Electrodynamic Spin Gravity

Hi, in ESG, black holes are not, neutron stars I expect do not exist (they would have to be under immense spin pressure ).

ESG is a completely different approach to gravity.

If you read the papers you will note that the surface field density on each planet, including the Sun, is roughly about the same magnitude for each.

This is extremely significant, because it implies matter is held together by external pressure, rather than the generally accepted matter attracting matter.

Just a different way to looking at things, ... there is still a lot of extending of the theory to go.

:)
 
Zarkov:

Given your theory, please explain why a centrifuge does not pull things inwards towards it. After all, it spins very fast.
 
Comments on the theory

Zarkov,

Here are some comments and questions on your theory.

* What is an electric-magnetic field vector?

You seem to be regarding the electric and magnetic fields as a single entity. This, as you know, is very different to the way that classical physics treats these things. An explanation of your picture seems to be missing from your theory.

You also refer to a "primary" and a "secondary" B-E field. That is also unexplained.

* Undefined terms

You use many terms in your document which are totally undefined. A partial list of such terms is:

interplanetary current sheet, circulation electric field, toroidal frame, poloidal frame, field density, potential gradient.

Equation (7) contains two undefined terms: B-E and theta. (I assume that by "sine" you mean "sin".)

* Unsupported data

You have made a number of statements which you seem to regard as facts, even though you provide no evidence that what you say is true. Example:

"In the space surrounding the Sun, there is an onion style arrangement of concentric spheres of magnetic field strength that will react if the lines of force are deformed by non-inertial accelerated motion."

You claim in section 4 that a body induces a circulating (superconducting) current, but you do not explain the origin of that current or give any evidence of it.

You repeatedly refer to "satellite data". This is very vague. What data? Which satellite(s)? Measurements of what, exactly? You need to reference your data.

In section 7, you claim that "mass engenders a magnetic field", but there is no support for that statement.

* Content of mathematical theory

All the mathematics you have presented which agrees with the results derived using Newtonian physics agrees because your theory simply defines new terms which substitute a new symbol for a recognised Newtonian value. The centrepiece of your theory is:

Gcentral spin = r v^2

First you claim that this value is a constant for all objects. That is not true. Then, a couple of sentences later, you say that this "constant" can vary according to which reference frame you use. Apparently there are "preferred" frames, but you do not explain how to find the preferred frame.

In fact, given your later mathematics, it is clear that Gcentral spin is, in fact, directly proportional to the mass of the planet or star being orbited. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that Gcentral spin is simply a smokescreen which you have invented to hide what is really going on in your correct results - Newtonian physics.

* Conclusion

Your theory doesn't seem to add anything new to Newtonian physics. Its correct results are just disguised reproductions of Newtonian calculations. Extrapolations to new results are largely unexplained, and must be taken entirely on faith if they are to be believed, since no actual supporting evidence is given.

More importantly, you have given no actual evidence or argument which says that gravity is actually <b>caused by spin</b>, as opposed to the Newtonian explanation that it is caused by mass. There are many, many counterexamples which go against your central idea, but your paper does not address any of them.

If you are serious about challenging Newtonian physics, you will need to show where Newton is wrong, and your theory is right. You will need actual supporting evidence. So far, all you have done is to show that you can introduce some new symbols, seemingly without any rhyme or reason, and dress up Newton in a different form. Your theory appears not to aid understanding of orbital mechanics, but to obfuscate it.
 
>>the electric and magnetic fields as a single entity

correct, they self induce and have the same field centre.

>>the rest

Thanks for your opinion James.

Shame you didn't raise a single problem with the maths or the theory.

:)
 
"I know Zarkov from another forum, but for now I'll refrain from commenting any futher and leave you all to evaluate his theory on its merits."

As do I. He's a rather interesting character, as I'm sure people here will come to find out. He also has several other interesting alternative theories up his sleeve, so watch this space.
 
>> Hi James
Given your theory, please explain why a centrifuge does not pull things inwards towards it. After all, it spins very fast

Rotary force is a two way street, within the field of spin, particles will find their density levels, outward when accelerated and inward when negatively accelerated.

:)
 
Zarkov,

<i>Shame you didn't raise a single problem with the maths or the theory.</i>

Shame you can't see problems when they are pointed out to you.

Well, clearly this discussion will go nowhere useful from here, so I will leave you to it.
 
Thanks james, way to go.

Yep you have to have real problems, so read the papers, and do the math, and realise mass does not really come into determining the parameters of the bodies in the Solar System

Considering the Solar System is orbiting at about 230 km/sec, at a distance of 8.5 K par secs from the centre..

That gives a Gcentral spin of our galaxy of 1.51 X 10^22 km^3 sec^-2.

Compare this with our Sun... Gcentral spin-sun 1.328 X 10^11 Km^3 sec^-2.

:)
 
Excellent JR, just to show you know,,,

Please show me your working re differential field spin of say Neptune !

I am sure you must have pleanty of real questions..

:)
 
I don't beleive you defined "differential field spin" in your paper, Zarkov, so I've got no idea how it might be calculated.
 
Hi James. differential field spin is defined there is a whole section on it.

OK, just for you :)

There is a L1 and L2 point for an orbiting point mass immersed in the Sun's field.

At these points..

For the planet, calculate the field spin at that distance (L1 r L2) away from the centre of the planet, using Gcentral spin for that planet.

For the Sun's field, calculate the field spin using Gcentral spin for the Sun, at a distance of the planets L1 from the Sun, and subtract the similarily derived value at the distance of the planets L2 from the Sun.

Do this and tell me your result.

:)


Just a quick question, what does L1 and L2 represent in spin gravity ?

:)
 
Gravity and inertia

I love this stuff!

Goodafter noon gentlemen,

The studies that Einstein did on GR relating to gravity and inertia
experiments with a stone on the train make me see one thing:

That inertia and gravity are linked to time in a spin, retro spin
action in reference at a distance in a vacuum, like a pendulum field effect.

I see this effect as a result of electrodynamic torsion upon subatomic particles in atomic structures, converting the particles
to pull on the space-time continuum around the structure in question, creating its own vacuum around the object slowing the
rate of acceleration to 32 ft/sec.

Multi-torsion effects of subatomic structures:
c*u:{x,y,z,t}_w/r^4_dke+_vac, inertia

c*u:{x,y,z,t,}_w/r_4^dke-_vac, gravity

u=v, w=G=t, r=radial torqueclockwise/counter clockwise, dke represents distance of an electron through a medium in degrees.:eek:
 
Last edited:
Zarkov primer

For anybody who is not clear on the whole “Zarkov” fiasco, James R’s long and detailed response further up this page puts Zarkov’s “theory” in perspective, and is basically a polite way of stating the obvious: that Zarkov is a complete crackpot. Just as he has done on other science fora, Zarkov has refused to address any of James R’s polite requests for clarification, but has instead claimed (in as many words) that James R doesn’t know what he is talking about. Zarkov has then gone on to declare that his “theory” cannot be faulted……

“Shame you didn't raise a single problem with the maths or the theory”, Zarkov says.

Yeah, right. :bugeye:
 
Thanks, skulting stalker, as usual just trolling, eh ??

I will request you delete your post, or I will seek some decision.

Thanks



:)
 
Hi James, having trouble ? It should only take a few minutes of your time to work out the differential field spin.
:(


Hi Kirk, good to see you are into the gravity of the matter.

Not sure what you think BUT

Just between you and me, there is no such force as pull... I am sure if you look clearly at situations of one thing causing the movement of another, push is the only way to do it !

IMO

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top