A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Spacestation Experiment Chapt16.15 EM-gravity; ISS Experiment #1325New Physics #1528 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 27th 13, 01:46 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math,sci.physics.electromag
Archimedes Plutonium[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 858
Default Spacestation Experiment Chapt16.15 EM-gravity; ISS Experiment #1325New Physics #1528 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Now we can actually try to make an artificial moon around ISS Space
Station but it would be easier to simply place a weight (mass) in the
inside of the ISS and see if it obeys General Relativity with the
center of mass of ISS. The images I have seen of the astronauts is
that everything has to be tied down to not float around. Because
everything floats around means that General Relativity is false,
because GR predicts some weight stabilization as a floor, but ISS
displays no such floor. And as for the astronauts in spacewalk,
General Relativity predicts some sticking power of gravity of its
4.5x10^5 kg, however, the spacewalk shows no sticking power to the
craft when the astronauts venture forth.

So all in all, no moon is possible, and no gravity sticking power is
possible and no gravity floor. This spells the end of General
Relativity and the realization that gravity is a electricity and
magnetism force coming out of the Maxwell Equations.

In Old Physics they realized gravity was 10^40 weaker as General
Relativity, but they hid all of Inertia, and placed inertia as some
strange and mysterious force or power of objects so that Sun can move
at 220km/sec while Earth putters along at a slow speed of 29km/sec,
blaming Inertia as covering that glaring discrepancy.

I know that Newton nor Maxwell knew that the Sun was 220 while Earth
was 29, but if those two true physicists, not the logically impaired
physicists we have today, but if those two had known the speed
differential, they would have thrown out their Newtonian gravity and
eventually found EM to replace it.

Now of all the passages in all of Feynman's writings on physics, I
could not have chosen a better few sentences than this to highlight
the error of Feynman's understanding of gravity and the error of
General Relativity.
On Apr 26, 1:32Â*pm, Archimedes Plutonium
- Hide quoted text -

wrote:
The errors of Feynman on gravity is easily seen in his book "The
Character of Physical Law" 1965.
--- quoting Feynman page 9 of The Character of Physical Law ---
But the motion to keep the planet going in a straight line has no 
 known reason. The reason why things coast for ever has never been 
 found out. The law of inertia has no known origin. Although the angels 
 do not exist the continuation of the motion does, but in order to 
 obtain the falling operation we do need a force. It became apparent 
 that the origin of the force was towards the sun.
--- end quote ---
Now I should also dig up where NOVA science tv shows Brian Greene make 
 this error of gravity and where Carl Sagan makes this error of gravity 
 and where Einstein makes the error of gravity and where Caltech's The 
 Mechanical Universe makes this error of gravity. But I should be 
 economical here because they all made the same error of gravity.
Their error is physics without the velocity of the Sun factored into 
 the equations. They all assumed the Sun was 0 speed in Space. If the 
 Sun were truly 0 speed rather than its true speed of 220km/sec, then 
 Feynman and others were correct. But alas, they are in deep error.
Now the way that Sagan and Greene explain gravity in General 
 Relativity is that mass bends space and other matter follows the 
 curvature of that bent space where they show us a trampoline with a 
 mass in the center bending the curvature of the trampoline matt and 
 then they roll a beach ball or something near the bent trampoline to 
 conjure in our minds the act of orbiting the mass at the center.
Or as Feynman expresses as the angels instead of pushing the matter in 
 a straight line of inertia in space that the angels push the matter 
 from the sides and in the direction of the sun.
But all of them, Feynman, Sagan, Greene, Einstein, Caltech physicists 
 of The Mechanical Universe have it wrong in that they make a fatal 
 physics assumption, and assume the Sun has no speed in Space.
Science does not allow and has no room for assumptions that are 
 incorrect. The Sun is moving about ten times faster in Space than the 
 planet Earth is moving in Space. That means gravity must be a force 
 that changes direction but also increases the "inertia" of Earth so 
 that its 29km/sec keeps up with the Sun's 220km/sec.
Compare their view of gravity with EM-gravity and see how easily EM- 
 gravity explains why and how the planets revolve around the Sun. Here 
 it is in a paragraph.
Explanation: The Sun has huge mass and that mass is proportional to 
 how many magnetic monopoles the Sun has. Those magnetic monopoles 
 forms Space around the Sun. So the Sun is Sun is really two things, it 
 is the Sun plus the Space of the Sun. That space is called the EM- 
 gravity cell of the Sun. It is a spinning cell and spins on the same 
 axis as the Sun itself spins on its axis. So that when a planet such 
 as Earth comes by with linear momentum of 29km/sec and the Sun has 
 220km/sec, the Sun would leave Earth behind and speed away if Feynman 
 and others were correct. But the Sun does not leave Earth behind 
 because of the spin of the rotating EM-gravity cell of the Sun picks 
 up Earth and forces it to orbit and revolve around the Sun.

For it is linear momentum and speed of the Sun at 220km/sec yet Earth
with only 29km/sec and how in the world can Earth be gravitationally
bound to the Sun. It is so ridiculous that the example of a fighter
jet aircraft upon passing a single engine tiny plane would become
bound to the jet aircraft.
The mistake of Feynman and Einstein and General Relativity is that
they set aside a concept of INERTIA and then pretend to be getting at
the heart of gravity as a force. They separate mass and inertial
mass. 
They ignore linear momentum. In the words of Feynman "The law
of 
inertia has no known origin." So the gravity of General Relativity
is 
basically inertia, yet Feynman admits that inertia is a total fog
patch.
The reason inertia is total fog in General Relativity or for Feynman
is because they never considered that gravity is just electricity and
magnetism of the Maxwell Equations. EM is a force that is 10^40
stronger than gravity. So you can hide a lot of Inertia if your force
is 10^40 stronger, while General Relativity is 10^40 weaker.
So what is Inertia in the Maxwell Equations? Simple, it is the fact
that mass is proportional to magnetic monopoles and so the Sun has
magnetic monopoles that stretch from the center of the Sun clear out
to the edge of the Oort Cloud. And that Sun gravity cell is Space
itself and it is space that is spinning on that axis that forms the
Sun to Oort Cloud. So that when a planet such as Earth has a linear
momentum of 29km/sec speed, it is impossible for Earth to be bound to
the Sun, unless, the Earth is locked to the gravity cell of the Sun
that spins Earth around the Sun.
So in EM-gravity, the Sun-Oort Cloud axis is spinning so fast and is
solid body rotation spin that it takes the meager 29km/sec Earth and
spins it around the Sun of a Sun that has a linear momentum speed of
220km/sec.
So in EM-gravity derived from the Maxwell Equations, we no longer
have 
these concepts of Inertia or inertial mass because the Maxwell
Equations have no inertia nor inertial mass, for they have only the
laws of EM.
--

Approximately 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google
newsgroups author search starting May 2012. They call it indexing; I
call it censor discrimination. Whatever the case, what is needed now
is for science newsgroups like sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.bio,
sci.geo.geology, sci.med, sci.paleontology, sci.astro,
sci.physics.electromag to
be hosted by a University the same as what
Drexel
University hosts sci.math as the Math Forum. Science needs to
be in education
not in the hands of corporations chasing after the
next dollar bill.
Besides, Drexel's Math Forum can demand no fake
names of all posters which reduces or eliminates most spam and hate
spew and search engine bombing.
Drexel has done a excellent, simple and fair author-archiving of AP
sci.math posts since May 2012
as seen here :

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Ads
  #2  
Old April 27th 13, 06:55 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math,sci.physics.electromag
Archimedes Plutonium[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 858
Default Maxwell Equations as axioms dispels Mach's Principle and InertiaChapt15.38 #1326 New Physics #1529 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Great, learn something new everyday. When you have the Maxwell
Equations as the axioms that produces all of physics, as a consequence
you have the Universe must be a atom itself, a big atom because the
Maxwell Equations are atomic structure. The reason the force of
gravity is an inverse square law is because Coulomb law is an inverse
square law.

Now with the Maxwell Equations as axioms over all of physics, it has
something to say about inertia, inertial mass, Mach's Principle. With
the Universe operated and governed by the Maxwell Equations it is an
Atom Totality and a Atom Totality does have a reference frame, the
nucleus of the Atom Totality. So there is a measure of absolute speed
and absolute time by referencing to the Nucleus, the center of the
Cosmos.

Now the Maxwell Equations do not have inertia nor inertial mass as a
concept, and that means inertia and inertial mass were figments of the
imagination. They were handy tools for a fake General Relativity, but
once gravity is seen as EM-gravity, we no longer need fakery concepts.
Mach's Principle is no longer
a science statement since the Maxwell Equations do not support
inertia.

Inertia, inertial mass, Mach's principle are modern day epicycles
where you need them only when you are bolstering a fake theory of
General Relativity.

So what has replaced inertia? Inertia was the formation of Space by
magnetic monopoles and that Space spins around a axis. So before we
thought of Earth moving at 29km/sec but also had a large inertia along
with the 29km/sec. Nowadays we think of Earth as only having speed of
29km/sec and the space Earth is traveling in is curved space that is
spinning and carrying Earth along in its spin.

So, now the reason ISS cannot have a artificial moon constructed is
because ISS lacks sufficient mass to have magnetic monopoles form a
Space that is spinning.

--

Approximately 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google
newsgroups author search starting May 2012. They call it indexing; I
call it censor discrimination. Whatever the case, what is needed now
is for science newsgroups like sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.bio,
sci.geo.geology, sci.med, sci.paleontology, sci.astro,
sci.physics.electromag to
be hosted by a University the same as what
Drexel
University hosts sci.math as the Math Forum. Science needs to
be in education
not in the hands of corporations chasing after the
next dollar bill.
Besides, Drexel's Math Forum can demand no fake
names of all posters which reduces or eliminates most spam and hate
spew and search engine bombing. Drexel has done a excellent, simple
and fair author-archiving of AP sci.math posts since May 2012
as seen
here :

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How the Maxwell Equations gets rid of Inertia and inertial massChapt16.15 EM-gravity; ISS Experiment #1324 New Physics #1527 ATOM TOTALITY5th ed Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 0 April 26th 13 10:48 PM
Spacestation-artificial-Moon experiment Chapt16.15 EM-gravity #1312New Physics #1515 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 7 April 26th 13 06:57 AM
orbit speeds Ida & Dactyl Chapt16.15 EM-gravity #1310 New Physics#1513 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 1 April 23rd 13 05:47 AM
Gravity cells to patch up the Sun's 220km/sec Chapt16.14 mathematicsof the force of gravity #1446 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 1 March 31st 13 08:19 AM
fiberglass experiment Chapt8 Experiment that shows what redshiftreally is #40 Atom Totality theory 5th ed. Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 0 October 8th 11 07:31 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.