.

Thebox: I'm not english, so after the graduate, it's the english, great !
« Last Edit: 13/06/2015 09:42:36 by LB7 »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: Theory for Gravity, dark matter and negative gravity
« Reply #11 on: 13/06/2015 09:59:08 »
Not a troll  [:(!], I graduated engineer and I worked like an engineer, after I passed an exam "agrégé" what's the problem ? ask to admin to look at my University address if you want to verify, and he can verify I'm working near the Lapp. You read something only if someone has the good graduate ? Really ?

You said you was teacher at university and now you say you are ''I'm engineer in technical factory area.''
are you a troll?
And surely a teacher know's to put I am a teacher, rather than i'm teacher.

Thebox: I'm not english, so after the graduate, it's the english, great !

Please do not be offended , that is not my intentions, thank you for explaining English was not your native language.   Phrases like this ''I graduated engineer and I worked like an engineer''   suggest you was not an engineer but worked like an engineer?

You said in the opening post you was a teacher at a university and then later said, I'm engineer in technical factory area, Universities have technical factories?

I am sorry but your English is contradictory.

To be understood on a science forum you have to try to be precise in your explanations or you will not be understood.



 

Offline LB7

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Theory for Gravity, dark matter and negative gravity
« Reply #12 on: 13/06/2015 10:36:22 »
Ok Thebox, I have some problems with my english, I know it and I'm sorry if I don't use the good words :) I'm not sure it's very important what I passed like graduate or what I done before. But consider me like an electrical engineer

If I wrote here, it's because I think english people are likely open-minded than french in physics area. I know I say: mass don't exist ! It's not easy to ear. But I can explain a lot of things that current theories can't.
« Last Edit: 14/06/2015 21:52:04 by LB7 »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: Theory for Gravity, dark matter and negative gravity
« Reply #13 on: 13/06/2015 10:59:41 »
Ok Thebox, I have some problems with my english, I know it and I'm sorry if I don't use the good words :) I'm not sure it's very important what I passed like graduate or what I done before. When I said I'm engineer, it's because I passed an exam, but I don't work like engineer now. Now, I'm teacher at University. I have a special exam called "agrégé" in France, specialised in electric area (master level) but I'm teaching in software programming.

If I wrote here, it's because I think english people are likely open-minded than french in physics area. I know I say: mass don't exist ! It's not easy to ear. But I can explain a lot of things that current theories can't.

Thank you , now I understand what you was saying ,  you say mass does not exist? mass is of matter, and a term we use to describe the ''hidden'' forces in matter that is relative to gravity..

''mass definition- In physics, the property of matter that measures its resistance to acceleration. Roughly, the mass of an object is a measure of the number of atoms in it. The basic unit of measurement for mass is the kilogram. (See Newton's laws of motion; compare weight.)''

Mass is a term, that exists and has meaning. From what I have read I think you are trying to explain what mass is, and what the mechanism of gravity is?

Both subjects, (but I am not qualified or a scientist), I am familiar with.   I considered polarisation of ''charge'' of particles. It would be simply convenient if it was as simple as a + and - matrix.

Can you explain in a few simple sentences what your idea is please?




 

Offline LB7

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Theory for Gravity, dark matter and negative gravity
« Reply #14 on: 13/06/2015 12:19:29 »
I think it could be like that, I don't say it's the truth:

What I call particle is something. What ? I don't know.

The gravity is only an effect that you feel and matter feels too. Imagine something that pull you and push you each 1e-40s but the sum of push and pull is not 0, it is the gravitation. The gravitation is a field in rotation that push and pull. All matter will be in phase with this external field so it's for that a matter attrack a matter except when it's not possible to be in phase : when galaxies are far from each others. The sign of the gravity is the cosinus of the phase angle.

The mass don't exist. It is a "rotor" (something complex and I can't explain easily) with a field in rotation. When you want to move an object, the field in rotation changes the shape of the internal charged particle. When the shape changes, you change the capacity because you change the distance of the capacitor. The kinetic energy don't exist, it is an electrostatic energy stored in capacitors. Each particle is a capacitor. Inertial mass = gravitationnal mass, sure it is the same, because this is the same thing. It's possible to change the mass of an object by changing the amplitude of the signal.

The time is changing with linear velocity (relativity) and it's normal. A particle has an "internal clock". A particle turns around itself, this rotation is the internal clock, all physic characteristics of the particle depend of this rotation (I don't know how) but if you change the time of the rotation this will change the characteristics and chimics too. What we call the time, is not the the Universal time it's only the internal clock, it's the same when you change the clock of a microprocessor, the program runs slower. The particle turns, so one part turns in the direction of the linear velocity and the another part turns in the contrary. For make a round it takes more and more time because the linear velocity prevent the particle for make its turn. One good thing, the velocity of the particle is known it's : 4a8a08f09d37b73795649038408b5f33.gif. I do the comparaison with a quartz, imagine a microprocessor with its quartz, for have a clock time you need a cycle, the up part of the cycle is ok but not the down part, it takes more and more time, so the microprocessor runs slower.

A particle is something with a positive and negative sign, someting that turns with a speed limit, something that can store energy like a capacity, even at mean the electrostatic charge is 0, it is not 0 all the time.

When a positive charge "meets" a negative charge, they exchange a photon (a Boson !) and when a mass "meets" a mass they exchange a Boson of Higgs, it's the same familly of the photon. I need to find what is this particle and why a positive charge attrack a negative charge. I'm working on it.

I hope it's clear enough, tell me.

« Last Edit: 13/06/2015 13:12:57 by LB7 »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 125 times
    • View Profile
Re: Theory for Gravity, dark matter and negative gravity
« Reply #15 on: 13/06/2015 15:37:29 »
You say "The matrix is a staggered row of positive and negative charges, like this:"
Have you considered any other natural arrangements? Some circular items form a natural honeycomb when put together.
 

Offline LB7

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Theory for Gravity, dark matter and negative gravity
« Reply #16 on: 13/06/2015 16:21:45 »
Yes I tried, but I don't find a good solution for have the good value of the force between 2 objects. Maybe it's not a problem of arrangement and only a problem of the amplitude of the field and the frequency or an asymetric cycle of the frequency. If I take directly all charges in 2 objects the force is too high. If I take an arrangement like I drawn the force is too small.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Theory for Gravity, dark matter and negative gravity
« Reply #17 on: 13/06/2015 16:24:18 »
LB7 - You didn't answer my question. What did you mean when you used the term rotational field?

Quote from: LB7
I'm engineer in technical factory area. But my title "agrégé" ...
Please don't make any assumption that anybody reading this thread will know what the term "agrégé" means. What does it mean anyway?

Quote from: LB7
...is a master degree in electric area,
Do you're an electrical engineer then.

Quote from: LB7
I know what you want to say, "an electron don't turn":
Nope. Please don't try to read my mind. I always say exactly what I mean. For example: Suppose you have a flat disk of uniform charge density. As this disk starts to rotate about its axis of symmetry it will generate a magnetic field because there are charges in motion. But you can't say that the electric field is rotating with the disk. A similar thing holds with magnets. If you have a cylinder having a uniform magnetization and you start rotating it about its axis of symmetry then it will generate an electric field. In fact a non-zero charge density will appear on the surface, positive in some areas, negative in other areas, the total, charge remaining zero of course. I explain the physics here and derive the charge density there too: http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/em/rotating_magnet.htm
ok, but in a magnet if electrons don't turn there is no magnet, so I know it's a global "rotation" not a true like mind can imagine. I speak with someone in Lapp lab (it's near my University) and the problem for her is not the "rotation", for her the problem it's the time (relativity) and the quantic model. I give an explanation for the time but it's true I can't explain why a positive charge attrack a negative charge. In the week I will speak with someone in another lab.

Quote from: LB7
If you could let down one time the origin of the "rotating" field.
Sorry but your poor English is now becoming a problem since I have no idea what you're attempted to say here. What does it mean for me to "let down one time the origin etc"?  I'm not interested in the origin of the term. Just its meaning.

Quote from: LB7
Take like hypothesis: there is one.
One what?  One doesn't simply take hypotheses as true unless there are experimental facts to back to confirm it.

Quote from: LB7
And think with that hypothesis to look if this can explain negative g, the attraction of a photon, etc.
Again, I don't know what that means. Also negative g doesn't mean gravitational repulsion if that's what you're trying to use it for/

Quote from: LB7
If a theory can explain all these things, and with a simple theory, it's great.
Not necessarily. The hypotheses must also not contradict any experiment that's ever been done and that's a lot. By this I mean it has to be consistent with all the observations of nature which we know can be made or has been made.

 

Offline LB7

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Theory for Gravity, dark matter and negative gravity
« Reply #18 on: 13/06/2015 17:58:15 »
If you could let down one time the origin of the "rotating" field. = I would like to say: try to think with a hypothesis: the rotating field exist.

"One what? " a rotating field

For me negative g is repulsive but maybe it's not the good words in physics

"The hypothesis must also not contradict any experiment that's ever been done and that's a lot. " like what ?
« Last Edit: 13/06/2015 18:10:43 by LB7 »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Theory for Gravity, dark matter and negative gravity
« Reply #19 on: 14/06/2015 06:34:49 »
Quote from: LB7
If you could let down one time the origin of the "rotating" field.
At this point I'd like to ask you to have someone check your work before you post it to make sure that your English can be understood. In this case the statement "let down one time" is not a meaningful statement in the English language. I.e. no English speaking person is able to understand what you mean by this. People are being forced to guess and I don't want to guess as to what you mean. I never think that it's a good idea to try to read someone's mind.

Quote from: LB7
= I would like to say: try to think with a hypothesis: the rotating field exist.

"One what? " a rotating field
You keep saying this but you keep refusing to define what the term "rotating field" means. Until you do your argument is meaningless.
For me negative g is repulsive but maybe it's not the good words in physics

Quote from: LB7
"The hypothesis must also not contradict any experiment that's ever been done and that's a lot. " like what ?
For example: if someone's theory (not necessarily yours, this is just to make it clear what I meant) predicts that the force on a charged particle exerted by another charged particle will cause the particle to accelerate at a rate which is independent of the body's mass then they theory is wrong.
 

Offline LB7

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Theory for Gravity, dark matter and negative gravity
« Reply #20 on: 14/06/2015 08:26:38 »
I do the best I can PmbPhy I understood it's not enough for you. I'm sorry for that.

The field: imagine each matter is a rotor with N poles. I don't know the amplitude of a pole. I don't know the frequency. I don't know N. But take an example with only 2 rotors with 8 electrostatic poles (positive, negative, positive, etc) and rotates them in space at the same angular velocity: the attraction must be different than repulsion. The sign (repulsion or attraction) depends of the phase angle. If you want calculations look at my first message for 2 poles.

« Last Edit: 14/06/2015 13:38:10 by LB7 »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Theory for Gravity, dark matter and negative gravity
« Reply #21 on: 14/06/2015 14:09:24 »
I do the best I can PmbPhy I understood it's not enough for you. I'm sorry for that.

The field: imagine each matter is a rotor with N poles. I don't know the amplitude of a pole. I don't know the frequency. I don't know N. But take an example with only 2 rotors with 8 electrostatic poles (positive, negative, positive, etc) and rotates them in space at the same angular velocity: the attraction must be different than repulsion. The sign (repulsion or attraction) depends of the phase angle. If you want calculations look at my first message for 2 poles.



I don't see what you mean by "poles". The only place that the term "pole" is used in electrodynamics is when it refers to the north and south poles of a bar magnet. And here there are only charged particles and no magnets.

I'm not going to continue in this thread. It's too confusing and the ideas are so poorly expressed that I've grown tired of squeezing the true nature of what you have in mind out of you.
That's not a rotating field in the physics sense of those terms. Such a distribution of charge will generate electromagnetic radiation and time varying electric and magnetic fields. But there's nothing that could be thought of as rotating fields here.
 

Offline LB7

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Theory for Gravity, dark matter and negative gravity
« Reply #22 on: 14/06/2015 14:41:35 »
I wrote "pole" because in the full theory it is more complex than that, and it's really a positive charge is associated with a negative charge. I gave this simple example for understand the rotating field that you requested before.
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 125 times
    • View Profile
Re: Theory for Gravity, dark matter and negative gravity
« Reply #23 on: 14/06/2015 14:51:39 »
A sticking point here is your use of term rotating field. A field is defined in physics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)
To use the example given there of wind on a weather map, the map is the field and it is the value or intensity of the wind that is varying. To talk about a rotating field in this context would mean turning the weather map. You can however talk about the values of the field varying, so in your system we would talk about the charges rotating.

Looking at your diagram it seems to me that if the charges rotate as described they will just set up an oscillation. You ought to be able to simulate this with some magnets attached to rotating discs.

Do I understand your calculation correctly?
"Numerical application with d=1 and R=0.2: F=2.38 N

The force with two straight chages is 2N"

The distance between the rotating charge centres is 1m, radius of rotating charges is 0.2m?

 

Offline LB7

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Theory for Gravity, dark matter and negative gravity
« Reply #24 on: 14/06/2015 16:01:31 »
"The distance between the rotating charge centres is 1m, radius of rotating charges is 0.2m?" correct. You calculated the mean force and for you it's 0 with any position ?

But, the example it's in 2 dimensions not 3 and I take the second image for calculate not the first.
« Last Edit: 14/06/2015 18:54:30 by LB7 »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Theory for Gravity, dark matter and negative gravity
« Reply #24 on: 14/06/2015 16:01:31 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums