Roll on the 20th June

[JohnGalt_USA]

ok had enough of this shit, 9pm Australian eastern standard time on the website i will bury every Newtonian for ever and for all time, it will be uncontested. I told you six ways from Sunday, six machine that all do the same thing in different ways.

What exact date at 9:00 PM are we talking about? You posted your last comment on Thursday 05/08/08 at 7:41 PM EST in Australia. It's now Friday 05/09/08 at 9:32 AM EST in Australia. I see your new Up Yours page http://www.surphzup.com/gpage1.html but there is nothing there yet that explains how to build your device or bury Newton physics.

[pillager]

This guy sounds like John Searl.  Rambling on and on with meaningless drivel, whilst claiming to know everything about everything.
If you got something, show it, or shut up.  Why wait?  I expect more words from you, but little else.

[Rolo]

Can someone explain to me how gravity works?  I understand the observable principals and the measurable mathematics, but I don't seem to be able to find a scientific description of the nuts and bolts of it.
This still fits the science credo of "propose a theory, perform a test, observe the results" and as such gravity is proven.
But how does it work?  And why?

Quote from How Stuff Works "The question of why atoms attract one another is still not understood. The goal is to combine gravity, electromagnetism and strong and weak nuclear forces into a single unified theory. (Check out this page on quantum gravity string theory.)"


Paraphrase from Scott Adams: "Every previous generation throughout history though that they were the ones who answered all the unknown questions, but they didn't.  What are the odds that this generation is the one that answers all the unknowns?"

[maw2432]

OK  think about this.

Classical theorists such as Aristotle believed objects moved only so long as force was being applied to them. He was later proven wrong.   Many educational institutions have taught students in a historical manner and, as well as, in just topic areas such as ?Simple Machines?. 

Depending on where a student was before tuning-out because of a poor/bad science teacher or educational environment, a person could later in life refute science as it was taught to them -- because of their real life experiences that proved those things wrong under different conditions. 

Such educational experiences might explain the bad mouthing of the theories/laws of Newton as being wrong --- Where just maybe these are really disputes of an understanding of Aristotle?s believes or other classic understandings of actions of Simple Machines as was taught -- often taught without accounting for Newton?s Laws of Motion and Inertia.   

I believe we should give Archer more room for his experiences and observations.  He has experience that refutes many of the classical believes.   So what if he mistakely atributes these to Newton.   Lets see what he has learned.     Even Einstien said Newtons laws did not hold up ... when objects moved at near light speed.

Newton never said that Perpetual Motion was impossible ?.but the opposite.   ?A body in motion will remain in motion --- unless acted upon by an outside force.?
More complete --   ?A physical body will remain at rest, or continue to move at a constant velocity, unless an outside net force acts upon it.? 

I think we need to see and test Archers ideas.     

FE is just a  puzzle.  I believe it can be achieved.


Bill

[zerotensor]

Can someone explain to me how gravity works?  I understand the observable principals and the measurable mathematics, but I don't seem to be able to find a scientific description of the nuts and bolts of it.
This still fits the science credo of "propose a theory, perform a test, observe the results" and as such gravity is proven.
But how does it work?  And why?

Quote from How Stuff Works "The question of why atoms attract one another is still not understood. The goal is to combine gravity, electromagnetism and strong and weak nuclear forces into a single unified theory. (Check out this page on quantum gravity string theory.)"


Paraphrase from Scott Adams: "Every previous generation throughout history though that they were the ones who answered all the unknown questions, but they didn't.  What are the odds that this generation is the one that answers all the unknowns?"

It would take a long, long time to explain every nut and bolt of "how gravity works", but I'll sketch it out for you here "generally" .  Keep in mind that Archer rejects all of this (without providing a good alternative, I might add), and I am sure that many on this forum have their own pet theories which deviate substantially from my own.  That said, here is my view, (which agrees, for the most part, with Einstein):

The phenomenon we call "gravity" is the result of the curvature of spacetime.  Matter and energy curve spacetime.  Matter is a stable spacetime structure, a kind-of "knot" in the fabric of space.  Light is a special kind of wave in spacetime.  Matter and light follow geodesics within this curved spacetime manifold.  Near a massive body, (like the earth, say), the curvature is great, whereas far from any massive body, the curvature is small.  A small mass left to its own devices (like a falling apple) will follow a path in spacetime in which it is locally "weightless".  Einsteins equivalence principle states that there is no physical difference between an accelerated reference frame and a gravitational field.  They are exactly the same thing.  The classic thought experiment goes like this:  Imagine that you are in an elevator.  The elevator accelerates upward, and you feel heavier.  Once the elevator is no longer accelerating, you feel the familiar force of gravity.  Now the elevator decelerates.  You feel lighter.  Then, the cable suddenly snaps.  From your perspective, gravity, as you usually experience it, ceases to exist.  You are in free-fall and completely weightless.  Now, imagine that the elevator is floating in space away from any massive body.  When the elevator is accelerating (say by the application of rocket thrust), you measure a gravitational field.  When it is not accelerating, one would measure no gravity there.  Without looking out the window, you would not know if you were being held in place in an external gravitational field, or if you were being accelerated.

I could go on, but that should be enough to get you started.

So there you go; an explanation of what gravity "is" -- a local distortion in the geometry of spacetime.  Near matter, one will experience a gravitational field / acceleration because (stable) matter IS, intrinsically, just curved spacetime which is knotted up in such a way that it stays curved.

As to how electromagnetism and gravity are related, I'll spare you the lecture but suffice it to say that (IMO) electric and magnetic fields arise from the topologically non-trivial "knots" I spoke of earlier-- It's a manifestation of a particular combination of rotating frames of reference.