So when your lame-ass ideas are debunked, just pretend all science is wrong?
Seriously, how is this allowed? Shouldn't this count as some violation of the rules?
My gravity theory
- Thread starter Motor Daddy
- Start date
So when your lame-ass ideas are debunked, just pretend all science is wrong?
Seriously, how is this allowed? Shouldn't this count as some violation of the rules?
Maybe he spent so much time beating up on Einstein in order to fool everyone - his real aim was attacking Newton.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Maybe he spent so much time beating up on Einstein in order to fool everyone - his real aim was attacking Newton.
I defeated Newton years ago. You should have seen it, it was awesome!!
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
The natural order of the universe is that objects come from their core and they are forced away from their core. That creates a situation where all mass is moving away from each other, and if you look at that higher order object you see that it is getting less dense because it is increasing in volume.. That core is part of a higher order. That higher order is part of a higher order, etc etc etc etc.............the fractal could go on and on, because space is infinite volume.
Not only do you not get the job on account of refusing to uphold the law, the same old guy from the 17th century is running for re-election as town sheriff, so you're out of luck.
You wouldn't have made it past the first of the election debates anyway. The man in the powdered wig was about to prove that the statement "there is no attraction, only force" is the same as saying "there is no direction, only magnitude" which is your fatal flaw. Forces are vectors. The direction is inward (force of attraction not repulsion), hence the term "attraction".
Plus, you'd hate to have to suffer the humiliation when Newton defeats you in your experiment to levitate something convincing, say, a mountain. You wouldn't want to see the next day's headline: Newton wins by a landslide.
There's plenty of ideas out there. The trick is being actually correct. That takes actual knowledge. Even Sir Isaac Newton had that much going for him, centuries ago, when flat-earthers were already becoming extinct.
No, you're just confused about the meaning of center of mass:
To test you "core" idea, find the center of mass of this object:
No, you're just confused about the meaning of center of mass:
To test you "core" idea, find the center of mass of this object:
Sherrifs like donuts
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
His days are history too. He never did figure out what light was all about so there is no way that he could have known what I know. I certainly thank him for his most excellent work of the day, but he just didn't see the big picture. He was on one end of the totter and Einstein was on the other end. On one hand Newton was of absolutes and on the other hand Einstein was the polar opposite. Neither one of them understood torque.
I can only guess, but look over to the left hand side of the page (if you aren't logged in). See those ads? Thats money in the pocket. People like MD generate ad views. Even though there is no reason to look, we just can't help ourselves.
People do get banned for doing what he's doing. At this point, I sincerely doubt Motor Daddy takes himself, or any of this, seriously, and repeats it for effect.
I complained about him too, but nothing happened. I can only assume that there is some reason he still posts this crap.
Maybe it's because he keeps it in the Fringe section? Or does he get it moved here by mods?
Anyway, it's dumb.
I would claim that he is trolling but he has a history of these bizarre claims here and on other sites. That does not mean he believes it but it does seem he is consistent. He gives every indication that he is just saying whatever he can to get people to respond.
Oy.
On The Fringe / Alternative Theories.
Yes, this post / thread is exactly where it should be. Can't see why you guys keep begrudging this.
And Yes, I would suppose the owners of this site have income in mind. You aren't opposed to income, are you ?
That said, MD's theory and attitude on this one, does seem somewhat obtuse. He hasn't answered the 'poles' questioned raised earlier by another poster.
Yes, this post / thread is exactly where it should be. Can't see why you guys keep begrudging this.
And Yes, I would suppose the owners of this site have income in mind. You aren't opposed to income, are you ?
That said, MD's theory and attitude on this one, does seem somewhat obtuse. He hasn't answered the 'poles' questioned raised earlier by another poster.
Sir Isaac Newton PRS MP was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist and theologian, who has been considered by many to be the greatest and most influential scientist who ever lived.
Sounds like someone is on the wrong side of history, and evidently it's not Newton.
Read Opticks. Better yet, write it.
Said the blind man.
Newton had a section on levers. Either he or Einstein would correctly solve for any problem involving moments, flawlessly, and without batting an eye.
Galileo gave us relativity, not Einstein. Einstein discovered special and general relativity. Newton's absolutes are nothing remarkable amid the thousands of pages of foundation work he did, and it says nothing about his philosophy of science.
You would need to read their works to even have a glimmer of what they understood. Newton can be considered the founder of the math and science dealing with elementary mechanics, in which torque is an minuscule idea. Einstein represents centuries of progress that built on the accomplishments of Newton.
The general term for torque is "moment of force". Newton understood moments better than anyone, and used the term repeatedly in Principia. He also gives a good statement of torque in prose form in the description of the force applied to "the handles" of a screw, and proportional to the force impressed on an object (as in a vise) by the end of the bolt.
He used the concept of a moment liberally, and gave numerous axioms that he derived by applying moments to different types of geometric scenarios.
I think MD just likes to be laughed at for some reason. Maybe he is actually some sort of Andy Kaufman type performance artist.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
I can guarantee you that Newton had a misunderstanding of torque. If he would have understood torque and power like I do he would have had my theory and Einstein's would have never came to be.
@Motor Daddy
let's assume your theory is correct.....
A rock on equator will weigh more in england, and even more in Greenland / be harder to lift, require more force......(Circular momentum, ther force around the bulgde of earth mid section will have the highest velocity.... just like the naw and egde of a wheel.)
SO...
since a 1 kg. rock weighs the same in England, Island, Greenland, Australia, India and oh the entire world........ your theory is wrong.
let's assume your theory is correct.....
A rock on equator will weigh more in england, and even more in Greenland / be harder to lift, require more force......(Circular momentum, ther force around the bulgde of earth mid section will have the highest velocity.... just like the naw and egde of a wheel.)
SO...
since a 1 kg. rock weighs the same in England, Island, Greenland, Australia, India and oh the entire world........ your theory is wrong.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Yes, the equator will have the highest velocity, but there are other factors to consider.
1. The distance the object is from the axis.
2. The RPM of the body.
3. The density of the body.
4. The density of the "atmosphere."
5. The "thickness" of the atmosphere.
6. The mass, density, and RPM of the "changing" body.
7. The velocity of the object and the new velocity of the object.
8. The "slippage" caused by the difference in rotation of the earth and the object. The atmosphere is not a solid, so there is a global "force" extending out of the planet due to its atmosphere. The atmosphere is not as strong as dirt, so it has "slippage" as it is forcing the object out.
There are probably some other factors too. I'm sure a good mathematician like AN could whip up an equation rather quickly for my idea.
If the same mass object was at two different distances from the axis then they were each traveling a different velocity as they travel with the earth. The mass closer to the axis has a higher acceleration because it has to rotate the same revolution per unit of time as the other object that is further away from the axis. The mass closer has a higher acceleration but a lower velocity. The net effect is the same weight. Do you see what I am saying?