1

New Theories / Re: Can scientific beliefs be compared to religous dogma?

« on: 23/10/2018 20:02:27 »

In what  way is that a problem?

Because, you are a slave of the observations. And not all things can be observed because too fast and/or too small. You need something more powerful than observations. People observe and build, it is not idiot but it is copy/paste nothing else.

2

New Theories / Theory about gravity, mass and time

« on: 11/05/2018 17:33:51 »

I post again my theory about gravity because maybe it is linked with my theoretical device to create/destroy the energy like Opportunity wrote.

Resume:

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. issuu.com lbu19011971 docs tgbe. The amplitude of the electrostatic field is very high, high like the sum of the all electrostatic positive (or negative) charges inside the matter, but the period of the signal is very small, small like the "dipole" that creates that field and that dipole is very small, smaller than the particle itself. 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 linked 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, and in that case the mass is only the energy created by the dipoles ?

3

New Theories / Re: What causes motion?

« on: 06/04/2017 16:27:03 »

Big bang is motion. Time is independent from motion.

For me, the motion creates the time.