Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[PenguinOverlord]

Everything, everywhere, is gnomes.

Gnome Theory is Best Theory.
"As we are all well aware gnomes like the ground. They all strive to be in the ground, and this is where the basic theory for gravity comes from. Gnomes throw tiny (obviously unseen to the human eye) ropes to the ground. These ropes attach to unseen hooks allowing the gnomes to pull themsleves towards the ground. There is minimal gravity away from bodies (e.g. in space) because very few gnomes have long enough ropes. All bodies have a gravitional attraction to each other because gnomes are sociable creatures and enjoy large gatherings."

[Il Palazzo]

Look, mister, you want to present your idea regarding physics on the forum related to a game about little beardy drunkards. Fine. But supposing that you want somebody to actually give you a bit of meaningful feedback, you better explain yourself in a clear and precise way.
You can do it either by writing a bit of text that qualitatively explains all the ideas involved(unless trivial), where are you coming from with your conclusions, and how do they differ from the established physics - this is providing that you want laymen to try and find and point out logical fallacies in your train of thought.
Or, assuming that you want the few Bay12'ers who actually know physics(we've got a few) to analyze your "theory", use the proper physical notation system to present what are you talking about.

g=mv

where gravity equals mass multiplied by velocity

gravity what?
Potential? Force? Acceleration? As pointed out earlier, it seems to equal momentum. The notation suggests g being the gravitational acceleration on Earth's surface, which doesn't make much sense.

equation two:

m=s^rEE

where mass equals speed of rotation multiplied by Einstienian Energy(or entrapped energy)

where EE is of course e=mc₂

By "Speed of rotation" you probably mean the magnitude of angular velocity( ω ).

anyway, m= ω*mc² <=(divide by m)=> 1= ω*c² <=>  ω = (1/c)²
Which seems to claim that every angular velocity's magnitude equals one divided by squared c.
??

Expanding upon the thoughts:

A closed system will spontaneously rotate(accounting for the cosmological constant).

Where do you take this thought from? Why cosm.constant? Where does it feature in your idea? What's it got to do with anything?

etc.

Why do I even bother? Obvious troll is obvious.

Also, I'm angry because Christmas is coming.

[PenguinOverlord]

Look, mister, you want to present your idea regarding physics on the forum related to a game about little beardy drunkards. Fine. But supposing that you want somebody to actually give you a bit of meaningful feedback, you better explain yourself in a clear and precise way.
You can do it either by writing a bit of text that qualitatively explains all the ideas involved(unless trivial), where are you coming from with your conclusions, and how do they differ from the established physics - this is providing that you want laymen to try and find and point out logical fallacies in your train of thought.
Or, assuming that you want the few Bay12'ers who actually know physics(we've got a few) to analyze your "theory", use the proper physical notation system to present what are you talking about.

g=mv

where gravity equals mass multiplied by velocity

gravity what?
Potential? Force? Acceleration? As pointed out earlier, it seems to equal momentum. The notation suggests g being the gravitational acceleration on Earth's surface, which doesn't make much sense.

equation two:

m=s^rEE

where mass equals speed of rotation multiplied by Einstienian Energy(or entrapped energy)

where EE is of course e=mc₂

By "Speed of rotation" you probably mean the magnitude of angular velocity( ω ).

anyway, m= ω*mc² <=(divide by m)=> 1= ω*c² <=>  ω = (1/c)^-2
Which seems to claim that every angular velocity's magnitude equals one divided by squared c.
??

Expanding upon the thoughts:

A closed system will spontaneously rotate(accounting for the cosmological constant).

Where do you take this thought from? Why cosm.constant? Where does it feature in your idea? What's it got to do with anything?

etc.

Why do I even bother? Obvious troll is obvious.

Gnomes, sir. You forget the gnomes.

[Heron TSG]

Gravity != Mass x Velocity

Gravity is an acceleration.

Force = Mass x Acceleration

Acceleration = Force / Mass

[thobal]

everything is coming at me all at once. exactly, what I suppose I wanted.

okay, so...

gravity = (mass/d²*mass/d²) * velocity (forgive me if this is wheel 010)

I'm probably including a term that Einstein demolished; I dont care.

Look, mister, you want to present your idea regarding physics on the forum related to a game about little beardy drunkards. Fine. But supposing that you want somebody to actually give you a bit of meaningful feedback, you better explain yourself in a clear and precise way.
You can do it either by writing a bit of text that qualitatively explains all the ideas involved(unless trivial), where are you coming from with your conclusions, and how do they differ from the established physics - this is providing that you want laymen to try and find and point out logical fallacies in your train of thought.
Or, assuming that you want the few Bay12'ers who actually know physics(we've got a few) to analyze your "theory", use the proper physical notation system to present what are you talking about.

g=mv

where gravity equals mass multiplied by velocity

gravity what?
Potential? Force? Acceleration? As pointed out earlier, it seems to equal momentum. The notation suggests g being the gravitational acceleration on Earth's surface, which doesn't make much sense.

I'm assuming a closed system with zero outside influence. It kinda makes you re-think things in order to deal with a half educated buffoon like myself

equation two:

m=s^rEE

where mass equals speed of rotation multiplied by Einstienian Energy(or entrapped energy)

where EE is of course e=mc₂

By "Speed of rotation" you probably mean the magnitude of angular velocity( ω ).

anyway, m= ω*mc² <=(divide by m)=> 1= ω*c² <=>  ω = (1/c)^-2
Which seems to claim that every angular velocity's magnitude equals one divided by squared c.
??

If that's the case then I multiplied when I should have divided. I was aiming for something more like c²/1. I think I must Fail when I presume that plank length and plank time means that things(gnomes) on a quantum scale cannot travel slower than c, but nothing in my reading has contradicted this with examples inside the quantum scale.

Expanding upon the thoughts:

A closed system will spontaneously rotate(accounting for the cosmological constant).

Where do you take this thought from? Why cosm.constant? Where does it feature in your idea? What's it got to do with anything?

Now this little tidbit wasn't designed to p/p/o but I should have known it would.

Effectively, as space-time is dragged around a rotating object it imparts momentum on other objects in this disturbed area of space time. This is known.

I submit that this effect, acting cumulatively on a much smaller scale, is responsible for gravitation. Additionally, This same effect can be extended force objects away when they are of great size and at a great distance.

In essence, I am proposing that the same mechanism is responsible for both gravitation and whatever "mysterious" force that drives galaxies apart.

etc.

On g=mv, when two objects travel towards one another, gravitational attraction can be considered increased between the two, but while they move away from one another it can be considered lessened. Like I said, I may just be reinventing the wheel here.

OK, like I said I haven't delved too deep into general relativity yet. If what you say is a conclusion of it I can only imagine the amount of paradoxes that I will have to wade though to get a seeming understanding.

He's right here. Gravitational attraction between two objects = (the product of the mass of the two objects x the universal constant of gravity)/(the distance between the objects)^2

I don't think we are talking about the classical formula here, where gravitational force is a function of distance and two identical objects traveling with different velocities at the same distance from the center of a gravitational field would always be pulled by the same force.

[/b]

More of the force on gravity experienced at a hypothetical null point with no mass or size or properties of any kind. I'm almost free associating at this point, but if gravity were a wave and the test mass was travelling away from the sample point then the force of gravity would be decreased via the Doppler effect. In retrospect that was the straw I grasped upon.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I'm having a bit of trouble keeping my tags straight, even with the preview function. Given my regretably(for me anyways) poor math skills, I shall attempt to assemble a layman's explanation. Sometime today.

[Virex]

Excuse me, but I don't get half of what you're trying to explain. Perhaps you should start from the, well, start and explain it without assuming we know exactly what concept or formula you are referring to at every point. If you're invoking a specific law, it's better to refer to it too often then to omit it

[ChairmanPoo]

Hi,
This is my theory: I call it Awesome Theory, even though it's not even a hypothesis.
The principle is: Einstein-babble, Planck-stuff, quantum hokus pokus.
We know hokus pokus exist because NASA has a probe named Pokus.
I arrived at this conclusion via the fact that I'm smartestest.
Now I only need you to do the boring stuff for me, and write the paper.
Thanks, me.

sigged

[thobal]

I failed to specialize. Consequently, my performance was impaired.