David Icke's Official Forums Newton and Einstein had gravity wrong

30-03-2010, 08:38 AM   #41
foobar
Senior Member

Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 331
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)

Quote:
 Originally Posted by holyspirit It's because of decay in the weak nuclear force. The mass is decaying in the dynamo of Mercury. A greater negative charge builds up. The suns highly negative charged dynamo pushes Mercury into a perihelion precession. E+F(R/M) _________=c2 T

That's not a calculation, it's prose. Do a calculation. Show us how the actual values for mercury's orbital change comes out of your formula. Oh, and make sure to show us the units for each value you plug into that formula.

Last edited by foobar; 30-03-2010 at 08:38 AM.

30-03-2010, 08:42 AM   #42
foobar
Senior Member

Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 331
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)

Quote:
 Originally Posted by rodin Does it though?
Yes, the experiment had the result one would expect if General Relativity were true.

30-03-2010, 07:01 PM   #43
holyspirit
Senior Member

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 458
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
This is the Best I could come up with

Quote:
 Originally Posted by foobar That's not a calculation, it's prose. Do a calculation. Show us how the actual values for mercury's orbital change comes out of your formula. Oh, and make sure to show us the units for each value you plug into that formula.
Every celestial body radiates heat; therefore photons which are electromagnetic radiation are emitted everywhere.

1.75E22 joules + 4.5 × 10^19 A m2 (1407.5 h/3.3022 × 10^23 kg *.027 Decay)

__________________________________________________ ______________________ = C2

100 years

http://rotatingelectromagneticgravit...om/dynamo.html

My Grand Unified Theory

E + F(R/M)
____________ =C2
T

T= Time E = Energy F= Field R = Rotation M = Mass C2= Light

 30-03-2010, 07:07 PM #44 tinyint Inactive   Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Meerkat Manor Posts: 20,776 Likes: 9 (8 Posts) Yes, to answer OP. http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showp...&postcount=166
 30-03-2010, 07:52 PM #45 coco Senior Member     Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Bitchin' Rockstaritude from Mars Posts: 14,719 Likes: 3 (2 Posts) Some assertions by Mark the blogger: http://pesn.com/2005/04/03/6900078_N...scover_Canada/ (1) "Relativity" was Marlena's brainchild, and not Albert's? (2) The math for Special Relativity was done not by Einstein, but by Minkowski? (3) The math for General Relativity was done not by Einstein, but by Riemann? (4) Albert Einstein publicly declared their work to be "incomprehensible"? (Great genius. Yeah. Right.) (5) The mass energy relation (E=mc^2) existed some thirty years before Einstein was born? And can be derived from Newton? (See keelynet.com) (6) The 1905 photoelectric effect paper was actually Dr. Charles F. Brush's second paper of 1880 from the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, with two sentences altered? (I'm the guy who made this discovery and reported it in 1974.) __________________ "If you see your face is dirty in the mirror, do you wash the mirror?" A forum dedicated to the research, discussion, reporting and classifying of the UFO phenomenon. http://www.uforesearchnetwork.proboards.com/index.cgi Last edited by coco; 30-03-2010 at 09:28 PM.
30-03-2010, 08:04 PM   #46
foobar
Senior Member

Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 331
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)

Quote:
 Originally Posted by holyspirit Every celestial body radiates heat; therefore photons which are electromagnetic radiation are emitted everywhere. 1.75E22 joules + 4.5 × 10^19 A m2 (1407.5 h/3.3022 × 10^23 kg *.027 Decay) __________________________________________________ ______________________ = C2 100 years
This is gibberish. The units don't even make sense.

Last edited by foobar; 30-03-2010 at 08:04 PM.

30-03-2010, 09:00 PM   #47
holyspirit
Senior Member

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 458
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Patent office Plagiarism

Quote:
 Originally Posted by coco Some assertions by Mark, a blogger: http://pesn.com/2005/04/03/6900078_N...scover_Canada/ (1) "Relativity" was Marlena's brainchild, and not Albert's? (2) The math for Special Relativity was done not by Einstein, but by Minkowski? (3) The math for General Relativity was done not by Einstein, but by Riemann? (4) Albert Einstein publicly declared their work to be "incomprehensible"? (Great genius. Yeah. Right.) (5) The mass energy relation (E=mc^2) existed some thirty years before Einstein was born? And can be derived from Newton? (See keelynet.com) (6) The 1905 photoelectric effect paper was actually Dr. Charles F. Brush's second paper of 1880 from the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, with two sentences altered? (I'm the guy who made this discovery and reported it in 1974.)
Einstein cheated what a copy cat, lol

31-03-2010, 02:51 AM   #48
holyspirit
Senior Member

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 458
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Mercury emits 8339x10^61 photons per century

Quote:
 Originally Posted by foobar This is gibberish. The units don't even make sense.
1.75E22 joules + 4.5 × 10^19 A m2 (1407.5 h/3.3022 × 10^23 kg *.027 Decay)

__________________________________________________ ______________________ = C2

100 years

E + F(R/M)
____________ =C2
T

70377x10^66
_____________________________ =c2
876,000 Hours

8339x10^61=photons emitted by Mercury per century

Now if we do this calculation for the sun it would be enormous!!!

 31-03-2010, 03:19 AM #49 tabea_blumenschein Senior Member   Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 984 Likes: 0 (0 Posts) Holyspirit, your units are nonsensical. Until you address that issue there's nothing more to discuss. FYI: Are you familiar with the ? According to this law, the energy radiated by a blackbody per second is proportional to the body's surface area, to the fourth power of the body's absolute (Kelvin) temperature, and to the body's emissivity (if the emissivity is less than 1 the body is a "grey body"). Also, the emitted radiation will be spread out over a large portion of the EM spectrum. It is not reassuring to note that none of these factors are included in your equation, given what you're trying to calculate. __________________ De mortuis nil nisi bonum; of the living speak nothing but evil. - Heinrich Heine Last edited by tabea_blumenschein; 31-03-2010 at 03:20 AM.
31-03-2010, 04:38 AM   #50
dreamweaver
Senior Member

Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,882
Likes: 24 (13 Posts)

Quote:
 Originally Posted by holyspirit Einstein cheated what a copy cat, lol
Well, it's a post by a random commenter on some other random guy's blog, so it must be true!

The dead can't answer back, let alone sue for libel, so people can easily make up any old shit about them without facing any consequences.

Where was this 1880 paper by Charles Brush on the photoelectric effect published then? I'm sure the blog dude can tell us, since he claims to have made this discovery back in 1974...
__________________
Congratulations, you found the secret message. Shhh!

Last edited by dreamweaver; 31-03-2010 at 04:54 AM.

31-03-2010, 05:29 AM   #51
holyspirit
Senior Member

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 458
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Sun's photon's emitted 73065.2x10^100018 CUBED

Quote:
 Originally Posted by foobar This is gibberish. The units don't even make sense.

Ok I'm going to see how many photons are released by the sun in a 100 years.

49932000x10^26 Joule + 96507212.314x10^99974 Gauss ( 25.05 days / 1.989x10^18 km3 * .019 MeV decay)
__________________________________________________ ______________ ___________________________= c2
2400 days

64005108414x10^100018 cubed
_________________________________ = c2
876000 days

Sun's photon output per century 73065.2x10^100018 CUBED

E + F(R/M)
____________ =C2
T

Last edited by holyspirit; 31-03-2010 at 05:48 AM.

31-03-2010, 04:44 PM   #52
coco
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bitchin' Rockstaritude from Mars
Posts: 14,719
Likes: 3 (2 Posts)

Quote:
 Originally Posted by dreamweaver Well, it's a post by a random commenter on some other random guy's blog, so it must be true! The dead can't answer back, let alone sue for libel, so people can easily make up any old shit about them without facing any consequences. Where was this 1880 paper by Charles Brush on the photoelectric effect published then? I'm sure the blog dude can tell us, since he claims to have made this discovery back in 1974...
Dreamweaver has a valid point. Some of Mark the blogger's assertions I have heard before, but I can't confirm their validity, myself. Mind you, I was careful to note Blogger Mark's post as 'his assertions'.

Anyway, I found this New York Times archive article dated 1921. It comes up in .pdf format. Make of it what you will.

Einstein Wrong, Brush Indicates
New Experiments in Gravity Startle the American Philosophical Society.
VARIATION OF FORCE FOUND
Inventor Declares Theory Behind Results Upsets Views of the Earth's Density.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive...629C946095D6CF
__________________
"If you see your face is dirty in the mirror, do you wash the mirror?"

A forum dedicated to the research, discussion, reporting and classifying of the UFO phenomenon.
http://www.uforesearchnetwork.proboards.com/index.cgi

31-03-2010, 04:47 PM   #53
rodin
Banned

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 16,981
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)

Quote:
 Originally Posted by coco Dreamweaver has a valid point. Some of Mark the blogger's assertions I have heard before, but I can't confirm their validity, myself. Mind you, I was careful to note Blogger Mark's post as 'his assertions'. Anyway, I found this New York Times archive article dated 1921. It comes up in .pdf format. Make of it what you will. Einstein Wrong, Brush Indicates New Experiments in Gravity Startle the American Philosophical Society. VARIATION OF FORCE FOUND Inventor Declares Theory Behind Results Upsets Views of the Earth's Density. http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive...629C946095D6CF

Guess who 'debunked' these findings? A man by the name of Harry Potter

Last edited by rodin; 31-03-2010 at 04:48 PM.

01-04-2010, 01:05 AM   #54
holyspirit
Senior Member

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 458
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Unit converter I think I have to use Joules

Quote:
 Originally Posted by tabea_blumenschein Holyspirit, your units are nonsensical. Until you address that issue there's nothing more to discuss. FYI: Are you familiar with the Stefan-Boltzmann law? According to this law, the energy radiated by a blackbody per second is proportional to the body's surface area, to the fourth power of the body's absolute (Kelvin) temperature, and to the body's emissivity (if the emissivity is less than 1 the body is a "grey body"). Also, the emitted radiation will be spread out over a large portion of the EM spectrum. It is not reassuring to note that none of these factors are included in your equation, given what you're trying to calculate.

This site will convert Gauss to Joules then my formula will look something like this below: You were right an amendment to my formula was needed Thankyou!!!!

http://www.chemie.fu-berlin.de/chemi.../units_en.html

E + F(R/M)
____________ =C2
T

Joule + Gauss converted to Joules (R=same time increments/M*Joules*rate of decay of prominent element)
__________________________________________________ _____________________________ =c2
T

http://rotatingelectromagneticgravit...om/dynamo.html

Last edited by holyspirit; 01-04-2010 at 01:34 AM.

 01-04-2010, 03:42 AM #55 supersmell Inactive   Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 173 Likes: 0 (0 Posts) You still have (Energy + 1/time)/time = speed squared, so it still needs a lot of reworking to pass a unit check.
 01-04-2010, 08:58 AM #56 foobar Senior Member   Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 331 Likes: 0 (0 Posts) Holyspirit, show us how you derived this formula. It looks like you just plucked it out of the air and didn't subject it to the basic sanity checks that any reasonably bright 16 year old studying physics would be aware of. Last edited by foobar; 01-04-2010 at 08:59 AM.
 01-04-2010, 09:00 AM #57 foobar Senior Member   Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 331 Likes: 0 (0 Posts) Holyspirit, show us how you derived this formula. It looks like you just plucked it out of the air and didn't subject it to the basic sanity checks that any reasonably bright 16 year old studying physics would be aware of.
01-04-2010, 09:04 AM   #58
tracker
Senior Member

Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,347
Likes: 4 (4 Posts)

Quote:
 Originally Posted by holyspirit I have thought deeply on the mechanics of gravity for 13 years! My supposition for the mechanics of gravity someday will be an axiom The inner workings on what most people call gravity have been exposed mainly in the last five hundred years, yet its actual mechanism is unknown. Forces of nature which are Strong Nuclear, Weak Nuclear and Electro Magnetism have been denied its reality in the belief that a 4th force controls gravity. Although Newton derived some basic examples about the effects of what he called gravity, he may have also misled people in the belief that gravity is a 4th force. http://rotatingelectromagneticgravit...om/dynamo.html http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36021551...ience-science/

gravity is not a force !
gravity is an explination on how the dip within the space time field works .

rather like , placing a ball on suspended sheet , the sheet will dip .

the dipping sheet curvation is what gravity is .

it is just a dip in the space field .

there is NO FORCE .
Only an explination we cal, gravity which is the affect of the curvature of space due to mass .

01-04-2010, 09:16 AM   #59
infinite tea
Inactive

Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,239
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)

Quote:
 Originally Posted by joe911 Ok,I really hope that's sarcasm,because that stundie worthy idea has hurt my head. I think I need to lie down now
lol, you'll see soon enough my friend ;-)

01-04-2010, 09:21 AM   #60
infinite tea
Inactive

Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,239
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)

Quote:
 Originally Posted by dreamweaver After you. Care to offer us a demonstration on the edge of Beachy Head?
Hey dreamweaver,

didn't you know anything's possible in a dream? The only limits on the dream are the preconceptions of the dreamer :-)

 Bookmarks