Electrodynamic Spin Gravity

Originally posted by Zarkov
>> What you have done is taken classical mechanics and thrown in a "new" variable.

This new variable ensures all the "simple maths as you call it" is kept simple, actually the way the Universe works, IMO.

There are equations in those papers that have never been seen before, and the subtle fine nature of our Solar System is thus uncovered.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but anybody could have done this and it adds nothing new to science.

I propose you, Crisp's law of motion:

F * e = m a

Where e is a unit vector pointing in the direction in which the force is applied, F the size of the force and a the acceleration. I can actually predict the planet orbits with this law!

But unfortunately I will not make fame and fortune with Crisp's law of motion, since it is a rewritten version of Newton's law (... in case you hadn't noticed ;)). Sorry, there is a bit more required to grab the attention of the scientific community I guess.

Bye!

Crisp
 
I further propose a modified version of Crisp's law:

F <b>e</b> = Z<b>a</b> / 27.2

where Z is the magical James factor. Z is the cause of all inertia. An object with exactly 27.2 magical James factors will have a mass of exactly 1 kilogram, thus proving that Z is also the cause of mass.
 
Read this and rotate

http://world.std.com/7sweetser/quar... that won't effect the scientific community?
 
Last edited:
What you have done is taken classical mechanics and thrown in a "new" variable.

Haahaaaha...

Yes I have used the principles of Newtonian mechanics... so what!! And this "new variable" is the key to the whole analysis. Also not that mass is not a player in the results.. a very significant conclusion.

Within the cosmic bodies parameters are a reflection of the REAL interactions. Any analysis will have these observations written into the equations, Maxwellian theory or Newton.

To say I have come to the same conclusions as Newton or even slept in his grave is so far from the truth. The derivation of the formulae for Lagrangian points is unique, as is the demonstration of differential field spin.

The only conclusion that I can come to from your comments Crisp, is that you have only skimmed the documents and thus have come to a biased conclusion based on your immediate perceptions rather than the true content of the papers..

But no worries, I thanks you for your comments.

:).
 
"The only conclusion that I can come to from your comments Crisp, is that you have only skimmed the documents and thus have come to a biased conclusion based on your immediate perceptions rather than the true content of the papers.."

Be sure to write an abstract next time, or a two-page summary for people who already know about Newtonian mechanics. Sorry, but reading through 50 pages of text for 2 pages of what you consider to be interesting is a waste of time.

And yes, I do know how hard it is to summarize 200 pages of calculations into 5, been there, done that.

"This causes axial rotation to -1 as an anti-particle as a squared rotation of r induction on any particle axis, think about the reaction of r^4 which is equivalent to time and super string gravity on any particle."

No intend to offend you, but do you have a communication problem of some sort ? Is it impossible for you to talk in normal language without throwing in 10 equations ? Just so we know, appropriate actions can then be taken.

"where Z is the magical James factor. Z is the cause of all inertia. An object with exactly 27.2 magical James factors will have a mass of exactly 1 kilogram, thus proving that Z is also the cause of mass."

A very interesting remark! I somehow have the gut feeling that this James factor is related to the fundamental PlanK length and EinstIEn equation all at the same time! I just need some calculations to back it up!

Bye!

Crisp
 
Thanks Kirk, I will check them out. NO KIRK, can't open them !!!

Prediction..
The surface field velocity on Mercury, almost doubles in an orbit, increasing the gravity the planet experiences.

Recent observations from probes have note that the radius of the planet periodically changes in size ( 1 - 5 km)

Na/K levels in the exosphere periodically change.

The magnetosphere of Mercury experiences periodic partial collapse and reinforcement.

All these affects can be easily explained by Electrodynamic Spin Gravity Theory.

Mercury has a magnetic field, consistent with molten matter...from fission theory this is expected, from accretion theory this is highly improbable since in the 4 billion years or so the planet should be cold.

Just thought I would keep yo'all uptodate.

:)
 
Last edited:
>>>>A significant difficulty in learning more about Mercury, even in the space age, is the location of the planet, deep in the gravitational well of the Sun. A considerable amount of energy is needed to reach it with a spacecraft launched from Earth, and a further large amount is required to place the spacecraft into orbit around Mercury. As a result, no space mission has visited Mercury since the pioneering flybys of Mariner 10.

http://216.239.33.104/search?q=cach...ndulum+precession+calculations&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Orbits in space are not as people expected, but expected by ESGT.

:)
 
Re: Proof of my Theories

Originally posted by Kirk Gaulden
www.cheniere.org/techpapers/on_extracting_EM energy.htm


www.nidsci.org/articles/davis/worhole_induction.html
Click to expand...

Thank you for making clear to us that you do not understand anything of what you are saying.

Tom Bearden's (oh please not again) ... text is just a pile of text. You cannot do physics with text. At most you can do philosophy with text (even though I doubt that would be possible with Bearden's work).

The second link was typed wrongly. It should have linked <A HREF="http://www.nidsci.org/articles/davis/wormhole_induction.html">here</A>. This is General Relativity and not even remotely related (ok, a very little remotely) with the "string theory" you claim you are teaching us.

Bye!

Crisp
 
Why No Comment

So no comment re the observed strange characteristics (can't be explained by conventional theory) of Mercury.

Electrodynamic Spin Gravity, basically predicts these characteristics..

Curiouser and curiouse..

:)r
 
Zarkov,

"Electrodynamic Spin Gravity, basically predicts these characteristics.."

My dear friend... if you, with your reformulation of Newtonian physics, can predict the perihilion shift of mercury or any other of its "strange" (non Newtonian) behaviour, then that can mean either two things:
1 - you fucked up your calculations.
2 - you fucked up your calculations.

Pick one. Be sure to explain us.

Bye!

Crisp
 
- you fucked up your calculations.

Pick one. Be sure to explain us... Crisp

Mr Crisp, you dear sir are a cad, you obviously know nothing of ESGT, and furthur more you appear to have no knowledge of the contents of the papers I have allowed this forum to review.

Now which is it, are you a fascist troll like James R, or are you truely ignorant ?

Your answer will greatly affect the way I communicate with you.

ESGT clearly states that the gravity on Mercury doubles per orbit, ESGT clearly states that the field intensity waxes and wanes with the gravity. The perihelion advance is no problem, and the solution can be applied to ALL the planets, and not just a minor few as per Relativity.

I have decided to treat you as a two-faced troll. Thank you for your deception, and goodbye.
 
Hi Zarkov,

"Mr Crisp, you dear sir are a cad, you obviously know nothing of ESGT, and furthur more you appear to have no knowledge of the contents of the papers I have allowed this forum to review."

I have diagonally read the papers you linked to here to conclude that it is a reformulation of Newtonian gravity. I did not bother to read the 20 page text introduction, as after three of four pages it became clear to me that you were simply stating facts without a reference to proof or experimental evidence. I indirectly pointed out that writing a crystal clear summary of this will convince people in reading the rest aswel. The current text did not motivate me to read further.

The somewhat ridiculous "law of Crisp" and "James constant" was intended as a lesson that a reformulation of an existing and well developed theory does not add anything new.

"Now which is it, are you a fascist troll like James R, or are you truely ignorant ?"

If I have to choose between the two, I think I'd be somewhere in the middle. Rather sceptic towards people claiming they have a fantastic theory without good mathematical backup, and a bit ignorant because I did not read any further because of the aforementioned reasons.

"ESGT clearly states that the gravity on Mercury doubles per orbit, ESGT clearly states that the field intensity waxes and wanes with the gravity. The perihelion advance is no problem, and the solution can be applied to ALL the planets, and not just a minor few as per Relativity."

Wow, I must have missed something somewhere. Or I could have just skipped over it. Perhaps you made some nice Newtonian calculations I did not bother reading because they were not new.

"I have decided to treat you as a two-faced troll. Thank you for your deception, and goodbye."

Darn, and I thought we could be friends.

Bye!

Crisp
 
Prove your statement:

Zarkov,

To give you creedenece, I don't disagree but I do give the math when I give an explanation.

Show them the math...

Whether they believe it or not is their problem.
 
>> The current text did not motivate me to read further.

Hey guys, why do you think I am posting here, the text is my poor attempt at arm waving....

The maths are only based upon Newtonian mechanics, as applied to observational evidence,
BUT NOT Newtonian gravitation. and therefore the maths reflect the inherent Maxwellian logic. I have stated an analysis via Maxwellian logic and Lorentzian transformations could bring the maths into a modern framework, BUT it is entirely un-necessary as the analysis I produced achieved remarkable accuracy, much more accurate than any other extant analysis.

I certainly have built upon Newton, all good theories build upon some foundation. The conclusions drawn in my analysis have the benefit of electrodynamics, which brings Newton's work up to date.

:)
 
Zarkov,

I'm getting a little tired of your childish petulance. I have been unfailingly polite to you. In return, you call me names. I'm going to ask you nicely just this once to stop it.

Thanks.
 
So Zarkov, you use Newtonian mechanics and mix it with electromagnetism...

Can you point out what the transformation group of this theory is ? The Galilean or the Lorentz transformations ? Or a mixture of both ?
 
Newtonian Mechanics model

Hi Crisp.

No, I am not up to speed on Lorentz transformations, but I was hoping someone...

Inherent in tha observational parameters must be all the theoretical parameters.

I have lumped them together,,, easiest...

I have see reference to a G(mu), like Gu, which is equivalent to my Gcentral spin.

I do not know any more about this as yet.

:)
 
So you do not know a thing about the (crucial) Lorentz transformations that explain you how electromagnetic fields change from one frame of reference to another. But yet you succeed in combining it with (classical) gravity and Newtonian mechanics, which is subject to the incompatible Galilean transformations.

I salute you.

Oh BTW, there are like 100 threads on the Lorentz transformations in the physics & math forum, I suggest doing a search there.

Bye!

Crisp
 
Here's one for you, Zarkov:

Angular momenta of the planets, Icarus, Volume 7, Issues 1-3, 1967, Pages 251-256
Ferol F. Fish, Jr.

Abstract:
The angular momentum densities of planet-satellite systems (including the asteroids but excepting Venus, Mercury, Mars, and Neptune), viewed as at rest in their solar orbits, exhibit a regularity expressed by A = kM2/3, where A is the angular momentum density; M is the mass; and k is a constant. If this equation represents an initial relationship for the solar system, some interesting conclusions follow. (1) The asteroids, the Earth-Moon system, Uranus, Saturn, and Jupiter have lost little angular momentum. (2) The asteroids formed in the same way as the planets and are not the remains of a fragmented planet. (3) The Earth-Moon system was formed together in the same region of space, i.e., the Moon is not a captured body. Moreover, the Moon probably did not originate by fission from a primitive Earth. (4) Mercury and Venus are depleted in angular momentum, probably because of tidal interaction with the Sun. (5) The Neptune system appears to have lost angular momentum. A possible explanation for this is provided by Lyttleton's hypothesis that Pluto was once a satellite of Neptune. (6) Mars has either lost angular momentum or never possessed as much as expected from the above equation. (7) The total angular momentum density of the solar system is also closely given by the above equation.
Click to expand...

Let's see what you make of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top