1. Originally Posted by truedream
This shows you know many things with support of books and you forget about the new things cannot be found any ware in books. More over me is not slave of books.
But you have to have support of something. All you have are a bunch of wild ideas. Ideas are great, but they are not the end point. You have to prove that your ideas explain physical reality better than current theories. You have to show some actual physical evidence to support your ideas.

2. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2004
Posts
13,441
Originally Posted by Fortis
Originally Posted by truedream
I have sad many times, check this posts #12 #32
even i am not taking about nuclear magnetic moment and i am taking about nuclear magnetic force (source of gravity ), truely powerfull than atomic magnetic moment due to the electrons.
A magnetic moment is the "source" of the magnetic interaction in the same way that charge is the soure of the electrostatic interaction.

The force between two magnets follows a 1/r3 law, whereas the gravitational force between two masses follows a 1/r2 law. Please explain how you can show that gravity is a magnetic effect.

While you do that, you may also want to answer my earlier question
And (post #108)
Originally Posted by Fortis
Originally Posted by truedream
No, helium atom has powerful nucleus magnetic moment which is directly opposite to earth’s magnetic moment (gravity).

eg:works as like poles of bar magnet reples
We've seen other proposals along these lines, i.e. gravity is some sort of interaction between magnetic dipoles, like your bar magnet. One of the things that spoils this idea is that the force between two magnets (dipoles) falls off as 1/r3, whereas the force of gravity does a very good impression of falling off as 1/r2. How do you explain this?
And (post #124):
Originally Posted by Swift
Originally Posted by truedream
The different in between magnetism and gravity

Present magnets are resultant of nucleus and electrons (resultant of two unlike forces)
But gravity is resultant of nucleus and nucleus (resultant of two like forces)

Gravity and magnet

normally we or any laws don’t think about gravity with magnet, but truly gravity plays an important role in magnetism; mainly every matter has its own center of gravity point. The gravity helps to divide the magnet in to two poles or two parts at the time of production of magnet in molten state. That is point at center of gravity where action takes place; center of gravity arranges the domains equally with equal magnetic strength in different poles. So only magnet has there own North & South poles even when broken, because every broken magnet has there own center of gravity.

Did the flux in bar magnet travel from North Pole to South Pole??
Why it travel from N pole to S pole? Why even it can travel from S pole to N pole, because this two pole has equal magnetic strength,
Did really flux travel from one pole to other?
No, 100% not possible flux will not travel from N pole to S pole. Some basic understandings of present magnet are wrong and some changes in basic understanding of magnet will help us to understand gravity.
Truedream,
I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about, this sound likes absolute nonsense.

You don't seem to understand a fundamental thing - it doesn't matter what creative ideas you have if they don't match reality. At some point you have to move beyond the concept and show how your idea actually explains the physical reality of the university by using actual physical data. We are well beyond that point. You need to show some measurement that your data actually explains. Other than the fact that you think it does, you have shown no actual evidence that gravity and magnetism are connected.

If you think, for example, that your theory better explains the orbit of Mercury, then you actually have to calculate the orbit of Mercury, using your theory. Similarly, if you think it explains atomic structure or fusion processes in the sun, then you actually have to show data that confirms that.
I didn't find any post, by truedream, which explains whether gravity - according the truedream ATM idea - is an inverse square or inverse cube law.

Nor did I find any post, by truedream, which shows how the orbit of Mercury can be calculated - according the truedream ATM idea.

Could someone please point me to the relevant truedream posts?

If there are no such, then I have two questions for truedream, about the ATM idea presented in this thread (they are already covered by Swift and Fortis; I'm just asking in a (slightly) different way):

1) How does the truedream idea of gravity differ from General Relativity, quantitatively?

2) Please show how to calculate - quantitatively - the orbit of the planet Mercury, according the truedream idea.

3. ## Time for a Boring Anecdote!

Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic
[Snip!] Fascinating. Nothing like thinking outside the box. Where ALL true Discoveries are found !!
But if you have no understanding of the box, how do you know you are thinking outside of it?
The more I think about it, the more the phrase "Think outside the box" disturbs me. Most of the time it is used to justify slovenly, uncritical thinking in the belief that the most "creative" solutions are the best. Here's a boring anecdote to illustrate my point.

More than 30 years ago (was it really that long ago?) I took a course at the university called "High Speed Computation". It was a rather free-wheeling, informal course in which problem sets were assigned, we would do as many as we could, but (most important thing!) we would explain how we did it. We were allowed to use whatever language we liked from the compilers offered at that time. This meant Fortran (WATFIV), PL/I, LISP, even BASIC. In the case of FORTRAN, we had access to the various subroutine libraries.

One problem we were assigned was this: to generate the set of all integers of the form 2k*3l*5n less than 1 million and list them in order. Everyone else in the class chose to generate an array containing (say) all the powers of 2, then add the products of these with powers of three to the array, call the sort routine from the subroutine library, then multiply these numbers by powers of 5, and call the sort routine one last time.

But I had an insight: if x is an element of this set, then so are 2*x, 3*x, and 5*x. I know that 1 is an element of the set, so the next element must be the minimum of 2*1, 3*1, and 5*1, so the next element is 2. Knowing this, the next element must be the minimum of 2*2, 3*1, and 5*1, which is 3. The next element must be the minimum of 2*2, 3*2, and 5*1, which is 4. We have to be careful whenever we have two or all three of these candidates equal, because we must advance the index for each of the candidates to the next element of the set. For example, 2*15, 3*10, and 5*6 are 30, so after adding 30 to the array we must advance the index of each of these numbers to the next one, so that the next candidate is the minimum of 2*16, 3*12, and 5*8, which is 32.

The professor was amazed. No one had thought of actually generating them in order before. Now in the past, I used to describe this as "out of the box" thinking, and I suppose it is "out of the box" thinking if you consider the box to be "Use FORTRAN and the math subroutine libraries". But I realize now that "the box" was really the definition of the set, and that understanding "the box" was the key to realizing that its membership could be generated inductively from its first member, the number one.

BTW: My program was written in crummy FORTRAN-esque spaghetti-code about 30 lines long. One of my classmates was so impressed by my algorithm that he rewrote it in RATFOR (an early structured version of FORTRAN) and got it down to 18 lines. That impressed me enough to learn structured programming and I haven't looked back.

4. Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic
The more I think about it, the more the phrase "Think outside the box" disturbs me. Most of the time it is used to justify slovenly, uncritical thinking in the belief that the most "creative" solutions are the best. Here's a boring anecdote to illustrate my point.
But...how does it illustrate that point?
Everyone else in the class chose to generate an array containing (say) all the powers of 2, then add the products of these with powers of three to the array, call the sort routine from the subroutine library, then multiply these numbers by powers of 5, and call the sort routine one last time.
JOOC, why the first sort?

5. Originally Posted by hhEb09'1
But...how does it illustrate that point?
You're right, the anecdote doesn't really illustrate " 'out of the box' is a justification for slovenly, uncritical thinking", it's more an illustration of the importance of "understanding the box". But I did mention that in the past I would have characterized my solution as "out of the box". Guess it's just "slovenly, uncritical thinking" on my part!
Originally Posted by hhEb09'1
JOOC, why the first sort?
I'm not sure why; now that you mention it, sorting is necessary only once. Unless you generate them in order as I did, then it's not necessary at all.

6. Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic
You're right, the anecdote doesn't really illustrate " 'out of the box' is a justification for slovenly, uncritical thinking", it's more an illustration of the importance of "understanding the box".
I personally think of "out of the box" being different then "away from the box".
When I have a problem, my tools are still in the toolbox, and I keep my toolbox nearby.

Some people only have that pocketknife.

7. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2004
Posts
13,441
FWIW, my own view of 'out of the box thinking' has at least two critical components:

one is the one most of us seem to think of upon hearing the term - something (completely!) different, a fresh approach, creativity, ...;

the other relates to CM's tale: the thinking must actually solve the problem the thinking was intended to address in the first place!

8. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
May 2004
Posts
4,139
Originally Posted by truedream
This force of nature has some different magnetic character so let us call this as magnetic force of nucleus. To understand this magnetic force, let us take gas atom. What is the source for force pressure in gas atom when compressed? Yes pressure in gas atom is resultant force of this nucleus magnetic force (like the force generated in two like bar magnet poles)
Do you understand that even if there were no forces between the atoms in a gas, there would still be a pressure exerted on the walls of the container and that the pressure would increase as you squeezed it?

Change of state; matter exists in three states; the water can be in the form of solid (atoms are tightly bonded) Liquid (atoms are loosely bonded) and gas (atoms are very loosely bonded). The change from one state to another can be brought about by application or withdrawal of heat. How this same atom bond indifferent levels with help of heat?
What is link in-between heat and atom (bonding)? Bonding is some thing related to attraction and repulsion force.
You are assuming that the phase transitions between gases, liquids, and solids are driven by temperature dependent forces between the atoms. Is that correct?

In reality it is more due to the increase in the energy of the atoms that happens as the temperature increases. (Think about what happens when you increase the speed of an object in orbit around the earth. Eventually it will reach escape velocity and fly away without ever coming back.)
Change of state in true science view
First primary character of atom is its magnetic force and mass is secondary character of atom, so we have one more medium in between atom and heat, it is magnetic force of atom. This magnetic force of atom is flexible and reacts with heat, pressure and gravity.
Some changes in this magnetic axis will result in the bonding in-between atom.
Magnetic axis of nucleus plays important role in change of state and is proposanal to heat.
What do you mean by the "magnetic axis"? (I have asked you this before...)
So let us imagine; the angle of magnetic axis of nucleus is at 0 degree (vertically) at 0 degree temperature, at this 0 degree all the magnetic force group together without resistance so atoms are tightly bonded (solid).
Like wise the angle of magnetic axis of nucleus is at 45 degree at 45 degree temperature, at this 45 degree all the magnetic force group together with resistance, so atoms are loosely bonded (liquid).
Like wise the angle of magnetic axis of nucleus is at 100 degree at 100 degree temperature, at this 100 degree all the magnetic force will not together because of very high resistance so atoms are very loosely bonded (gas).
What temperature scale are you referring to, and how do you explain the process of sublimation, where a solid turns directly into a gas without passing through the liquid state? (Under normal conditions this is what happens to solid carbon, or "dry ice".)

9. Do you understand that even if there were no forces between the atoms in a gas, there would still be a pressure exerted on the walls of the container and that the pressure would increase as you squeezed it?
Actually, that would vastly simplify gas calculations (though nobody would be around to experience it, as all states of matter would be gaseous)

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•