FAQ
It is currently Fri Jul 21, 2017 10:52 pm


Author Message
Strawman
Post  Post subject: An Archimedean Screw Interpretation of Gravity  |  Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 12:14 pm
Posts: 12

Offline
Hi. This is a new field theory of gravity, where a "Field Line" is a turning helix, and the linear force is obtained by the right hand rule. (similar to the operation of a Lead Screw). This mechanical interpretation of a "Field Line" can be extended to other Fundamental Forces in nature, such as a chemical bond via a mechanical interpretation of the electric charge, where an electric field is also a turning helix. More on the theory can be found by Googling, "The Story of Our Universe: An Archimedean Screw Interpretation".

Or via this free eBook:
LINK REMOVED BY INOW

If you have any comments, please feel free.
Thanks.
Strawman.

_________________
Claiming Newton's 2nd Law is not an example of Causality is the same as claiming Shakespeare's Hamlet is not an example of Poetry.


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: An Archimedean Screw Interpretation of Gravity  |  Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2016 5:22 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4798
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
instead of asking people to read a book or an e-book or watch a video, how about trying to summarise your views so that we can make up our minds whether there's any beef in this archimedean screw analogy for what physics normally tends to think of as bosons

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
Strawman
Post  Post subject: Re: An Archimedean Screw Interpretation of Gravity  |  Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2016 3:51 am

Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 12:14 pm
Posts: 12

Offline
marnixR wrote:
instead of asking people to read a book or an e-book or watch a video, how about trying to summarise your views so that we can make up our minds whether there's any beef in this archimedean screw analogy for what physics normally tends to think of as bosons


Okay. Here's a quick summary.

A List of Observables.

1. Uses the original Theory of Aberration in the transverse arm beam (MMX). That is the beams ba1 and ca1, do not meet at the same point on the splitter when they return due to aberration. According to Relativity, they do. Please view the animation I made on the Physics forum.
2. This theory uses, Parallelogram Law summations to trace planetary orbits, where one arm of the parallelogram law represents gravity (force of helical screws, that spin in the same direction) and the other the absolute velocity of the planet/star/projectile. Also this enables a prediction of a precession of orbits,without giving up the inverse square law or making up a new central force (like Newton and Einstein do for eg). The precession of orbits in-built in Parallelogram Law summations. This can be seen in any Excel simulation of orbits. (I used Michael Fowler's program, which anyone can download and see for themselves).
3. Uess Newtonian definitions of "mass", "inertia", "centrifugal force", "weight", "gravity", "momentum" and "kinetic energy".
4. Newton's 2nd law does not violate Causality. Therefore, "inertia" and by extension "centrifugal force" has nothing to do with distant rotating stars. We claim "inertia" and therefore, "mass" needs no explanations in the form of "Higgs Field", since we use the age old definition of mass: Number of nucleons.
5. There is no need for an entity called, Strong Force in this theory, since we use, a variant of Maxwell's Idle-Wheels in the core of a nucleus, hence we are easily able to explain why protons don't fly away in an atom (without invoking an entity called, Strong Force).
6. This theory presents a Particle Interpretation of the Wave Mechanics of Light. For eg, Interference. This interpretation is extended to explain, spectral lines, spectral shadows, spectrum, and E=hv.
7. We maintain that an entity called, Angular Momentum is a fictitious entity, which takes credit for the physical effects that are born out of "centrifugal force". Therefore, "precession of a spinning top" is explained in a new manner without relying an entity called, "Angular Momentum".
8. This theory presents a new model of Atoms where there are no electrons in a QM sense. Electric Charge is explained as an interaction between two helixes.
9. Light is a piece of an helix and is emitted by a turning helix. We assume that all helixes spin at an angular velocity of c. Therefore, a piece of a helix (light) is emitted at the same velocity, c. Light has a definite size and not a size zero particle.
10. Time dilation is explained via simple Newtonian mechanics as a "slowing down of a process". For eg, number of vibrations or cycles in a clock, when it is subjected to a change in external forces be it gravity or fictitious forces (in the form of acceleration). We claim, that clock dilation and time are dilation are not the same.

11. According to current theories, an "electron" is a point particle. That is size zero.

"The electron has no known substructure.[1][75] and it is assumed to be a point particle with a point charge and no spatial extent.[9] In classical physics, the angular momentum and magnetic moment of an object depend upon its physical dimensions. Hence, the concept of a dimensionless electron possessing these properties contrasts to experimental observations in Penning traps which point to finite non-zero radius of the electron. A possible explanation of this paradoxical situation is given below in the "Virtual particles" subsection by taking into consideration the Foldy-Wouthuysen transformation.The issue of the radius of the electron is a challenging problem of the modern theoretical physics. The admission of the hypothesis of a finite radius of the electron is incompatible to the premises of the theory of relativity. On the other hand, a point-like electron (zero radius) generates serious mathematical difficulties due to the self-energy of the electron tending to infinity.[76] These aspects have been analyzed in detail byDmitri Ivanenko and Arseny Sokolov."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

My model simplifies things, removes, strong force, infinite self energy, and other fictitious entities, and models reality more easily than current models. I recommend that you give my work a quick glance. It has all the answers.

Link to the free eBook:
LINK REMOVED BY INOW

Strawman

_________________
Claiming Newton's 2nd Law is not an example of Causality is the same as claiming Shakespeare's Hamlet is not an example of Poetry.


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: An Archimedean Screw Interpretation of Gravity  |  Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2016 7:24 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4798
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
you lost me - what do causality and the strong force have to do with gravity ?

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
Daecon
Post  Post subject: Re: An Archimedean Screw Interpretation of Gravity  |  Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2016 8:24 am
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:32 pm
Posts: 38
Location: Upper Hutt, New Zealand

Offline
marnixR wrote:
you lost me - what do causality and the strong force have to do with gravity ?

Don't forget light.


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: An Archimedean Screw Interpretation of Gravity  |  Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2016 11:13 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4798
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
Daecon wrote:
marnixR wrote:
you lost me - what do causality and the strong force have to do with gravity ?

Don't forget light.


true - when you state that light is a helix, what does that refer to ?
standard physics states that the carrier of light is the photon, but as far as I'm aware, no-one has ever said photons were constructed as a helix

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
Strawman
Post  Post subject: Re: An Archimedean Screw Interpretation of Gravity  |  Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:36 pm

Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 12:14 pm
Posts: 12

Offline
marnixR wrote:
you lost me - what do causality and the strong force have to do with gravity ?


The short answer is nothing. Gravity is explained via a screw mechanism. Strong force is bypassed in this new model of atom. If my model interests you, you are free to check it out. It's a free book, and a free idea. But you're time is your time. So, there. A field line, in this work is a turning screw. Right hand rule gives the direction of the force of the field line. This idea of a Field Line can be extended to explain other fundamental forces, in nature. And I do so, in the book. I thought let me share it here. Those that are interested are free to have a look.

_________________
Claiming Newton's 2nd Law is not an example of Causality is the same as claiming Shakespeare's Hamlet is not an example of Poetry.


Top
Strawman
Post  Post subject: Re: An Archimedean Screw Interpretation of Gravity  |  Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:49 pm

Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 12:14 pm
Posts: 12

Offline
marnixR wrote:
Daecon wrote:
marnixR wrote:
you lost me - what do causality and the strong force have to do with gravity ?

Don't forget light.


true - when you state that light is a helix, what does that refer to ?
standard physics states that the carrier of light is the photon, but as far as I'm aware, no-one has ever said photons were constructed as a helix


It's all there in the book. Again, if the idea is interesting, take a look. And if you have any questions, please ask, I will be happy to answer them.

_________________
Claiming Newton's 2nd Law is not an example of Causality is the same as claiming Shakespeare's Hamlet is not an example of Poetry.


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: An Archimedean Screw Interpretation of Gravity  |  Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2016 3:01 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4798
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
in short it's a ploy to get people to read your book
if I hadn't banned you on the basis of your behaviour in the physics section, I would start thinking about it now

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: An Archimedean Screw Interpretation of Gravity  |  Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2016 3:25 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5601
Location: Iowa

Offline
I was also willing to let it ride, but given his subsequent behavior and consequent banning I've gone back and removed his link. We're not here for others to promote and pimp their products.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Print view

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Jump to:   


Delete all board cookies | The team | All times are UTC


This free forum is proudly hosted by ProphpBB | phpBB software | Report Abuse | Privacy