[LB7 (OP)]

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.

[PmbPhy]

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.

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.

[LB7 (OP)]

I wrote "pole" because in the full theory it is more complex than that, and it's really a positive charge is associated with a negative charge. I gave this simple example for understand the rotating field that you requested before.

[Colin2B]

A sticking point here is your use of term rotating field. A field is defined in physics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)
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?

[LB7 (OP)]

"The distance between the rotating charge centres is 1m, radius of rotating charges is 0.2m?" correct. You calculated the mean force and for you it's 0 with any position ?

But, the example it's in 2 dimensions not 3 and I take the second image for calculate not the first.

[LB7 (OP)]

Maybe the positions of the systems are like that in 2D:

[gazza711]

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?

[LB7 (OP)]

I give the program in python for 2 positions and the full circle. I tested for 2 "systems" from 0.01 m to 150e9 m. If the particle describes the full circle, the force is lower than gravity. If the particle has 2 positions the force is greater than the gravity. So like I said before the reality must be in middle:

[jeffreyH]

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.

[PmbPhy]

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.

[LB7 (OP)]

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.

[PmbPhy]

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.

[LB7 (OP)]

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 :

If a field that extends to infinity is rotating then it will have an infinite angular velocity.

Why, could you explain please ?

[PmbPhy]

PmpPhy: A particle is not a charge ...

Ummm ... who was talking about charge? I certainly wasn't.

...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.

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.

JeffreyH :

If 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.

[LB7 (OP)]

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.

[PmbPhy]

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.

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.

The field of a charge (electron for example) extends to infinite, no ?

That's correct.

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.

[LB7 (OP)]

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.

[PmbPhy]

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.

...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.

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.

...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.

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.

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.

[LB7 (OP)]

I calculated again and for find the good values I need to work with 1/d not 1/d². The electrostatic dipole in rotation create a magnetic field, this field attrack like 1/d not 1/d² so maybe all the matter is synchronised with the magnetism field not the electrostatic field. The magnetism field need something in particular in term of rotation, distance, or something else ?

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)

[LB7 (OP)]

At start, I thought with electrostatic charges in rotation/phase but the problem is the law of gravity 1/d² not 1/d. So it can be only the magnetism that can give the good law. But with magnetism the device needs an energy, so it is necessary to prove the energy can be created, it is what I explained in another thread. And it is easy to understand if I imagined 2 electromagnets in each mass-particle. These 2 electromagnets turn around a circle. The radius of the circle can't be 0. Like that, I can have a positive and a negative gravity. At small distance, the rotors are in phase, at large distance it is not possible, the force is not enough to beat the inertia. Ok, I told the mass don't exist but inertia exist it is due to the time itself.

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.