Victor Espinoza's: Thread of Intrigue

[victorespinoza]

[video=youtube;-4W2hdy6vlA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4W2hdy6vlA&hd=1[/video]

I mean this nylon turning:

The Centrifugal force removes the weight. With the nylon by turning.

The centrifugal force removes weight and also eliminates the opposite reaction force.

OH, okay - sorry, not really sure where that is a nylon (I'm guessing a nylon weight?) but yeah - as billvon said, it wouldn't work.

The reason is simple enough - the centrifugal force doesn't "negate" the weight of the object - it is simply being held at its furthest possible point on the tether, which happens in this case to be suspended in the air, giving the illusion of negating the force of gravity. However, if you were to do this same experiment with the ball on the ground, you would notice it does not raise up at all - it will only ever reach a point where the string tethering it is on the same plane as the tangent of the objects circular path, IE, the direction the object would fly off in should the tether be cut.

The weight created by the centrifugal force is greater.

 

[Kittamaru]

[video=youtube;-4W2hdy6vlA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4W2hdy6vlA&hd=1[/video]







The weight created by the centrifugal force is greater.

Victor, the thing is there is no weight - you are confusing weight and inertia/momentum. There is a VERY big difference. Weight is nothing more than mass being acted upon by gravity (in its most basic form) - inertia is the kinetic energy of a mass in motion. These are VERY different things and cannot be assumed to be used interchangeably.

You can test this yourself - take a large washer or bolt or any sort of small weight, and tie it to a piece of string. Spin it around in your hand - you will notice that it ultimately ends up in a flat spin on a plane along its axis of rotation (your hand). If you let go of that string, that inertia carries it onward in a straight (or near straight) line from the point where you let go.

 

[victorespinoza]

I'm thinking one thing.

The weight of the opposite reaction is created by the pressure.

And here on Earth, the weight of the centrifugal force is created by the weight of the object.

But in outer space, the object not weighs, so what, no weight centrifugal force will not be created.

My propellant of centrifugal force, not It will work in the outer space.

I lost my time and took time to you.

(I think)

 

[Kittamaru]

I'm thinking one thing.

The weight of the opposite reaction is created by the pressure.

And here on Earth, the weight of the centrifugal force is created by the weight of the object.

But in outer space, the object not weighs, so what, no weight centrifugal force will not be created.

My propellant of centrifugal force, not It will work in the outer space.

I lost my time and took time to you.

(I think)

Well, again, you are substituting weight and mass - an object in space will still have mass, and thus still have its inertia - if you get it spinning around a fixed point, it will still generate centrifugal forces. The big thing you will run into is that, unless it is counter-weighted on the opposite side perfectly, whatever it is tethered two will start to sway or oscillate due to the pull of that tether against it

 

[victorespinoza]

Well, again, you are substituting weight and mass - an object in space will still have mass, and thus still have its inertia - if you get it spinning around a fixed point, it will still generate centrifugal forces. The big thing you will run into is that, unless it is counter-weighted on the opposite side perfectly, whatever it is tethered two will start to sway or oscillate due to the pull of that tether against it

If there is no weight, there is no centrifugal force.

Or am I wrong?

 

[victorespinoza]

.

SPACESHIP FROM VICTOR

 

[Uncle Pythagoras]

I'm thinking one thing.

The weight of the opposite reaction is created by the pressure.

And here on Earth, the weight of the centrifugal force is created by the weight of the object.

But in outer space, the object not weighs, so what, no weight centrifugal force will not be created.

My propellant of centrifugal force, not It will work in the outer space.

I lost my time and took time to you.

(I think)

You can use that idea in pseudoscience that's how my version of gravity works. I can make a computer model of it, so that means that it can work. In space it still works. The opposite reaction to movement in my version of quantum physics is to create a field of holes, and the holes are the area of least resistance, so you get movement towards that area. The Earth would be travelling through a field of holes as well, that would be the directional memory. That helps to keep gravity a constant. Being as you are using black holes as gravity you have that option. It's the same with the sun, and the bow wave. The difference on Earth is the flow in the Y plane, which takes away the energy towards the Earth. You have the Earth as your competing field of holes which you mentioned earlier.

In the end what you are trying to do is cancel out the holes. I don't know how you would do that.

 

[Kittamaru]

If there is no weight, there is no centrifugal force.

Or am I wrong?

You can still have centrifugal force without weight - what you cannot do is have centrifugal force without mass. (to the best of my knowledge)

 

[Uncle Pythagoras]

You can still have centrifugal force without weight - what you cannot do is have centrifugal force without mass. (to the best of my knowledge)

You can reverse mass so that it is negative, then you only have centrifugal force without mass. Talking science in pseudoscience doesn't work very well, and Victor has reversed a lot of the physics.

 

[Kittamaru]

You can reverse mass so that it is negative, then you only have centrifugal force without mass. Talking science in pseudoscience doesn't work very well, and Victor has reversed a lot of the physics.

Again, I'm not really sure how you could have "negative mass" in such a fashion... I know in theoretical physics it is a counterpoint to standard mass, but to my knowledge such a thing is still highly debated... not to mention wholly irrelevant to this discussion/idea.

 

[Uncle Pythagoras]

It's not irrelevant if Victor is using black holes for gravity. A black hole would be an empty hole. In mathematics a test was performed if a black hole were empty of gravity, and the mathematics said that the black hole would be unchanged, it would still work. The difference is that now you have weight inside holes, like an empty bucket under a waterfall, or the sail on a sailing boat. You catch gravity in the hole, and that produces weight. Weight, and mass are now opposites. The spinning ball would then move into the area of least resistance ahead of itself, and all of the physics are reversed from science. Matter moves towards holes, and matter moves towards a black hole, so it would just be a hole. It's mass would be gravity moving into it. You then need to get gravity out of it again, and you do that with an outflow of magnetism... which a black hole has. All that negative mass needs to be is spin force that creates a hole by spin... a whirlpool of gravity. The faster the spin, the bigger the hole, and all that is in what Victor has said. Apart from I just filled in the gaps.

 

[Kittamaru]

Wait, what? Using black holes for gravity... do you mean assuming that all gravity occurs because of black holes, not mass?

Of course matter moves towards black holes... they are a strong gravitational pull. When you say matter moves towards holes, then differentiate between holes and black holes.. what are you referring to? Also, regarding black holes and magnetism; I know they emit a magnetic field around them, but magnetism isn't the opposite of gravity, and as far as I'm aware, an outpouring of magnetism doesn't compensate for an influx of gravity...

 

[Uncle Pythagoras]

Wait, what? Using black holes for gravity... do you mean assuming that all gravity occurs because of black holes, not mass?

Of course matter moves towards black holes... they are a strong gravitational pull. When you say matter moves towards holes, then differentiate between holes and black holes.. what are you referring to? Also, regarding black holes and magnetism; I know they emit a magnetic field around them, but magnetism isn't the opposite of gravity, and as far as I'm aware, an outpouring of magnetism doesn't compensate for an influx of gravity...

In a theory of black hole gravity you can't use the standard model of gravitational pull. Yes magnetism would be the opposition of gravity, and that would create the cosmological constant with gravity having the slight advantage of cause, and effect. The inflow of gravity in a bar magnet at one end, and the outflow at the other end. Gravity in this case is local to the magnet, not at a distance. Internal gravity of iron which would be a sponge with an internal spin force..

 

[Kittamaru]

In a theory of black hole gravity you can't use the standard model of gravitational pull. Yes magnetism would be the opposition of gravity, and that would create the cosmological constant with gravity having the slight advantage of cause, and effect.

Okay, I think I see where we're getting our lines crossed - I've been talking based on standard-model relativity physics. I would presume, given that last statement, you are referencing another model/proposed system?

 

[Uncle Pythagoras]

Okay, I think I see where we're getting our lines crossed - I've been talking based on standard-model relativity physics. I would presume, given that last statement, you are referencing another model/proposed system?

Well, yes, that's the problem with pseudoscience, it might mean changing a lot of things all at once. No pull forces, flow into negative mass holes.

 

[Kittamaru]

Well, yes, that's the problem with pseudoscience, it might mean changing a lot of things all at once. No pull forces, flow into negative mass holes.

Well, yes, but that's why I'm trying to slow things down. One of the main ways to test something is to change it one aspect at a time. Start with what you know, and go from there. otherwise, if you change a dozen variables at once, you don't really know which variable it was that changed the outcome.

 

[Uncle Pythagoras]

Well, yes, but that's why I'm trying to slow things down. One of the main ways to test something is to change it one aspect at a time. Start with what you know, and go from there. otherwise, if you change a dozen variables at once, you don't really know which variable it was that changed the outcome.

All you have to remember is that maths works backwards, and forwards. So everything you change has to still give the same mathematical results backwards.

You swap mass for negative mass.
So you have to put that back in as gravity for mass.

Weight becomes negative weight.
So you put that back in as flow force.

Gravity becomes trapped in a hole.
So you reverse that with an outflow of magnetism.

The Earth has an orbit towards a flow force.
You reverse that by turning the flow force into negative flow forces... holes.

So now the spinning nylon is creating weight towards the ball by creating holes for the ball to move into.

 

[Kittamaru]

*shakes head* That just seems... highly implausible outside the realm of theoretical physics and simulation. I'm not saying you're wrong... just that it countermands everything that i've observed to be correct.

 

[Uncle Pythagoras]

*shakes head* That just seems... highly implausible outside the realm of theoretical physics and simulation. I'm not saying you're wrong... just that it countermands everything that i've observed to be correct.

It is exactly what you have always observed. A pull force is unobservable. A flow force happens all over the planet. But atoms are not a good example of gravity.

 

[victorespinoza]

Next page...