Post by: LB7 on 05/06/2015 11:44:22
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
Post by: jerrygg38 on 08/06/2015 01:34:14
Post by: LB7 on 08/06/2015 08:19:09
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 :)
Post by: LB7 on 10/06/2015 12:51:47
Post by: PmbPhy 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.
Post by: LB7 on 11/06/2015 17:30:23
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
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
after the particule move like 
, with 
and like the particule must move a full round for restart a round, more 
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
Post by: PmbPhy 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.
Post by: guest39538 on 13/06/2015 09:03:19
Quote from: LB7Why ? 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.
Post by: LB7 on 13/06/2015 09:12:42
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
. 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 :)
Post by: guest39538 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.
Post by: LB7 on 13/06/2015 09:23:23
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 !
Post by: guest39538 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.
Post by: LB7 on 13/06/2015 10:36:22
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.
Post by: guest39538 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?
Post by: LB7 on 13/06/2015 12:19:29
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 :
. 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.
Post by: Colin2B on 13/06/2015 15:37:29
Have you considered any other natural arrangements? Some circular items form a natural honeycomb when put together.
Post by: LB7 on 13/06/2015 16:21:45
Post by: PmbPhy on 13/06/2015 16:24:18
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.
Post by: LB7 on 13/06/2015 17:58:15
"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 ?
Post by: PmbPhy 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.You keep saying this but you keep refusing to define what the term "rotating field" means. Until you do your argument is meaningless.
"One what? " a rotating field
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.
Post by: LB7 on 14/06/2015 08:26:38
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.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3.postimg.org%2Fuhuwqgp2n%2Fx5x3.jpg&hash=e5da98836cbdda68d6be2b4c093b200c) (http://postimg.org/image/uhuwqgp2n/)
Post by: PmbPhy 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.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3.postimg.org%2Fuhuwqgp2n%2Fx5x3.jpg&hash=e5da98836cbdda68d6be2b4c093b200c) (http://postimg.org/image/uhuwqgp2n/)
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.
Post by: LB7 on 14/06/2015 14:41:35
Post by: Colin2B on 14/06/2015 14:51:39
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?
Post by: LB7 on 14/06/2015 16:01:31
But, the example it's in 2 dimensions not 3 and I take the second image for calculate not the first.
Post by: LB7 on 19/06/2015 17:30:41
Post by: gazza711 on 20/06/2015 21:27:00
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!Im no scientist, but why do we always assume attraction?
Post by: LB7 on 21/06/2015 21:32:03
Post by: jeffreyH on 21/06/2015 23:20:15
Post by: PmbPhy on 22/06/2015 00:13:29
If a field that extends to infinity is rotating then it will have an infinite angular velocity. I can't believe I am actually writing that. It doesn't makes sense. This is a major problem for your theory.That's because fields don't rotate.
Post by: LB7 on 22/06/2015 07:30:13
Post by: PmbPhy on 22/06/2015 10:13:34
Quote from: LB7
Like PmbPhy said: the field don't rotate. I thought it had a rotating field if particles rotate, but not. I thought like magnetism with a motor. Particles rotate like I described.It's meaningless to say that a particle rotates because by definition a particle is a point object and a point object has nothing which can be thought of as rotating. Even in the case of non-point particles like hadrons they can't be thought of as rotating because of the quantum mechanical nature of such entities doesn't permit such a description.
Post by: LB7 on 22/06/2015 10:47:23
It's meaningless to say that a particle rotates because by definition a particle is a point object and a point object has nothing which can be thought of as rotating. Even in the case of non-point particles like hadrons they can't be thought of as rotating because of the quantum mechanical nature of such entities doesn't permit such a description.
PmpPhy: A particle is not a charge it is the "system" that I drawn in the first message. And a charge + with a charge - is a dipole, no ? Because my "system" that I called particle is composed of a charge + and a charge -. For the rotating field I don't know if it exist or not maybe a bad analogy with magnetism, in my theory charges rotate.
JeffreyH :
Quote
If a field that extends to infinity is rotating then it will have an infinite angular velocity.Why, could you explain please ?
Post by: PmbPhy on 22/06/2015 10:56:40
Quote from: LB7
PmpPhy: A particle is not a charge ...Ummm ... who was talking about charge? I certainly wasn't.
Quote from: LB7
...it is the "system" that I drawn in the first message.It's a VERY bad idea to change the meanings of standard terms in physics. In any case I read the first post and there's nothing in it saying that a particle is any kind of system.
Quote from: LB7
And a charge + with a charge - is a dipole, no ? Because my "system" that I called particle is composed of a charge + and a charge -. For the rotating field I don't know if it exist or not maybe a bad analogy with magnetism, in my theory charges rotate.Then your theory doesn't correspond to reality unless the charge has a finite size such as a macroscopic pith ball with electrons spread over the surface.
Quote from: LB7
JeffreyH :Because angular momentum is defined as rxg where g is momentum density which is integrated over the field. If the field is too far from the center then its moving faster than the speed of light and it then becomes infinite. You should learn relativistic electrodynamics before attempting to do the things you're doing.QuoteIf a field that extends to infinity is rotating then it will have an infinite angular velocity.Why, could you explain please ?
Post by: LB7 on 22/06/2015 11:14:13
Because angular momentum is defined as rxg where g is momentum density which is integrated over the field. If the field is too far from the center then its moving faster than the speed of light and it then becomes infinite. You should learn relativistic electrodynamics before attempting to do the things you're doing.
What is momentum if mass don't exist ? If this theory is correct the laws of motion (Newton) are broken. Mass can be changed.
I don't understand why I can't have the systems like I drawn in rotation. The field of a charge (electron for example) extends to infinite, no ? Here, there are 2 charges in rotation, what's the problem ? Maybe the charges are quarks themselves, I don't know. For calculate I take the radius 0.4e-20m and the charge of 1.6e-19C.
I don't know if the charge of the "system" has a finite size or not. But the radius of the "system" is finite.
Post by: PmbPhy on 22/06/2015 14:38:46
Quote from: LB7
What is momentum if mass don't exist ?What on earth are you talking about? I thought that you said that you were an electrical engineer? Any such engineer knows that an electromagnetic field has both linear and angular momentum in it. You're most likely confusing rest mass with relativistic mass like so many amateurs do.
Quote from: LB7
If this theory is correct the laws of motion (Newton) are broken. Mass can be changed.Wrong. Newton's laws are far from being broken by any means. And the only time that the mass of an object can change is if it either gains or sheds material or when the relativistic mass of the body increases with speed. That's only noticeable at speeds near the speed of light.
Quote from: LB7
The field of a charge (electron for example) extends to infinite, no ?That's correct.
Quote from: LB7
Here, there are 2 charges in rotation, what's the problem ?The problem is that if you're thinking of the field of an extended object as being rigid when in fact it isn't. If there is an electric dipole that is rotating such that the charges are rotating in a plane about the center of the dipole then the field lines distort as it rotates. The field itself never moves though. All that happens is that there are changes in the field which propagate at the speed of light. Some electrical engineer you turned out to be.
Frankly I'd have to say that you're lying about being an electrical engineer. No such engineer is as ignorant about electrodynamics as you are.
Post by: LB7 on 22/06/2015 15:43:54
Frankly I'd have to say that you're lying about being an electrical engineer. No such engineer is as ignorant about electrodynamics as you are.
You can say I'm a bad electrical "engineer (In fact, like I said I'm Agrégé, it's better than engineer). But "lying" ? not at all, for me it's an insult, ask to admin I used my university email and my name and I'm on internet. I think you don't want to ear something else than your physics, so forget this thread and forget me please. I will never reply to your message again. Respect that you said before: don't read this thread please.
JeffreyH: how to link the angular velocity of the distance ? Maybe there is a limit. What is the bigger distance we detect gravity in Universe ? With a charge of 1.9e-19C the radius is 0.4e-20 m so the angular velocity is 7.5e+28 rd/s. In this case, what is the max distance ? Have you a formula please ? The size of Universe is something like 4e26 m.
Post by: PmbPhy on 22/06/2015 16:40:59
Quote from: LB7
You can say I'm a bad electrical "engineer (In fact, like I said I'm Agrégé, it's better than engineer). But "lying" ? not at all, for me it's an insult,You can take it any way that you wish but nobody with an electrical engineering degree "or better" has such a poor knowledge of electrodynamics as you do.
Quote from: LB7
...ask to admin I used my university email and my name and I'm on internet.Please send me your name and the university where you claimed to get your degree from and I promise you that I'll do exactly that. But we don't have access to your name or e-mail address.
Quote from: LB7
I think you don't want to ear something else than your physics, ..MY physics? Are you crazy? All I ever do is post on THE physics, i.e. as understood by the physics community.
Quote from: LB7
...so forget this thread and forget me please.I'll read and respond to anything I please. I'm sure not doing it for your benefit, that's for sure. Since you don't understand the physics that I've been explaining to you I'm wasting my time. If I post anything from now on its to correct the mistakes and erroneous assertions and misconceptions that you've been posting so that others won't be confused.
Quote from: LB7
I will never reply to your message again.That's a wise decision on your part. It means that you'll be making less mistakes that way.
Quote from: LB7
Respect that you said before: don't read this thread please.This has nothing to do with respect. You have chosen to post this in a physics discussion forum. You can't shut people up when they've proven you wrong or question the truth of your claims. I don't know you from a hole in the wall so why should I assume that you're being truthful. I was polite to start with but the more I read your responses the more I realized how little you know about electrodynamics. And I'm not about to let you post misinformation and let members go around believing nonsense just because you don't like your mistakes being pointed out to you or being called a liar when you claim to be something that you don't demonstrate having the knowledge of being.
Post by: LB7 on 22/06/2015 17:01:55
It could be interesting to have the max distance with an angular velocity of 7.75e28 rd/s.
The following code works for any distance, I used the law in 1/d (from electromagnetism not electrostatic forces)
Post by: LB7 on 04/05/2017 20:25:52
In 2 dimensions: in each basic mass-particle there are 2 external electromagnetic poles, one North, the other South. There are 2 inner electromagnetic poles too but at distance, the matter see only the 2 external poles. The basic mass-particle turn around itself, so it is like a rotor and at distance one rotor can force another rotor to be in phase (if the distance is not too high).
In 3 dimensions: I think the rotor can turn in 3d IF there are another rotors around it to change the orientation. It is not really a problem if the angular velocity is high enough. Maybe it is the precession that cause the 3d rotation itself.
Post by: LB7 on 06/05/2017 05:00:27
The electrostatic PUSH/PULL don't need any energy, the law is a function 1/d³, with 'd' the distance. I think the force is VERY HIGH.
The electromagnetism needs an energy, the energy must be created inside the device. The law is a function 1/d², with 'd' the distance. The force maybe is directly the gravity (a small force) but maybe it is a high force PUSH/PULL and the mean is small. I think, this is the delay + synchronization that could give the attraction. Gravity acts at high distance (in comparaison to the size of the basic-rotor) so the basic-rotor is a magnetic dipole and the rotor works in 3 dimensions even it is fixed. In that case, the force of gravity comes from the electromagnetism force directly and it is a small force, it is easier to build an antigravity motor.
Maybe the rotor turn very fast, maybe not, but at distance the mean value of attraction from electromagnetism is 0 with a perfect theoretical sensor (don't forget a real sensor have mass-particle inside it). The instant value with a perfect theoretical sensor is not 0. It is like measure a sinusoidal electric voltage, with a DC voltmeter the value is 0, with an oscilloscope it is possible to see the real wave. So, it could be easier to build an antigravity motor if the angular velocity of the rotor is small and if the value of the electromagnetic field is small. Like some people must tested (in the past) the AG with alternative magnetic fields, the frequency tested is not enough for gravity. The problem: how to create a frequency at 1e20 Hz ? Maybe with a Dirac function, the slope could give the good frequency, even it is for a small time, several LC circuit in parallel could select in one LC the good frequency, just to test this theory. The good LC circuit can give the good waves for decrease or increase the gravity of an object.
|------LC1------|
(1)-------- ---Dirac Generator ------|------LC2------|------------------(1)
|------LC3------|
The value of the frequency of the electromagnetic field could be calculated by physicists, because this theory must be coherent with the observation with the Universe.
The rotor must be simple:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FqtcSGj1.png&hash=1759eee7db4907325df55b9d71bdd0e6)
2 electrostatics charges in each mass-particle.
With N objects, the synchronization is not perfect, but the only problem is the inertia, it is possible 2 objects interract each others with the frequency 1e20 Hz and another one object with theses 2 last at a frequency of 0.5e20 Hz, the main function ONE TURN only because it is an attraction for each turn, the mean don't change with 1 round, 2 rounds, or 3.
Post by: LB7 on 13/09/2017 13:28:52
https://www.rt.com/news/403177-china-emdrive-space-travel/
?
Post by: Yahya on 13/09/2017 19:43:12
Mass don't exist: it is an electromagnetism repulsive force follows by an electromagnetic attraction, the sum is not 0 and the frequency is highbut it suddenly appears ( in case of objects contact) why it does not appear at distances? if it exists , when you remove weight from an object an object should jump as a result of this force.
Post by: LB7 on 13/09/2017 20:12:13
but it suddenly appears ( in case of objects contact) why it does not appear at distances?The forces I explained work at distance too. Imagine you push and pull something, if the force of pushing is the same than the force of pulling, the mean is zero. But at small distance (small distance for Universe!) the pulling is greater than the pushing so the object is like attracting, that we call gravitation, and we explain there is a mass. But there is no mass, it is a electromagnetic rotor. All objects are electromagnetic rotors. At small distance the mean is an attraction, but at big distance (Universe) the objects can be in "phase" so it could be a mean attraction or a repulsion.
if it exists , when you remove weight an object should jump as a result of this force
Why ? I didn't understand
Post by: Yahya on 13/09/2017 20:19:16
Post by: LB7 on 13/09/2017 20:26:03
you mean what intervene a mass when it touches another mass is not the existence of masses , but the force between them right?No, the mass doesn't exist, never. It is electromagnetism. Our body feels the mean. We called mass something like "electromagnetic rotor".
then when I press a table there are two forces " the repulsive force "and my force I exert with my hand , the resultant of the two is zero , but when I take away my hand the table should jump as a result of the existence of the "repulsive force"?The force you give to the table is a constant force, 5 second for example. The forces I explained have a very high frequency, maybe 1e40 Hz (less or more I don't know), so push a very short time compared to your hand, and pull a very short time too.
Post by: Yahya on 13/09/2017 20:58:03
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/09/2017 21:08:00
You are trying to produce gravitational attraction using electrical forces. this is correct.No it isn't.
Post by: LB7 on 14/09/2017 06:38:47
if the force not constant the "mass" will need some kind of continuous energy source to run.Yeah, all people says that, I don't understand why but it must be true (if you could explain I would be happy). The energy is not a problem, because, for me, the energy must be created and I explained in another thread my ideas to break the conservation of the energy in a closed device and I think I found.
The force of electromagnetism attraction respects the law 1/d² like gravity, because it is a magnetic force not an electrostatic force. At start, I thought it was an electrostatic push/pull but the law is 1/d³ so it must be the electromagnetism. And in this case, something must give the energy to apply that electromagnetism push/pull.
Post by: LB7 on 15/09/2017 10:19:46
Edit:
Gravity could be a repulsive force followed by an attractive force, the mean not at zero. You can imagine the matter like an electrostatic+electromagnetic rotor, each matter is a rotor, more or less in phase with others matters at distance, it depends of the distance. There is the electrostatic rotor and the electromagnetic rotor. The matter does not rotate itself, but something inside each particle that could create an electrostatic and electromagnetic field, I don't know what exactly. The electrostatic field is used to synchronized the matter at distance with to be in phase with the others matters around it, and the electromagnetic field is there to give what we call gravity. The amplitude of the electrostatic field is very high, high like the sum of the all electrostatic charge inside the matter, but the period of the signal is very small, small like the "dipole" that creates that field. The sign of the phase angle of the electromagnetic field varies from -1 to +1, so gravity can be attractive or repulsive. Maybe a simple electrostatic dipole {+/-} could be in rotation in each particle creates that fields. With that, gravity can change its sign or its value with the phase angle, and we don't need the dark matter. So, the mass doesn't exist. Nor the kinetic energy, it could be the deformation of that dipole, like deform an electric capacitor changes the potential energy. So, look (with good eyes :) ) the shape of that dipole and you could have the absolute velocity of the matter, yeah the straight velocity could start at 0 to 'c'. The dipole could be deformed by the straight velocity: the dipole is turning and it moves in translation too, one part of the dipole moves in the same direction than the rotation, the other part moves in the contrary direction than the rotation, but the velocity is limited by 'c' so the shape is deformed more and more with the straight velocity. It could explain the relative time too, the time to rotate one turn is what we call the relative time, more you move in translation, more you need time to make a round, it is like a quartz of a microprocessor, I supposed all the characteristics of each atom is link to that rotation of the dipole, even sure, the chemistry. And with that, there is an absolute time, what it that absolute time? I don't know. It could explain inertia or repulsive galaxy too. It could explain the attraction of a photon. OK, someone said to me I need an energy if something inside the particle create an electromagnetic field, I'm not sure, if I suppose all the matter have at start (big-bang) its own electromagnetic field, after, it is just exchange the electromagnetic field from each others. Or maybe he's right and I need an energy so my device to create/destroy the energy is welcomed.