341

New Theories / Re: Equivalence Principle

« on: 12/08/2019 07:53:42 »

The craft is under acceleration of 1 g.  Like the surface of earth. We need Very high rate clocks, so the equipment can be desktop size.   The ship does not spin.

A gravity field has a clock rate gradient, that will vary with distance.  That gradient is more or less static.

The ship clock rate will vary with velocity. 

One depends on where you are, and the other depends on how fast you are.

A battery of multi directional inline static clocks, and a battery of perpendicular spinning clocks, on the desktop in ship, should discern the difference.

342

New Theories / Equivalence Principle

« on: 12/08/2019 01:31:42 »

I think there is a difference. between a windowless room and a spacecraft.  Arrange two clocks in line with the suspected force.  If the clocks have different rates...it's gravity and if the clocks are equal, it's a rocket ship out in space.

The problem occurs when the rocket ship flies thru a gravity field.  In this case, rotate two clocks across a diameter horizontally. And two clocks rotating in a vertical diameter.  Comparing clock rates and clock rotational position, should indicate the strength and direction of a gravity field.

343

General Science / Re: energy of photon and exciting electrons

« on: 30/07/2019 00:12:27 »

It's not the amount of energy, it's the rate.  Trying to understand our physical reality thru the study of mass and energy will always lead you down a false path.

The reason that all physical dynamics are the same thru-out the cosmos.......is NOT because of energy and mass.

What unifies all............is structure.  ONE STRUCTURE.  That structure is what causes the discreet property of energy.  The structure manufactures and orientates all of the physical properties.

Talking or premising structure on the sub atomic level is forbidden in our modern science.

This is why they can not relate EM to gravity.  This structure ties everything together with common mechanics.

But modern science preaches that reality can not be understood in a physical manner.

It has to have magic.

If you take a proton, reverse it's time line, accelerate it, it will become a positron.  That positron will have the exact same energy levels as an electron.  If you take an electron, reverse it's time line. accelerate it, it will become an anti-proton.........AND it will have the exact same energy levels as a proton.

WHY?   

structure.  They have the same structure.

344

New Theories / Re: What is Mankind's Greatest Tool?

« on: 28/07/2019 04:20:56 »

The helical(not related to rolling) orbit that I described was confirmed by observing planetary moons flying thru volcanic/geyser debris fields.  The multiple orbital revolutions produce the pattern of debris into a torus.  Very similar to the new black hole photos.  I have also read that ring particles orbit in a similar manor, but with multiple rotations or pitch.  With very few collisions. I don't think the orbit of comets or asteroids are in orbital equilibrium.   And therefore not many left.....they loose momentum on every pass, because they don't helix.

The helical orbit conserves momentum.  They stay.  The rings stay too.

I do not recall any previous/ancient theory for this.  This is a newly realized dynamic.

345

General Science / Re: What are we all doing here?

« on: 28/07/2019 04:16:24 »

"And that path is called a worldline. We all got here following our own unique worldlines."

So if we are following, does that mean that I had to come here?

"Gravity is nature's attempt to equalize the forces of action and reaction in a grand universe that cannot be equalized."

I was taught that action and re-action are already equal.

346

New Theories / What is Mankind's Greatest Tool?

« on: 27/07/2019 02:08:49 »

Man's first and greatest tool.......a sharpened stick.  A stick with a pointy end.

For thousands of years, men have pointed their sharp sticks to the dark skies.

They have measured the direction, the angle and the time, to the light spots in the night sky.

And for the light spots that moved........everyone's pointy sticks showed that these moving lights traveled in a elliptic path around the sun.  Every one of them.

So, being good scientists, they started to mathematically study ellipses.  Have you ever done this....mathematically study an ellipse?  Some think that an ellipse is a simple thing, but they are not.  And with further close study, the planet ellipses are not perfect, they have small deviations, which are explained as anomalies.....external gravitational effects.

I would like to propose an alternate solution to an elliptical orbital path.  I believe this THIS is the way that nature makes an ellipse.

Mathematically an ellipse has two centers, or origins.  I believe that these two centers are located in the wrong position.  And I also believe that these two origins are perpendicular to each other.  AND, that one of the origins is moving.

So, to construct a natural ellipse, first draw the Main origin.  Will we use the center of the sun for this, but we need one more condition.  The radius that comes from the main origin(sun) can only swing in the sun's equatorial plane.  So take the average distance from the sun(we will use 93 million miles), and draw a center line around the sun at 93 M miles on the sun's plane.  Now, go to that center line, that center line, now becomes, the origin of the second circle of the ellipse.  Attach another radius the the center line.  This radius is about 1.5 millions miles long.  This radius is perpendicular the the first radius.  So, what we have is a radius of 93 M miles((R1) and another radius of 1.5 M miles(R2).  Again, these radii swing/sweep perpendicular to each other.

The real magic of this, is the rotational ratios.  For every one rotation of R1, we have one rotation of R2.

If we stand on the center line, and follow the earth around the sun for a year......the earth will rotate at a 1.5Mmile R from that center line one time.  So the earth's first rotation has a R of 1.5 M miles, which takes one year, and the earth's second rotation has a R of 93 M miles and takes one year.  Catty corner rotations.

So, a planetary orbit has TWO rotations.  And one origin is static and the other origin is moving.  The orbit is actually a CLOSED(circular) HELICAL path.  With a pitch of 1.

BUT.....if you look at the orbit from on top the sun, the path will APPEAR to be an ellipse......but in reality, it is a helix.   If we change the length of R2........we can vary the apparent flatness of the ellipse.  But as long as the rotational ratio remains at 1 to 1......it will appear as a ellipse.  Also.......the length of R2.....determines the inclination from the sun's equatorial plane.  AND the flatness of the "ellipse"........which really isn't there.

You can find the R2 of any planet.  Just take the perigee and subtract it from the apogee....this gives the diameter of the first R2 rotation.  Divide that by 2 for the R2 radius.

The other thing to consider is this.........all of the gravitational theories have to satisfy this elliptical path.........which is not there.


Nature's ellipse is much more elegant.  What a beautiful motion.

347

Just Chat! / Re: Can science prove God exists?

« on: 26/07/2019 07:12:33 »

Why is life the only singularity ever detected?  Life is NOT natural.

348

Technology / Re: Why does the South American sewage system not cope with toilet paper?

« on: 26/07/2019 06:31:03 »

I was told that it was the toilet paper.  The toilet paper at certain countries will not dissolve like ours.  It clogs everything.

349

General Science / Re: What are we all doing here?

« on: 26/07/2019 06:20:33 »

I come here to see if I can get a better understanding of what mass or matter is, and what the cause of gravity is. 

I think I have a realistic model of matter, but only have a path to follow for gravity.

350

General Science / Re: What is difference between matter and antimatter ??

« on: 26/07/2019 06:09:41 »

"How does one differentiate between matter and antimatter ??"   I know of three common sense ways to check for anti-matter.  This is because of 3 inversions with anti-matter.

The inversions are mass(and angular momentum), electrical polarity, and dipole direction.  And the cause of all three inversions is the handedness of charge.

"The Universe has more matter than anti matter but just barely ? How do we know that??"

Anti-matter has always been just a trace of normal matter.  I don't see evidence of equal amounts at any time.   Although, there is a very good chance that anti-matter might be able to be made in a cheap manner.  It needs to be generated at time of use.  If so, we could have some extremely clean and efficient, and small, but powerful, power sources.

"If the contrary were true what would happen?"

It can't happen.  Unlike an equation, physical law is hard to naturally invert.  It needs a scarce condition to occur.  That condition is being able to accelerate the seed particle backwards.  And that is not as easy as it sounds.  When one reverses either field on a particle, the particle will turn around......we need to hit it before it turns.  That will invert the normal charge, into an inverted charge.......which is what anti-matter is.

If one could apply a high voltage electric field fast enough, we should be able to build a matter---anti-matter engine.  Like controllable small scale lightening chambers.  The only shielding needed would be for gamma.  And catching that gamma in that shield.........could be a DC or AC source.  With no by-products.  The future is bright for young fellas.  Not with fusion, but with anti-matter.

And of course, there are other anti-matter theories that one might consider.   But the quickness of a lightening strike does generate anti-matter.  I believe that anti-matter is not created, but just an inversion of normal matter.

This would explain, but also remove the mystery.   Only hardware will tell for sure.