principle of planetary rotation

"Greg Neill" wrote in message ...
"peter" wrote in message
om...
EXAPERIMENTAL RESEARCH TO DETERMINE WEATHER LIGHT PHOTON ARE
DEFLECTED MAGNETIC FIELD,DIRECTION OF DEFLECTION AND AND IF SO WHAT
TYPE OF CHARGE PHOTON CARRIES

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.0 BACKGROUND OF THE EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH
The sun and the stars are so familar to as that we seldom think of the
vast strectch of almost empity space that seperate them from us yet we
known that the sun is about 1.15*10^11 meter away from earth and that
the next nearest star is about 300000 time as far countless stars
have been seen at distance so remote that comprehension almost fail
us.

Speak for yourself.

All imformation from which we have learned about this vast universe
has come to us riding swifty astride beam of light.

Except for cosmic rays (particles), solar wind, micrometeorites,
meteorites, magnetic field measurements, etc.

Its therefore true that light can travel freely in empty space.

Non sequitur. Why does this conclusion follow?

As
familar as the sun itself are the shadow rays cast.what we learn from
sun light rays as we walk and run along a sunny day our shadow keep
pace.
Source of light ray are ,sun, star,lamp etc light can be detected by
human eye,photocells,photo sensitive substance etc.
A ray is aline specifing the direction of propagation of photons.

1.1 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Light ray from the sun reaches planet surface at varies angle ranging
sun rise to sun set.
However the resultant angle of this varies angle from sun rise to sun
set can be determine by computing the varies angle.

1.2 OBJECTIVE
The objective of this experiment was to determine present resultant
angle light ray photon ,determine it valve ,to determine weather light
rays are deflected by earth magnetic field,determine the direction of
delection of light by earth magnetic field,to determine the type of
charge photon carry if it dtermine that photons deflected by earth
magnetic field.

1.3 IMPORTANCE OF THIS RESEARCH EXPERIMENT
The experiment proved that light photons are deflected towards the
west by earth magnetic field as light photons transvers through earth
magnetic field.
The experiment also proved present of resultant angle.The experiment
proved that light photon were postively charge.

Nope. It proved the investigator incompetent. The investigator
(that's you, Sparky), failed to consider alternative hypothesies,
failed to incorporate the known effects of atmospheric refraction,
failed to perform even rudimentary error analysis, failed to cite
references which support his theory, and failed to consider the fact
that he really knows squat about physics.

What is Sparky can you elaborate please.


1.4 SCOPE OF THE RESEARCH
The research was carried out on a open flat ground during a sunny day.
The shadow position of the thin straight vertical pole fixed into the
ground was marked at hourly time interval from sunrise to sunset.

CHAPTER TWO

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
Photon are particle with zero rest mass consisting of a quantum of
electromagnetic radiation.
Photon may also be regarde as a unit of energy equal to hf
h-planks constant
f-frequency of radiation in hertz or second^-1
photon travel at speed of light.Light are electromagnetic radiation of
wave spectrum of 4-7*10^-7 meter wave lenght.
Light photon has mass as first expreessed by Albert Einstein (1905)
Charge particle are deflected by magnetic field and the direction of
deflection is determine by use of right hand rule one (RHR1)

Bqv=mv^2/r

B-magnetic field strength
q-charge of the particle
v-velocity of the particle
m-mass of the particle
r-radius of curverture

Hey Sparky, the above is most bertainly *not* a review of the
literature. It's just more of your unsupported maunder.
Where are the citations? Not a single paper or book is
cited.
OK i will post


2.1 NULL HYPOTHESIS
There was significant relationship between earth magnetic field and
the resultant angle.

An unsupportable hypothesis, since you can't vary the Earth's
magnetic field to verify that the effect is due solely to its
effect on light.
The hypothesis is supported
persent of varing angle at which rays from the sun are absorbed on
earth surface.
NB this experiment does not involve
refraction,reflection,defraction,or interference of light ray as in
Optical Physic.
It a experimental research to investigate weather effect of magnetic
field on light ray hence on photon.present of resultant angle less
than 90 degree confirm that magnetic field does deflect light
photon,hence proves principle of planetary rotation.
If i had a 90 degree resultant angle it would mean that light is not
afectted by earth magnetic field.
Because i got my resultant angle to be 90 degree it confirm that light
are bent to the same side hence it eliminate responsibility of
refraction.Because if it was refraction the resultant angle would be
90 degree.Due to the valve of average angle E=B hence the diference =0
and cos 0=90.If there was a different in valve of E and B than
resultant angle would not be 90 it would be less than 90



CHAPTER THREE

3.0 RESEARCH DESIGIN
This research was set up to investigate the present of resultant
angle
and to determine its degrees to fine of if photon are charge and are
deflected by earth magnetic field .

Defective. How can you tell if a purported deflection is due
to a charge on the photon and not some other form of inter-photon
coupling having nothing to do with electric charge?
When the deference between E and B is not zero.
The side with a smaller average angle indicate how the rays are
deflected.
from my result it 35.808 that mean they are deflected toward the
west.Because if draw path followed by rays in at sun rise to about
mid-day it tilted as if toward the east.Hence it that the direction of
deflection is toword the west.using right hand rule one(RHR1) .the ray
are from the sun into the earth the direction earth magnetic from
north to south the direction of deflection your can than determine the
type of charge carried by light photon hence photon in general.


3.1 STUDY AREA
This research was carried out on sun light rays .The condition under
investigation was to determine the if photon were charge and are
deflected by earth magnetic field and to also investigate presnt of
resultant angle of light on earth surface and determine its degrees.

You have not shown that the photon is charged, so this is a false
premis. In fact, your hypothesis flies in the face of centuries
of experimental results; The photon is not charged.

Indication that photon is charge come under chapter five (conclusion )


3.2 DATA COLLECTION
this was done both qualitatively and quantitatively by marking the
position of the shadow at time interval of one hour measurement taken
were computed to fine out the angle of incident using trigometric
function of angle.

You haven't shown that you can make measurements accurately
enough with the equipment used to give meaningful results.

In an experiment there is possibility of error that is why there is
error correction.
There is a wise saying that if your to keep ask the meaning of ever
letters of word of a speck you will never under stand.
As told you the rate at which my brain process imformation is
extremily high.
That is why i am not being i am not a guy from space.If i publish
the 23 paper i writing it will change the way physical sic is tough.
what physicist known and as been discovered is just a small fraction
physical world .E.g can you explain planet rotated in the direction
they are rotating in .
Present day physic is full of postulated imformation.If give ref
source of imformation i usually slum them.
Have nice week end and good sunday.

Remainder of sillyness excised for mercy's sake.

(you using to much of abusive language)

"Greg Neill" wrote in message ...
"peter" wrote in message
om...
(Tom Kerr) wrote in message ...


You've also ignored requests for you to show that acceleration = velocity
divided by time (e.g., ) ,
and in order to present your "theory", you should address this.

That was an error any reader can correct it when i am not perfect i am
human that why i brought up this principle in open forum were i can be
corrected and if need modification .i sorry for that error it should
be a=dv/dt acceleration=change in velocity/change in time

Well, Braniac, if you're thinking 1000 times faster than us
mere mortals, you should have caught that at the outset.

error is un avoidable when typing any way may be when you are at a
snail speed ,i had derived it earlier on , that error does not make
any changes on the derived equation.The equation i derived is a
universal equation from which your can derive an explaination of any
physical explaination.

Further, since it renders the remainder fo your derivation
useless, you'll have to go back and redo it from scratch.
One wonders if you can arrive at the same misguided conclusion
from another, no doubt erroneous, approach.

"John Zinni" wrote in message .. .
"peter" wrote in message
om...
Globe
defination is model of earth shaped like a ball showing countries on
its surface.
its usually mounted on a stand so that it can be turned easily.

If you attach a string at the surface.Best if attached at the equator.
If you try to pull the string when the is at right angle(90 degree)to
the point of attachment the globe wil not rotate.Because the pull you
pull with will not be resolve into centripetal force needed for
circular motion.
centripetal force= the amount of force you pulling with*cos90
cos 90=0
therefore
centripetal force=0
therfore
no circular motion hence no rotation
example
If the angle of the pulling force is at 89.88887 degree to the
tangent on the surface of the globe.
and pulling force is 10 N
centripetal force=10*cos89.88887
If 10N pulling force was used when the angle between the tangent at
point of attachment on goble surface is zero
centripetal force=10*cos 0
=10*90
=900 N

[the rest of your gobbledygook aside for the moment ...]

cos 0 equals WHAT???


get your calculate cos0 (cos zero)=90

"peter" wrote in message
om...
[...]

cos 0 equals WHAT???


get your calculate cos0 (cos zero)=90

Eeehem - cos 0 = 1.0000000000000 ... both in theory, and on a calculator

Thinking to fast now again, are you ?

Clear Skies,
Magnus

"peter" wrote in message
om...
"Greg Neill" wrote in message
...
"peter" wrote in message
om...
(Tom Kerr) wrote in message
...


You've also ignored requests for you to show that acceleration =
velocity
divided by time (e.g.,
) ,
and in order to present your "theory", you should address this.

That was an error any reader can correct it when i am not perfect i am
human that why i brought up this principle in open forum were i can be
corrected and if need modification .i sorry for that error it should
be a=dv/dt acceleration=change in velocity/change in time

Well, Braniac, if you're thinking 1000 times faster than us
mere mortals, you should have caught that at the outset.

error is un avoidable when typing any way may be when you are at a
snail speed ,i had derived it earlier on , that error does not make
any changes on the derived equation.The equation i derived is a
universal equation from which your can derive an explaination of any
physical explaination.

The error you made unfortunately falsifies the rest of your work. It was not
a typo, it was a huge logical error on your part, one which your theory can
not survive - any conclusion drawn from you bogus equation will be equally
bogus except by pure chance.

If you cannot detect simple errors like that, then it is more than unlikely
that any of your work is up to par. It also makes one suspect that you don't
think 1000 times faster than other people, in fact it makes us believe the
exact opposite. ...oO( Dumb as an Ass and unaware of it! )

Clear Skies,
Magnus


Further, since it renders the remainder fo your derivation
useless, you'll have to go back and redo it from scratch.
One wonders if you can arrive at the same misguided conclusion
from another, no doubt erroneous, approach.

wrote in message . ..
(peter) wrote:

wrote in message . ..
(peter) wrote:

(snip)

This experiment was carried out on march /20/2003 on a open 60 km from
the equator.

Did you compute the effect of not being exactly on the equator? How
much would this affect your results?

if you are to carry out the experiment at the equator your will have
to have a very tall pole to be about to have measureable shadow lenght
especially at mid-day when the lenght of the shadow is vrey small that
lead error during computation of result.

60 km from equator was the best place

(snip)

How did you determine that this was the "best place"? Why is it
better than being on the equator, or being 100 Km away?
If you to carry of the experiment on the equator the lenght of the
shadow which your to measure for computing angle will short.For more
acuracy during computing angle you need a larger valve(longer
shadow)the shadow length is shortest when the ray is coming directly
from above that is at about mid-day . so you have to be away from the
equator but not far away it should be not more than 120 km 60 km is
half the limit.
About error of not being at the equator .The defrence between average
valve of angle E and angle B.Eliminate error of not being on the
equator.
Why it was carried of near the equator not at the pole.the distance
from the point of shock wave to earth equator is about 60000km it
contain the north-south earth magnetic field.which are responsible for
deflecting the light rays toward the of the earth surface on the side
facing the sun.



And what do you mean when you say that you'd need a very tall pole to
get a measurable shadow length on the equator at mid day? yes
No matter
how long the pole, the shadow length will be zero at local noon on the
equinox.
Try it practically and you will see the difference.

OK, to be fair, I think you're trying to do science, but you need to
think more carefully about what you want to research, and how you do
it.
It wanted to fine of if light photon are deflected by earth magnetic
field.

You're trying to measure a proposed deflection of the photon in a
magnetic field, but this effect, if it exists, must be on a minute
scale (especially if you're going to use the Earth's magnetic field).
Yet the measurements you're making are based on very simplistic
experiments, and on very inaccurate measuring devices, so the effect
you're trying to find is going to be swamped in the noise.

May be but i tell you i would be creazy to take about have not
checked.
NB
Why do planet rotate in right screaw rule as astronomist say.before
you prove principle.


You really need to learn a lot more about experimental procedures, and
then you need to set up an experiment in a much more controlled
environment using much more accurate equipment. Maybe then you'll be
able to prove your theory, although given previous experiments in this
area I doubt it....

DP

In article , (peter) wrote:
"John Zinni" wrote in message
.. .
"peter" wrote in message
om...
Globe
defination is model of earth shaped like a ball showing countries on
its surface.
its usually mounted on a stand so that it can be turned easily.

If you attach a string at the surface.Best if attached at the equator.
If you try to pull the string when the is at right angle(90 degree)to
the point of attachment the globe wil not rotate.Because the pull you
pull with will not be resolve into centripetal force needed for
circular motion.
centripetal force= the amount of force you pulling with*cos90
cos 90=0
therefore
centripetal force=0
therfore
no circular motion hence no rotation
example
If the angle of the pulling force is at 89.88887 degree to the
tangent on the surface of the globe.
and pulling force is 10 N
centripetal force=10*cos89.88887
If 10N pulling force was used when the angle between the tangent at
point of attachment on goble surface is zero
centripetal force=10*cos 0
=10*90
=900 N

[the rest of your gobbledygook aside for the moment ...]

cos 0 equals WHAT???


get your calculate cos0 (cos zero)=90

cos 0 = 1.

Try again.

"Greg Neill" wrote in message ...
"peter" wrote in message
om...
Nichols and hull (1901 -1903) experimental measurement of radiation
pressure.

EXAMINING THEIR EXPERIMENTAL SET UP

Why did they use a mirror plate which reflect away light and not a
surface which absorb light.

Because you get twice the bang for your buck with a mirror;
the incoming light dumps momentum when it is absorbed by
surface electrons, and then there's the recoil momentum
dumped when the light is re-emitted (you did know that
reflection is an absorption re-emission phenomenon, right?)

They missed the point.If they had used a light absorbing surface the
could have discovered that there is an attraction force between the
source of light an the surface absorbing light.

What they carried out is just bouncing effect of a body under motion.

If the had replace the mirror with light absorbing surface they would
would have not only found out about Radiation pressure the would have
discovered that there was an attraction force between the surface
absorbing light and the source of light.as shown in Universal field
Equation i derived .

Try that may be your win you self a Noble price I am 100% sue in my
life time i can win not less than 3 Noble prices.


After carring out the experiment with mirror did they replace the
mirror with absorbing surface.

See above.

Not they did not had they replace the mirror absorbing they the would
have discovered that when radiation are absorbed by a radiation
absorbing surface there will be attraction force created between the
source of radiation and the body whose surface is absorbing the
radiation.

Wild ass speculation. You are drawing an unfounded conclusion
from specious reasoning.

This type of inter-reaction is found in all type of field radiation.
gravitional,electrostatic,electromagentic field)

Another unsupported assertion.

Electric fields have the benefit of having two opposite
charges manifesting them, thus they can exhibit dipolar
field configurations and attraction and repulsion.

Electrostatic field not Electric field.I can not support my assertion
from postulated imformation.

Gravity has but one charge polarity, and manifests only
attraction.


They are represented by Universal Field Equation which i derived.

UNIVERSAL EQUATION OF RADITAION FIELD FORCE

F=x^2/4kPIr^2 -mvfi

Which we have previously shown to be utter nonsense, and which
you should also agree is utter nonsense, given your initial
gaff of a = v/t right out of the starting blocks.

That was an error slum the next reply if ask me of that.
I told you that was an error,I have posted a full derivation of that
equation.Edited title UNIVERSAL EQUATION.
you can derive it over and over million time you will not fine any
micro-error


UNIVERSAL EQUATION OF RADITATION ENERGY


E=X^2/4kPIr - mv^2i

ALBERT ENISTEIN (1905)EQUATION OF ENERGY E=mc^2 is not acurrate

Fourteen decimal places so far and no sign of deviation from
spec. That's not accurate?


from universal equation the equation for light photon would be

E=x^2/4kPIr-mc^2i
were i=1 for a single ray of light photon
Therefore energy due to single ray is

E=x^2/4PIr-mc^2

E=mc^2 is equated to E= mc^2 This are energy due field motion of
photon only
they can not be equated to E=hf

Enistein tried to derive an equation that will explain all physical
properties
Because he did not known of the unique inter-reaction between similar
field particle he could derive a UNIVERSAL FIELD EQUATION AS I HAVE
DERIVED ABOVE

You've derived bubkis. Nada. Nothing. Nil. Your physics
is as eggregious a transgression as your spelling and grammar.

"peter" wrote in message
om...
"Greg Neill" wrote in message
...
"peter" wrote in message
om...


All imformation from which we have learned about this vast universe
has come to us riding swifty astride beam of light.

Except for cosmic rays (particles), solar wind, micrometeorites,
meteorites, magnetic field measurements, etc.

Its therefore true that light can travel freely in empty space.

Non sequitur. Why does this conclusion follow?

Note: No response.

1.3 IMPORTANCE OF THIS RESEARCH EXPERIMENT
The experiment proved that light photons are deflected towards the
west by earth magnetic field as light photons transvers through earth
magnetic field.
The experiment also proved present of resultant angle.The experiment
proved that light photon were postively charge.

Nope. It proved the investigator incompetent. The investigator
(that's you, Sparky), failed to consider alternative hypothesies,
failed to incorporate the known effects of atmospheric refraction,
failed to perform even rudimentary error analysis, failed to cite
references which support his theory, and failed to consider the fact
that he really knows squat about physics.

What is Sparky can you elaborate please.

"Sparky" is a nickname I've bestowed upon you.


2.1 NULL HYPOTHESIS
There was significant relationship between earth magnetic field and
the resultant angle.

An unsupportable hypothesis, since you can't vary the Earth's
magnetic field to verify that the effect is due solely to its
effect on light.
The hypothesis is supported
persent of varing angle at which rays from the sun are absorbed on
earth surface.
NB this experiment does not involve
refraction,reflection,defraction,or interference of light ray as in
Optical Physic.

How have you managed to eliminate refraction from the mix?
Atmospheric refraction is a well documented and measured
phenomenon. Every astronomical observatory measures and
tabulates atmospheric refraction for their location, and
produces a mathematical model for users of the scope to
make appropriate corrections.

Take a look at:

http://ganymede.nmsu.edu/holtz/a535/...tes/node6.html
http://www.fv01.dial.pipex.com/sthelp/refraction.htm
http://pweb.jps.net/~phyz/BOP/1.10LG...Refraction.pdf

It a experimental research to investigate weather effect of magnetic
field on light ray hence on photon.present of resultant angle less
than 90 degree confirm that magnetic field does deflect light
photon,hence proves principle of planetary rotation.
If i had a 90 degree resultant angle it would mean that light is not
afectted by earth magnetic field.

And there would also be no atmospheric refraction. You haven't
yet explained why there is no refraction for you experiment.

Because i got my resultant angle to be 90 degree it confirm that light
are bent to the same side hence it eliminate responsibility of
refraction.Because if it was refraction the resultant angle would be
90 degree.Due to the valve of average angle E=B hence the diference =0
and cos 0=90.If there was a different in valve of E and B than
resultant angle would not be 90 it would be less than 90



CHAPTER THREE

3.0 RESEARCH DESIGIN
This research was set up to investigate the present of resultant
angle
and to determine its degrees to fine of if photon are charge and are
deflected by earth magnetic field .

Defective. How can you tell if a purported deflection is due
to a charge on the photon and not some other form of inter-photon
coupling having nothing to do with electric charge?
When the deference between E and B is not zero.
The side with a smaller average angle indicate how the rays are
deflected.
from my result it 35.808 that mean they are deflected toward the
west.Because if draw path followed by rays in at sun rise to about
mid-day it tilted as if toward the east.Hence it that the direction of
deflection is toword the west.using right hand rule one(RHR1) .the ray
are from the sun into the earth the direction earth magnetic from
north to south the direction of deflection your can than determine the
type of charge carried by light photon hence photon in general.

Note: Question not answered. Here it is again:

How can you tell if a purported deflection is due to a charge
on the photon and not some other form of inter-photon coupling
having nothing to do with electric charge?



3.1 STUDY AREA
This research was carried out on sun light rays .The condition under
investigation was to determine the if photon were charge and are
deflected by earth magnetic field and to also investigate presnt of
resultant angle of light on earth surface and determine its degrees.

You have not shown that the photon is charged, so this is a false
premise. In fact, your hypothesis flies in the face of centuries
of experimental results; The photon is not charged.

Indication that photon is charge come under chapter five (conclusion )

You simply make the assertion. You have not shown that your
experimental data support this conclusion to the exclusion of
other possibilities (like your observed effects are entirely
due to refraction).



3.2 DATA COLLECTION
this was done both qualitatively and quantitatively by marking the
position of the shadow at time interval of one hour measurement taken
were computed to fine out the angle of incident using trigometric
function of angle.

You haven't shown that you can make measurements accurately
enough with the equipment used to give meaningful results.

In an experiment there is possibility of error that is why there is
error correction.

Error correction? You haven't analyzed the errors or possible
sources of error. How can you make error corrections?

There is a wise saying that if your to keep ask the meaning of ever
letters of word of a speck you will never under stand.
As told you the rate at which my brain process imformation is
extremily high.

So far, we are not overly impressed.

That is why i am not being i am not a guy from space.If i publish
the 23 paper i writing it will change the way physical sic is tough.
what physicist known and as been discovered is just a small fraction
physical world .E.g can you explain planet rotated in the direction
they are rotating in .

You've been watching 3rd Rock From The Sun, haven't you?

Present day physic is full of postulated imformation.If give ref
source of imformation i usually slum them.

Physics is also full of empirical evidence to back up theory.
There are exhaustive efforts to eliminate contending explanations
for every effect.

Have nice week end and good sunday.

Remainder of sillyness excised for mercy's sake.

(you using to much of abusive language)

Merely saving bandwidth.

"peter" wrote in message
om...
"Greg Neill" wrote in message
...
"peter" wrote in message
om...

The centripetal force acts at a tangent to a circular motion.

No! It is a force directed towards the center of rotation
of a circular motion. Check any physics text, or even
a dictionary. The word derives from Latin roots which
mean, essentially, "center-seeking".

NB draw circular path with a tangent an put an arrow to indicate the
direction of centripetal force.

No. A force directed along the direction of the tangent
would be a tangential force.

If the string is pulled at 90 to the tangent there will be no
rotation.the amount force with which you are pulling with which will
be resolve into circular motion will be zero due to cos 90=0
If the string is pulled at same direction with the tangent at the
point at which the string is attach.there will be rotation of the
globe because cos0=90

Your calculator is broken. Here, I'll help you:

cos(0) = 1
cos(90) = 0 (angles in degrees)

hence maximum amount of the pulling force will be resolve into
circular motion(rotation)

In this specific case you have
exactly the opposite, a centrifugal force: one directed
outwards from the center. One can be thought of as the
negative of the other. So in fact, for the situation you
describe, 100% of the force is resolved into a negative
centripetal force.

centripetal force= the amount of force you pulling with*cos90
cos 90=0
therefore
centripetal force=0
therfore
no circular motion hence no rotation

In this case centripetal force = -T, where T is the tension
on the string.

But guess what? It wouldn't matter how much force you apply in
this manner, there would be no rotation caused, only linear
translation of the globe, because the force applied passes
through the center and does not resolve into a torque. You need
to look up the following, Sparky:

Angular Momentum
Moment of Inertia
Torque

I am trying to explain in the simplest way ever.
Get to known How rotation is achieved first.

Albert Einstein was known to have said that things should
made as simple as possible -- but no simpler. You have
gone beyond the simplest possible explanation to the
point that your explanation is now wrong.



example
If the angle of the pulling force is at 89.88887 degree to the
tangent on the surface of the globe.
and pulling force is 10 N
centripetal force=10*cos89.88887

Nope. That would be the horizontal component, *not* centripetal
or centrifugal. It would result in a small torque.

yes i am explaining how ratation is achieved first

If 10N pulling force was used when the angle between the tangent at
point of attachment on goble surface is zero
centripetal force=10*cos 0
=10*90
=900 N

So, it is your contention that a 10N force can resolve into
componenents one of which is some 90 times larger than the
applied force? Where's the amplification taking place? Another
spectacular brain fart, Sparky.

That valve was to show to the most simplest way the important of
resultant angle less than 90 to the rotation.It show that when
resultant is 0 most of the pulling force will be resolve into rotation
that is to say cos 0 give 90.Get that imformation first.

No. Cos(0) = 1. The common trigonometric functions sin and cos
have ranges that lie between -1 and +1. 90 is right out.

Nb i have not yet put into account other facts associated with
rotation eg friction, I Just combine all factors associatted with
rotation as usual you will never under me.

Fv = 10N*sin(a) Vertical (centrifugal) component
Fh = 10N*cos(a) Horizonal (tangential) component

a is the angle to the surface tangent at point of application.

For a = 0 degrees, the horizontal component would be 10N. The
centripetal (or centrifugal) component would be zero. The
resulting torque about the N-S axis of the globe would be
10N*R, where R is the globe radius.

May be it will take years for me to explain a word for yor to
understand or iam not being more physical . i can not explain any
simpler

I think the problem may be that you're too simple. You certainly
underestimate our ability to understand physics in this newsgroup.



NB


The stringe represents the rsultant ray.The angle between the tangent
at the point of attachment and string repressents the resultant
angle.The force your pulling the sting with represents the attraction
force between the sun and earth when the surface absorbs the ray.
express using universal equation of radiation field force
F=x^2/4kPIr^2-mcfi
v was replaced by c for light photon speed.

Hey Sparky, how about showing us how the forward momentum of
a photon is converted into a negative momentum transferred to
the absorbing surface? Ever heard of that pesky little
conservation of momentum law?

X^2/4kPIr^2 is greater than mcfi when light is absorbed at a surface.

Mere assertion on your part. This expression is not accepted,
as the derivation is wholly specious and spurious. You cannot
use one unaccepted assertion to support another.


To get the net force of attraction between the source of radiation and
ther surface absorbing the radiation you have to get the diference.
may be you will now understand this
F=(X^2/4kPIr^2) -(mcfi)

As above.




THE FUNCTION OF EARTH MAGNETIC FIELD IN EARTH ROTATION
The main function of of earth magnetic field is to deflect the
positively charged photon to toward the west as they transvers through
the magnetic field.

Unmitigated crapola.

The deflection of all photon ray e.g light to a specific
direction(toward the west for the case of earth) is very important for
achieving a resultant ray of angle when the rays are absorbed on earth
surface.It also determine the direction of rotation of earth in right
hand screw rule

More crapola.

what do you mean by crapola

Nonsense, garbage, hooey, gobbledygook, bull****.


Hey Sparky, show us your calculation of the angular momentum
of the Earth's rotation.


A step at a time i am still explainning how rotation is achieved.

That is grade school physics. Rotation is the result of a
torque. Angular momentum takes care of sustaining it.

You are trying to imply that a continuous force is required to
sustain rotation even in a frictionless system. This is 2000
year old Aristotelian crapola (see definition of crapola above).

Perhaps you should now consider the fact that Venus' rotation
is retrograde and very small, yet Venus is much closer to the
Sun and receives much more sunlight than does the Earth. How
does your "theory" (and I apply the term generously) account
for this empirical tid-bit?