0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Do you now see a current flow?
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.
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!
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)
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.
Why ? I can have a charge with a rotationnal field on it.
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.
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.
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 ? Quote from: Thebox on 13/06/2015 09:18:20You 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 !
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.
I'm engineer in technical factory area. But my title "agrégé" ...
...is a master degree in electric area,
I know what you want to say, "an electron don't turn":
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.
= I would like to say: try to think with a hypothesis: the rotating field exist."One what? " a rotating field
"The hypothesis must also not contradict any experiment that's ever been done and that's a lot. " like what ?
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. http://postimg.org/image/uhuwqgp2n/ [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]
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!
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.
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.
If a field that extends to infinity is rotating then it will have an infinite angular velocity.
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 : QuoteIf a field that extends to infinity is rotating then it will have an infinite angular velocity. Why, could you explain please ?
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.
The field of a charge (electron for example) extends to infinite, no ?
Here, there are 2 charges in rotation, what's the problem ?
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.
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
but it suddenly appears ( in case of objects contact) why it does not appear at distances?
if it exists , when you remove weight an object should jump as a result of this force
you mean what intervene a mass when it touches another mass is not the existence of masses , but the force between them right?
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"?
You are trying to produce gravitational attraction using electrical forces. this is correct.
if the force not constant the "mass" will need some kind of continuous energy source to run.