What Physical Force REALLY IS
rem...@aol.com
Physical FORCE -- What It REALLY IS
Most orthodox physicists do NOT know what a force
REALLY IS. The best that they can do is to define it in
terms of what it DOES--accelerate a mass, (F = ma).
Yet, they ARROGANTLY use the terms "PSEUDO-FORCE" and
"FICTIONAL FORCE" to describe forces like CENTRIFUGAL
FORCE and the CORIOLIS FORCE. The physicists have
FAILED to pick up the CLUE, about what a force really
IS, from the fact that these so-called "pseudo-forces"
result from MOTIONS.
According to the GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the
Physical Universe developed by the late Physicist Dewey
B. Larson, each force is a MOTION, or a COMBINATION OF
MOTIONS, or a RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOTIONS, including
INWARD and OUTWARD SCALAR MOTIONS, in the form of
TRANSLATIONAL, VIBRATIONAL, ROTATIONAL, or ROTATIONAL-
VIBRATIONAL motions.
For example, the expansion of the Physical Universe
is simply an OUTWARD SCALAR MOTION, which is an INHERENT
PROPERTY of the Universe and NOT a result of a "big
bang", [which means that "Hubble's constant", whatever
its correct value, can NOT be used to determine the age
of the Physical Universe.].
Gravitation is an INWARD SCALAR MOTION that obeys
the inverse square law. MOTION is what makes a
homogeneous gravitational field "EQUIVALENT" to a
uniformly accelerated reference frame, (which is in a
certain kind of MOTION).
For objects moving at speeds close to the speed of
light, acceleration drops toward zero, (a = F/m), NOT
because "mass increases toward infinity" (mass really
STAYS CONSTANT), but because FORCE decreases toward ZERO
(because of the RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOTIONS of the
near-light speed of the object and the OUTWARD SCALAR
MOTION of light at the speed of light, which is UNIT
VELOCITY).
In Larson's Theory, the "strong nuclear force" and
the "weak nuclear force" DO NOT EXIST. They are merely
AD HOC ASSUMPTIONS, resulting from an ERRONEOUS model of
the atom.
A WEALTH of information about Physicist Dewey B.
Larson's GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the Physical
Universe, ("The Reciprocal System of Theory"), can now
be found at the web site
http://www.rsystem.org/isus/index.htm or /dbl/index.htm .
Robert E. McElwaine
B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
http://members.aol.com/rem547 PLUS
http://members.aol.com/rem460
Preserve BOTH on CD-R and PRINT-OUTS
P.S.: PASS IT ON !
"EVERYTHING you know is WRONG."
"The Truth IS stranger than fiction."
"The Truth is ALWAYS the FIRST CASUALTY OF WAR."
"OFFICIAL LIES are ALWAYS the BIGGEST LIES OF ALL."
"The more things change, the more they STAY THE SAME."
>
>
>
Bill Hobba
<rem...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1129665566.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> Physical FORCE -- What It REALLY IS
>
> Most orthodox physicists do NOT know what a force
> REALLY IS. The best that they can do is to define it in
> terms of what it DOES--accelerate a mass, (F = ma).
> Yet, they ARROGANTLY use the terms "PSEUDO-FORCE" and
> "FICTIONAL FORCE" to describe forces like CENTRIFUGAL
> FORCE and the CORIOLIS FORCE. The physicists have
> FAILED to pick up the CLUE, about what a force really
> IS, from the fact that these so-called "pseudo-forces"
> result from MOTIONS.
>
> According to the GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the
> Physical Universe developed by the late Physicist Dewey
> B. Larson, each force is a MOTION, or a COMBINATION OF
> MOTIONS, or a RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOTIONS, including
> INWARD and OUTWARD SCALAR MOTIONS, in the form of
> TRANSLATIONAL, VIBRATIONAL, ROTATIONAL, or ROTATIONAL-
> VIBRATIONAL motions.
You are off the scale on the Woo Woo credo.
http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html
'Use lots of ALL CAPS letters. Use them randomly: "I was posting my URL in
alt.paranormal/alt.astrology. Then I was stopped because A MAJORITY OF
POSTERS, PSEUDO-SKEPTIC RAVING FANATICS SCREAMED ABOUT IT."'
>
> For example, the expansion of the Physical Universe
> is simply an OUTWARD SCALAR MOTION, which is an INHERENT
> PROPERTY of the Universe and NOT a result of a "big
> bang", [which means that "Hubble's constant", whatever
> its correct value, can NOT be used to determine the age
> of the Physical Universe.].
>
> Gravitation is an INWARD SCALAR MOTION that obeys
> the inverse square law.
The precession of mercury shows otherwise.
Except for you I suppose. Get real.
Bill
G=EMC^2 Glazier
Josef Matz
Ben Rudiak-Gould
> You are off the scale on the Woo Woo credo.
> http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html
> 'Use lots of ALL CAPS letters. Use them randomly: "I was posting my URL in
> alt.paranormal/alt.astrology. Then I was stopped because A MAJORITY OF
> POSTERS, PSEUDO-SKEPTIC RAVING FANATICS SCREAMED ABOUT IT."'
Do you know who you're responding to? This is Robert E. McElwaine, the
ORIGINAL random-caps guy. He's been on the net for donkey's years. The
paragraph you just quoted was probably written with him in mind.
-- Ben
Bill Hobba
"Ben Rudiak-Gould" <br276d...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:dj5cjl$mre$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> Bill Hobba wrote:
>> You are off the scale on the Woo Woo credo.
>> http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html
>> 'Use lots of ALL CAPS letters. Use them randomly: "I was posting my URL
>> in alt.paranormal/alt.astrology. Then I was stopped because A MAJORITY OF
>> POSTERS, PSEUDO-SKEPTIC RAVING FANATICS SCREAMED ABOUT IT."'
>
> Do you know who you're responding to?
Nope. Except it is obvious he is a malicious cross posting troll.
> This is Robert E. McElwaine, the ORIGINAL random-caps guy. He's been on
> the net for donkey's years. The paragraph you just quoted was probably
> written with him in mind.
Thanks for the tip.
Thanks
Bill
>
> -- Ben
Peter Kinane
<surrealis...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129735082.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> rem...@aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > Physical FORCE -- What It REALLY IS
> >
> > Most orthodox physicists do NOT know what a force
> > REALLY IS. The best that they can do is to define it in
> > terms of what it DOES--accelerate a mass, (F = ma).
> > Yet, they ARROGANTLY use the terms "PSEUDO-FORCE" and
> > "FICTIONAL FORCE" to describe forces like CENTRIFUGAL
> > FORCE and the CORIOLIS FORCE. The physicists have
> > FAILED to pick up the CLUE, about what a force really
> > IS, from the fact that these so-called "pseudo-forces"
> > result from MOTIONS.
>
> takes a made-up theory to tell you what you observe.
>
Yes; if value effects through relationship 'of forces' - a la
Effectuationism - then the premises with which one engages, or attempts to
cohere, forces- -concepts- -data influence the effect - different premises,
different effects.
Indeed much as the opening post implies- -says concepts such the strong and
weak nuclear forces would be model dependent:
"In Larson's Theory, the "strong nuclear force" and the "weak nuclear force"
DO NOT EXIST. They are merelyAD HOC ASSUMPTIONS, resulting from an
ERRONEOUS model of the atom".
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
G=EMC^2 Glazier
decay. How about physical forces? To me they are like the centrifugal
force(yes?) Bert
G=EMC^2 Glazier
are there. Bert
mark...@digiverse.net
Greg Neill
news:1130679591.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Force is an impact phenomenon.
Impact of what? What touches when atoms meet?
What draws magnets together?
Double-A
What about the force of inertia? When you push on something, what is
it you feel pushing back? Without mass, you feel no such force.
Double-A
mark...@digiverse.net
It sure ain't vacuum or magic. It's therefore matter of some sort.
Greg Neill
news:1130693027.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You've not excluded other possibilities, so your conclusion
is not logical. Can you think of nothing else but vacuum or
magic?
G=EMC^2 Glazier
object from falling through. We clearly see this on waters surface
tension,as a thin membrane with a surface made of electrons holding up a
heavy iron needle. Bert
mark...@digiverse.net
Greg Neill wrote:
> <mark...@digiverse.net> wrote in message
> news:1130693027.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Greg Neill wrote:
> > > <mark...@digiverse.net> wrote in message
> > > news:1130679591.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > Force is an impact phenomenon.
> > >
> > > Impact of what? What touches when atoms meet?
> > > What draws magnets together?
> >
> > It sure ain't vacuum or magic. It's therefore matter of some sort.
> >
>
> You've not excluded other possibilities, so your conclusion
> is not logical. Can you think of nothing else but vacuum or
> magic?
YOU don't actually know what I refer to as "magic". If you try to think
logically, you will find that "pull" forces are ultimately mechanically
impossible, therefore magnetism (just for one example) must involve a
push force.
To be able to accept this, one however has to abandon the religious
cliches of a present-day fizzics (like most discoverers did). You also
have to think outside the constraints of academic physics (and all the
stigma that follows doing so).
Fortunately I don't care what people think of me and am quite happy in
admitting that the evidence points to space (misnoma) not being a
vacuum but a medium, one that we not only don't fully understand but
those who are entrusted with discovery actively refuse to acknowledge
(to the point of childishness). The same stuff that provides a frame of
reference to tangible (to us) matter to exhibit centrifugal/petal
forces (how else can it exhibit them unless there is a physical
reference acting against it). It's also the same stuff that causes the
delay for "time" to be possible and the waves misnamed "photons" that
"space" is utterly riddled with.
Logic also clearly dictates that a "field" (say,magnetic) must be made
of something tangible (or the volume around it) unless magic
hocus-pocus is involved (such hocus-pocus is btw. often preceded by the
magic term "quantum-" by fizzicist witch-quacks to save them aditting
they actually don't have a fucking clue what stuff physically pushes
magnets together and their feet to the ground).
Greg Neill
news:1130720307.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip classic kook rant]
So, you don't understand physics theory at all, so
your reaction is anger and rejection. Okay. Have
a good one. Bye now.
mark...@digiverse.net
Greg Neill wrote:
> <mark...@digiverse.net> wrote in message
> news:1130720307.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> [snip classic kook rant]
>
> Bye now.
Bye kiddo, come back when you know what a field is made of.