Post by: Dave Lev on 20/04/2018 18:30:54
http://www.biocab.org/Motions_of_the_Solar_System.jpg
http://www.biocab.org/Coplanarity_Solar_System_and_Galaxy.html
It has a swing motion of 15Km/s - 20Km/s onward and backward to/from the galactic center.
And it also has a swinng motion of 5Km/s - 7Km/s upward and downward from the galactic disc.
It looks as a motion of a spring or a screw.
Why is it?
For Up Down it is stated that this bobbing motion is due to the galactic disc gravity.
However, I couldn't find any real answer for the onward and backward motion to/from the galactic center.
Some might think that it just represents a normal elliptical orbit (Perihelion/Aphelion). However, in a real Kepler orbit, there is only one Perihelion and one Aphelion per one cycle.
The Sun sets four Perihelion/Aphelion cycles in order to complete just one cycle around the center of the galaxy.
Therefore, it is quite clear the those four Perihelion/Aphelion cycles can't be represented by any sort of elliptical orbit.
So, Let's compare it to the moon orbit
http://www.answering-christianity.com/moon_s-shaped_orbit.gif
The moon motion is mainly onward and backward to/from the Sun.
But it is also moving up and down from the Earth/sun disc.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/moon_s-shaped_orbit_around_earth_1.jpg
Therefore, we see that as the moon orbits around the Sun, it also sets the two swing motions:
1. onward and backward
2. upward and downward.
The main difference is the ratio in the amplitude of those two swings.
The swing motion ratio in the Sun is:
Tan X = 7/20 = 0.35
X = 19 Degrees
Hence, technically if the Lunar Plane (moon/Earth orbit disc) was 19 Degrees from the Earth/Sun disc, we should get the same Swing ratio as the Sun does while it orbits around the center of the galaxy.
Conclusions:
With regards to the moon orbits around the Sun:
The moon orbits around the Earth/moon center of mass. This center of mass orbits around the Sun.
If the Earth was Invisible, and we were standing in a nearby solar system, we could see that the Moon Swing motions around the Sun is similar to the Sun swing motions around the center of the galaxy. (but not at the same amplitude and ratio).
Hence, with regards to the Sun Orbits around the center of the galaxy:
After all of this introduction, why can't we assume that the Sun orbits around some local invisible center of mass, and this local center of mass orbits around the center of the milky way?
This Motion is critical.
Based on this motion we can solve the enigma of Spiral galaxy without any need for dark matter.
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/04/2018 18:39:59
If so, any star in any spiral arm must also orbit around its local center of mass.
I will introduce the great impact of this concept on the structure of spiral galaxy.
Post by: guest39538 on 23/04/2018 18:47:27
As I didn't receive any reply, does it mean that there is no resistance to the concept that the Sun orbits around a local center of mass?Your links are not functional and hello.
If so, I will introduce the great impact of this concept on the structure of spiral galaxy.
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/04/2018 19:21:22
http://www.biocab.org/Coplanarity_Solar_System_and_Galaxy.html
Post by: guest39538 on 23/04/2018 19:32:24
It has a swing motion of 15Km/s - 20Km/s onward and backward to/from the galactic center.
And it also has a swinng motion of 5Km/s - 7Km/s upward and downward from the galactic disc.
It looks as a motion of a spring or a screw.
Why is it?
In a bat and ball game where the ball is attached to a pole by a string, speed makes the ball climb or drop. I am ''guessing'' this is similar?
If the speed remains constant then it must be at a guess the dynamics of a moving body, and as it is on its approach to the sun in the upward or downward spiral it gains energy that pushes it up the ''hill''. By time it gets to the top of the ''hill'' it loses some energy so ''rolls'' back down the spiral again.
Added - after viewing your moon orbit , I am more convinced it is the electrodynamics of moving bodies.
added- Because if it were speed , it would be a greater or less than radial spiral.
Post by: Colin2B on 23/04/2018 22:31:24
As I didn't receive any reply, does it mean that there is no resistance to the concept that the Sun orbits around a local center of mass?It is always a mistake to assume no replies means agreement or no resistance to an idea. There are many reasons why folks don’t reply.
Post by: Dave Lev on 24/04/2018 03:05:38
It has a swing motion of 15Km/s - 20Km/s onward and backward to/from the galactic center.
And it also has a swinng motion of 5Km/s - 7Km/s upward and downward from the galactic disc.
It looks as a motion of a spring or a screw.
Why is it?
In a bat and ball game where the ball is attached to a pole by a string, speed makes the ball climb or drop. I am ''guessing'' this is similar?
If the speed remains constant then it must be at a guess the dynamics of a moving body, and as it is on its approach to the sun in the upward or downward spiral it gains energy that pushes it up the ''hill''. By time it gets to the top of the ''hill'' it loses some energy so ''rolls'' back down the spiral again.
Added - after viewing your moon orbit , I am more convinced it is the electrodynamics of moving bodies.
added- Because if it were speed , it would be a greater or less than radial spiral.
Thanks
Please look at the following Pluto/Charon Orbit Animation.
Please try to focus on the movement of this moon around Pluto as Pluto orbits the Sun.
Don't you see that it moves in a nice Spring motion which is almost identical to the Sun Motion as it orbits the galaxy center?
http://www.biocab.org/Motions_of_the_Solar_System.jpg
It also sets the two swing motions:
1. onward and backward
2. upward and downward.
Now, Let's assume that Pluto was invisible. Let's assume that we cant see Charon' center of mass.
However, we see clearly the spring motion of Charon Moon as it orbits the Sun.
Could it be that if we can't see Pluto we would assume that this motion is due to "electrodynamics of moving bodies"?
In the same token.
We don't see the local Sun' center of mass.
However, we see clearly the spring motion of the Sun (which is almost identical to Charon Moon Motion).
Please try to explain why when we discuss on Charon moon, we know by 100% that its motion is a direct product of gravity force (and ONLY gravity force), while when we discuss on the Sun motion, it is due of "electrodynamics of moving bodies"?
If I understand it correctly:
All the planets and moons in the Universe are moving due to Gravity force and ONLY gravity force. None of them is moving due to "electrodynamics of moving bodies".
Why is it?
What is so unique in the Sun (and all other stars) that they can move due to this "electrodynamics of moving bodies"?
Why Gravity force isn't the ONLY force which sets the Sun Motion as it sets any Planet and any moon motion in the whole Universe
Please try to find even one planet or moon which is moving like: "a bat and ball game where the ball is attached to a pole by a string, speed makes the ball climb or drop." "as it is on its approach to the sun in the upward or downward spiral it gains energy that pushes it up the ''hill''. By time it gets to the top of the ''hill'' it loses some energy so ''rolls'' back down the spiral again."
If it is feasable with our Sun, why it should be feasable also with any moon or planet?
Post by: guest39538 on 24/04/2018 10:13:06
As far as I am aware, all motion is subject to the electrodynamics of bodies because gravity is electrodynamics in my opinion. My own expression of a body in orbit is linear twist which is torque related.It has a swing motion of 15Km/s - 20Km/s onward and backward to/from the galactic center.
And it also has a swinng motion of 5Km/s - 7Km/s upward and downward from the galactic disc.
It looks as a motion of a spring or a screw.
Why is it?
In a bat and ball game where the ball is attached to a pole by a string, speed makes the ball climb or drop. I am ''guessing'' this is similar?
If the speed remains constant then it must be at a guess the dynamics of a moving body, and as it is on its approach to the sun in the upward or downward spiral it gains energy that pushes it up the ''hill''. By time it gets to the top of the ''hill'' it loses some energy so ''rolls'' back down the spiral again.
Added - after viewing your moon orbit , I am more convinced it is the electrodynamics of moving bodies.
added- Because if it were speed , it would be a greater or less than radial spiral.
Thanks
Please look at the following Pluto/Charon Orbit Animation.
Please try to focus on the movement of this moon around Pluto as Pluto orbits the Sun.
Don't you see that it moves in a nice Spring motion which is almost identical to the Sun Motion as it orbits the galaxy center?
http://www.biocab.org/Motions_of_the_Solar_System.jpg
It also sets the two swing motions:
1. onward and backward
2. upward and downward.
Now, Let's assume that Pluto was invisible. Let's assume that we cant see Charon' center of mass.
However, we see clearly the spring motion of Charon Moon as it orbits the Sun.
Could it be that if we can't see Pluto we would assume that this motion is due to "electrodynamics of moving bodies"?
In the same token.
We don't see the local Sun' center of mass.
However, we see clearly the spring motion of the Sun (which is almost identical to Charon Moon Motion).
Please try to explain why when we discuss on Charon moon, we know by 100% that its motion is a direct product of gravity force (and ONLY gravity force), while when we discuss on the Sun motion, it is due of "electrodynamics of moving bodies"?
If I understand it correctly:
All the planets and moons in the Universe are moving due to Gravity force and ONLY gravity force. None of them is moving due to "electrodynamics of moving bodies".
Why is it?
What is so unique in the Sun (and all other stars) that they can move due to this "electrodynamics of moving bodies"?
Why Gravity force isn't the ONLY force which sets the Sun Motion as it sets any Planet and any moon motion in the whole Universe
Please try to find even one planet or moon which is moving like: "a bat and ball game where the ball is attached to a pole by a string, speed makes the ball climb or drop." "as it is on its approach to the sun in the upward or downward spiral it gains energy that pushes it up the ''hill''. By time it gets to the top of the ''hill'' it loses some energy so ''rolls'' back down the spiral again."
If it is feasable with our Sun, why it should be feasable also with any moon or planet?
Post by: Colin2B on 24/04/2018 12:51:03
Thanks
Post by: Dave Lev on 24/04/2018 13:15:52
As far as I am aware, all motion is subject to the electrodynamics of bodies because gravity is electrodynamics in my opinion. My own expression of a body in orbit is linear twist which is torque related.
I'm not sure that I fully understand your message.
1. Do you mean that Charon moon motion is electrodynamic?
If so, what is the difference between a motion/orbit which is based on gravity to the one which is based on electrodynamic?
Is it the same?
2. Do you mean that with Pluto or without it, Charon motion around the Sun should be the same?
If so, what is the meaning for the center of mass?
How could it be that Charon would set this spring motion without orbiting any sort of center of mass?
Why Pluto or Earth doesn't support that "spring" motion as they orbit the Sun?
3. Do you agree that Charon "spring" motion around the Sun is very similar to the Sun "spring" motion around the galaxy?
If so, why for Charon motion, a local center of mass (Pluto) is needed, while for the Sun there is no need for a local center of mass?
Post by: Dave Lev on 27/04/2018 05:37:30
All objects in the Universe must obey to one Force - Gravity force.
Based on Newton Law and Kepler there is no room for multiple onwards, backwards, upwards and downwards swings per one orbit cycle.
There is just one simple elliptical orbit.
However, by adding two elliptical orbits (Moon/Planet - Planet/star) we can easily get Multiple onwards, backwards, upwards and downwards swings in a single Moon/Star orbit cycle.
In the same token, if the Star orbits around a local center of mass while this center of mass leads the Star around the galaxy, we get the requested multiple onwards, backwards, upwards and downwards swings in a single Star/Galaxy orbit cycle!!!
Post by: guest39538 on 27/04/2018 19:36:34
1. Do you mean that Charon moon motion is electrodynamic?I am still pondering over your question, at the moment I am considering the difference, the spiralling sun one seems to be experiencing electromotive force, where the ping ponging moon seems to be experiencing an entropy variate that is ''up'' then ''down'' like a ping pong ball. As if it is ''polarising'' ebb and flow.
If so, what is the difference between a motion/orbit which is based on gravity to the one which is based on electrodynamic?
Is it the same?
The spiralling sun orbit seemingly under two forces,
I think both action are electrodynamics related and field density related.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/04/2018 19:44:24
Faraday learnt me this one , never sore it before , never thought about. I will give the information .
wire.jpg (317.14 kB . 4424x3064 - viewed 4905 times)The sun runs along a ''virtual''wire producing an electromotive force ''disks''.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/04/2018 19:56:56
P.s Thanks , that has enlightened me further, I can see even better now.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/04/2018 20:57:05
n-field quantum cyclones in specialist terms
Post by: Dave Lev on 27/04/2018 20:59:01
Ok , I stared at the spiral picture for a while, I got it, what do you want to know ?
Faraday learnt me this one , never sore it before , never thought about. I will give the information .
Please look again at your diagram.
Don't you see that the Sun motion is very similar to Charon moon motion?
If no, would you kindly highlight the differences?
The sun runs along a ''virtual''wire producing an electromotive force ''disks''.Is it?
Based on the diagram don't you see that the Sun runs AROUND a "virtual" wire?
Why is it so difficult to see that this wire represents the location of the "Virtual" Sun' center of mass which orbits the galaxy?
Post by: guest39538 on 27/04/2018 21:08:47
http://www.answering-christianity.com/moon_s-shaped_orbit.gif
I think you mean this one, it is similar yes but from a different perspective/angle . It is electrodynamics related and space-time curvature related
Post by: Dave Lev on 27/04/2018 21:16:12
The spiralling sun orbit seemingly under two forces,
Which two forces?
Can you please find one Planet or Moon that orbits under two forces?
Why Newton didn't offer this option in its gravity law?
Post by: guest39538 on 27/04/2018 21:17:38
Based on the diagram don't you see that the Sun runs AROUND a "virtual" wire?The sun is not ''virtual'', the wire is ''virtual'', i.e invisible
Why is it so difficult to see that this wire represents the location of the "Virtual" Sun' center of mass which orbits the galaxy?
The electromotive force curves /rotates the ''wire'' . Hard to explain in full :D
Post by: guest39538 on 27/04/2018 21:19:03
The spiralling sun orbit seemingly under two forces,
Which two forces?
Can you please find one Planet or Moon that orbits under two forces?
Why Newton didn't offer this option in its gravity law?
r= F1 gravity force
v=F2 electromotive force
Post by: guest39538 on 27/04/2018 21:20:10
Post by: Dave Lev on 27/04/2018 21:29:55
r= F1 gravity force
v=F2 electromotive force
What is the source for that electromotive force?
Post by: guest39538 on 28/04/2018 00:27:40
What is the source for that electromotive force?
It is not the source that is the importance, the source of energy exists of the field and body. The importance is spin, how spin is created . I am struggling to compute how a single point particle could begin to spin from no force, I assume spin origin is collision based so I am looking at that route.
I am trying to consider how electricity traverses through a wire and the external field rotates around the wire. I may have to get a cd out and put a pencil through the middle to examine it for ideas.
How does a forward force traversing through the pencil cause the ''cd'' to spin on the ''pencil''?
The mechanics are certainty ingenuity in the intelligent design department of this mechanism. I can see it almost, but not quite , I will sleep on it or find inspiration somewhere to work it out. Something to do with these negative energy ''disks'' that seem double sided ''disks'' .
P.s Did Faraday use Ac or Dc ? Doesn't Ac go forward and backwards?
added- The eye of the storm is the disk, the storm is outside the disk making it spin. (thinking aloud )
added- This is tough, to answer the question I would have to answer the perpetual motion question. The problem is there is two different answers, an answer for finite universe and design and one for an infinite universe without design. The second question being the importance to answer.
added - I have got the thinking down to two ''drill bits'', linear twist which I mentioned a while ago. The ''drill bits'' both drilling each other to create a rotating negative energy ''disk''.
The problem is what drives the ''drill bits''?
So ok, after thinking for a while, I can see Dirac's thoughts, but it is really a river, some sort of flow. Maybe directed to the vacuum outlet if there was one. (thinking aloud).
I will try to think more to answer you, perhaps somebody could give an answer.
added- A normal electric wire is muti stranded wire that is bound by being spiralled, it is not the electricity spiralling , it is a spiralled path that spirals space. , Yes I got it now I think ,
The wires are crossed , I will do an experiment tomorrow .
added- Well I have just been ''uploaded'' with quantum entanglement, I understand that now too.
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/04/2018 07:02:35
It is not the source that is the importance, the source of energy exists of the field and body. The importance is spin, how spin is created . I am struggling to compute how a single point particle could begin to spin from no force, I assume spin origin is collision based so I am looking at that route.
Thanks
What do you mean by:
"It is not the source that is the importance, the source of energy exists of the field and body."?
How could it be that in one hand you claim that the source for the electromotive force isn't important, while in the other hand you claim that "the source of energy exists of the field and body"?
So, don't you agree that there must be a Source? Internal or External?
I couldn't understand your explanation about:
"How does a forward force traversing through the pencil cause the ''cd'' to spin on the ''pencil''?
"Did Faraday use Ac or Dc ? Doesn't Ac go forward and backwards?"
However, let me focus on your key message - "the source of energy exists of the field and body".
The Sun mass is 1.989 × 10^30 kg. How unclear energy as AC or DC Faraday could have any effect on the Sun motion? How could it spin that sort of mass? (Just think about the requested force to hold that mass)
Don't you think that:
- A Star isn't a "pencil", Atom or even a free Electron?
- Any Star, planet or moon must obey to the gravity force?
- If a star spins around a virtual point, than the only explanation for that must come from Gravity force?
- Nothing in the Universe can move a star without gravity force?
Therefore, don't you think that the real meaning of: "the source of energy exists of the field and body", MUST be gravity force (and ONLY gravity force)?
I still don't understand why we don't except the simple outcome:
If star spins around a virtual point which moves forward (and set that virtual wire). Why can't we assume that this virtual point is the center of mass of that star? (Please look again on the Charon Moon motion around the Sun).
Why we have so high objection to that clear and simple understanding?
Why do we try to look for other unrealistic hypothetical ideas as a Tennis ball or AC/DC Faraday while the real answer is already in our hand???
Post by: guest39538 on 28/04/2018 18:39:40
Why do we try to look for other unrealistic hypothetical ideas as a Tennis ball or AC/DC Faraday while the real answer is already in our hand???
three-eddies.jpg (86.1 kB . 800x600 - viewed 3505 times)The centrifugal is equal to the centripetal pressure, that is why . ZpP (zero point pressure)
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/04/2018 18:51:27
The centrifugal is equal to the centripetal pressure, that is why . ZpP (zero point pressure)
As you can see those centrifugal and ripple are random.
Do you consider the spin motion of the Sun as random activity?
Don't you think that gravity could be a valid solution for this solid spin motion?
Post by: guest39538 on 28/04/2018 18:59:55
The centrifugal is equal to the centripetal pressure, that is why . ZpP (zero point pressure)
As you can see those centrifugal and ripple are random.
The centrifugal ripples may appear to be random, ostensible. The centripetal is constant therefore random can only be a consequence of a change in constant. Quite measurable in some way I should think .
Δ k = var (k)
????
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/04/2018 19:47:56
How can you believe in centrifugal ripple in order to set the Sun spin motion?
Why each time you try to offer different idea to that motion?
Why do you have so high resistance to gravity force???
What is so wrong with Newton Law?
Post by: guest39538 on 28/04/2018 20:03:20
Why do you have so high resistance to gravity force???
What is so wrong with Newton Law?
My N-field theory and n-field requires Newtonian gravity and Einsteins gravity to work. I am sure even if I tried to explain to you, how the rotational qualities come about , you may still not understand it .
It is not easy to explain things that are invisible you know. However at the ''edge'' of all ''eddy's'' there is a ''plane'' (eddy line) , so the ''wheel'' can ''role'' down the ''plane'' . However the intricate detail is, the plane is the ''edge'' of a different ''eddy'', the centripetal force being applied between the two individual ''planes'' causing each circular ''plane'' to rotate.
It is complex , view eddy lines on google search.
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/04/2018 20:09:44
Now it is clear.
Post by: guest39538 on 28/04/2018 20:22:32
ThanksYour welcome , this is a pretty good link.
Now it is clear.
Quote
Since kayaker’s enter eddies with velocity in one direction and that quickly changes to velocity in the opposite direction, it is easy to flip upon entering an eddy.
https://www.thoughtco.com/guide-to-eddies-eddy-lines-and-whirlpools-2556014
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/04/2018 21:42:18
My N-field theoryIt's not a theory.
Post by: guest39538 on 28/04/2018 21:48:43
True, it is a fact, that keeps the solar winds from hitting you . It is a shame my theory does work :DMy N-field theoryIt's not a theory.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/04/2018 22:13:07
facts have to be true.True, it is a fact, that keeps the solar winds from hitting you . It is a shame my theory does work :DMy N-field theoryIt's not a theory.
Post by: guest39538 on 28/04/2018 22:22:44
facts have to be true.True, it is a fact, that keeps the solar winds from hitting you . It is a shame my theory does work :DMy N-field theoryIt's not a theory.
You think it is not true that the Earth's field protects the Earth from solar winds and harmful radiation?
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/04/2018 12:37:27
Later on I will introduce how this local gravity force is the main power which had set the structure of spiral galaxy.
Post by: guest39538 on 29/04/2018 16:37:11
I assume that by now it is clear that the only valid force which can spin the sun around a center of mass, while this center orbits around the galaxy is - Gravity Force.
Later on I will introduce how this local gravity force is the main power which had set the structure of spiral galaxy.
A single point particle in a void , it has no mechanism or acting forces on it to gain any sort of motion. Only if there is an external force applied to the point particle can motion and angular momentum be established.
All motion is the consequence of this rudiment action, which is a result of simultaneous gravity between the two dependent point particles (A) and (B) occupying the same point . Something I have already established and accounted for in my theory .
+
/ t+
/ tQuite clearly
which is 0.5 + 0.5 = 1 has no mechanism for motion unless additionally adding it in the form of gravitational force to create spin or other . (A + B) + A = 1.5
therefore kE=0.5
Another way
= p0 where p is momentum + 
= p1Post by: Bored chemist on 29/04/2018 21:03:12
It is always a mistake to assume no replies means agreement or no resistance to an idea. There are many reasons why folks don’t reply.In the case of this thread the main reason is that there's so much nonsense, it's impossible to know where to start.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/04/2018 21:04:28
You think it is not true that the Earth's field protects the Earth from solar winds and harmful radiation?The Earth's atmosphere and the magnetic field do that.
So there's no need for your made up N field.
Post by: guest39538 on 29/04/2018 21:08:39
But that magnetic field is Neutral in charge is it not ? A N-field?You think it is not true that the Earth's field protects the Earth from solar winds and harmful radiation?The Earth's atmosphere and the magnetic field do that.
So there's no need for your made up N field.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/04/2018 21:17:04
But that magnetic field is Neutral in charge is it not ? A N-field?You think it is not true that the Earth's field protects the Earth from solar winds and harmful radiation?The Earth's atmosphere and the magnetic field do that.
So there's no need for your made up N field.
It's impossible to tell if it's an N field or not because you have yet to explain what one is.
Every time someone asks you draw meaningless pictures or present nonsensical broken equations.
For what it's worth, an electric field, a magnetic field and a gravitational flied are all neutral- they have no net charge.
So that, by your logic makes them all N fields.
But they are clearly different.
As I said- you make no sense.
Post by: guest39538 on 29/04/2018 21:28:26
In a united field theory. what does united mean? A common link maybe such as they are all a N-field or to use the full word , a neutral field.But that magnetic field is Neutral in charge is it not ? A N-field?You think it is not true that the Earth's field protects the Earth from solar winds and harmful radiation?The Earth's atmosphere and the magnetic field do that.
So there's no need for your made up N field.
It's impossible to tell if it's an N field or not because you have yet to explain what one is.
Every time someone asks you draw meaningless pictures or present nonsensical broken equations.
For what it's worth, an electric field, a magnetic field and a gravitational flied are all neutral- they have no net charge.
So that, by your logic makes them all N fields.
But they are clearly different.
As I said- you make no sense.
I think it is quite obvious when I say A+B = N what is means Mr C.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/04/2018 21:30:15
I think it is quite obvious when I say A+B = N what is means Mr C.
Nobody else does.
Post by: guest39538 on 29/04/2018 21:31:56
(-e) + (+1e) = NI think it is quite obvious when I say A+B = N what is means Mr C.
Nobody else does.
Yes they do , because N = 0
Post by: guest39538 on 29/04/2018 21:40:36
Imagine a Higg's field that was isometric but a negative energy -e, now any point sources of the ''matrix'' would be +1e , +1e would be just changing position in the field matrix , +1e being equally attracted forward as backwards.
I can approach this from lots of different angles Mr C, with boundaries and without boundaries considered.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/04/2018 22:44:15
Yes they do , because N = 0Why?
Mr C, do I have to explain everything?That depends.
If you want to be taken seriously you need to explain something. and you haven't done that yet.
On the otehr hand, if youwant to keep trolling, just accry on with this
Imagine a Higg's field that was isometric but a negative energy -e, now any point sources of the ''matrix'' would be +1e , +1e would be just changing position in the field matrix , +1e being equally attracted forward as backwards.word salad.
Post by: The Spoon on 29/04/2018 23:43:33
Mr C, do I have to explain everything?It would seem not when you are wittering away taliking constant crap. But then, as you pointed out, you are just here to troll.
Imagine a Higg's field that was isometric but a negative energy -e, now any point sources of the ''matrix'' would be +1e , +1e would be just changing position in the field matrix , +1e being equally attracted forward as backwards.
I can approach this from lots of different angles Mr C, with boundaries and without boundaries considered.
Post by: guest39538 on 29/04/2018 23:48:37
Yes I am a troll, but is it my fault on my journey I became a theoretical Physicist and got quite good at science?Mr C, do I have to explain everything?It would seem not when you are wittering away taliking constant crap. But then, as you pointed out, you are just here to troll.
Imagine a Higg's field that was isometric but a negative energy -e, now any point sources of the ''matrix'' would be +1e , +1e would be just changing position in the field matrix , +1e being equally attracted forward as backwards.
I can approach this from lots of different angles Mr C, with boundaries and without boundaries considered.
Not my fault that I started liking science , it just happened.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/04/2018 00:14:38
Post by: guest39538 on 30/04/2018 00:18:03
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/04/2018 04:12:59
But that magnetic field is Neutral in charge is it not ? A N-field?You think it is not true that the Earth's field protects the Earth from solar winds and harmful radiation?The Earth's atmosphere and the magnetic field do that.
So there's no need for your made up N field.
It's impossible to tell if it's an N field or not because you have yet to explain what one is.
Every time someone asks you draw meaningless pictures or present nonsensical broken equations.
For what it's worth, an electric field, a magnetic field and a gravitational flied are all neutral- they have no net charge.
So that, by your logic makes them all N fields.
But they are clearly different.
As I said- you make no sense.
Dear Thebox
Would you kindly stop? Enough is enough.
Your message is very clear. There is no need for your "meaningless pictures or present nonsensical broken equations."
You are more than welcome to open a new thread and set all your "brilliant" ideas
Post by: guest39538 on 30/04/2018 04:15:00
My apologies to you Sir, I get carried away and forget which thread I am in.But that magnetic field is Neutral in charge is it not ? A N-field?You think it is not true that the Earth's field protects the Earth from solar winds and harmful radiation?The Earth's atmosphere and the magnetic field do that.
So there's no need for your made up N field.
It's impossible to tell if it's an N field or not because you have yet to explain what one is.
Every time someone asks you draw meaningless pictures or present nonsensical broken equations.
For what it's worth, an electric field, a magnetic field and a gravitational flied are all neutral- they have no net charge.
So that, by your logic makes them all N fields.
But they are clearly different.
As I said- you make no sense.
Dear Thebox
Would you kindly stop? Enough is enough.
There is no need for your "meaningless pictures or present nonsensical broken equations."
You are more than welcome to open a new thread and set all your "brilliant" ideas