1. Rays are pretty convenient to explain everything.

2. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by William McCormick
Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Alright William. I feel like doing some pointless math, so I'm going to attempt to calculate what your theory would imply about gravity. This may take a bit, considering how complex the math is going to be. If I make any assumptions that you feel are wrong, you can correct me, but please try to be concise about it. I don't feel like reading five paragraphs of nonsense to get what could have been said in one sentence.

First, a description. We have two balls of radius R and r, mass M and m, with their centers separated by distance D. We'll also assume that these balls have a uniform density.

Next, we have to figure out how much ambient radiation makes it through a ball. The difference between this and the radiation from the other side is gravity, according to William's theory. The only thing that'd make sense to me is some form of half-life. So, leaving the constants as unknowns, that'd be , where is our constant, is the density, and is the distance the rays had to travel through the substance. It would then make sense to assume that the force imparted by this ray would be proportional to , which we'll need later.

The next step is to work out how this would effect a point mass. This is where things start to get tough. For each possible direction out of the point, we have to figure out how much mass the ray would pass through. This is symmetric about the line from the point to the center of the ball though. If I remember my calculus correctly, we'd only need to figure out the effects on a circle, then integrate this over the rest of the sphere.

So from the point of view of the point, for a given angle , we need to figure out how much, if any, of the ball is in that direction. This is a really tricky calculation. I think I'll take a break here until I can figure out what to do next. (Or until someone can help me a bit with this, though I wouldn't be surprised if no one felt like it.)
With that attitude you should just move on to something else.

I am really talking about doing sector math, or cone math. Or what a sector or cone shaped ray, of less gravity would do to other objects.

I would like to know how much the cone shaped area, plays into creating the attraction. What is the angle that regular gravity rays can no longer push a body.

I think you could do the math to some degree. Or build a model. You might even be able to demonstrate the importance of the cone shaped area between two objects. With a large weak magnet and a powerful small magnet. And a similar test magnet or piece of steel, to see the ratio between them.

I found that the size of the magnet played as an important role as the strength of the magnet, when effecting another object.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
Gravity rays ?

Bill, have you been drinking again? Now tell the truth.

"His mother should have thrown him away and kept the stork."
Mae West
Wow, who ever moved this to this area. Probably does not believe there is a hell or God. Very sad.

Gravity is a pressure, not an attraction. This can be easily proven when you cannot demonstrate attraction forces.

Electrons, in ambient radiation repel you to the earth, when they are moving in a range of velocity that creates gravity. When the earth accelerates rays moving through the earth, rays that would have applied force to a human near the planet, from under the human. The rays, are in another range, actually a higher velocity range, and do not repel you from the earth, as well as rays hitting you from above.

Rays are particles moving at a certain velocity.

Multi subatomic particle scientist have a much worse definition and understanding of gravity then I do. But I evidently am not in control of education, so, you can bash in your brains with multi subatomic particle nonsense, and kill others with poor science. I will just keep on going with what I know is true.

Very poor and unscientific choice someone made to put this here.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

3. Originally Posted by CoolEJ
Rays are pretty convenient to explain everything.

Kind of like numbers, amounts, and formulas explain mathematics.

Just where you plug in the numbers and amounts into the formulas.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

4. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by William McCormick
Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Alright William. I feel like doing some pointless math, so I'm going to attempt to calculate what your theory would imply about gravity. This may take a bit, considering how complex the math is going to be. If I make any assumptions that you feel are wrong, you can correct me, but please try to be concise about it. I don't feel like reading five paragraphs of nonsense to get what could have been said in one sentence.

First, a description. We have two balls of radius R and r, mass M and m, with their centers separated by distance D. We'll also assume that these balls have a uniform density.

Next, we have to figure out how much ambient radiation makes it through a ball. The difference between this and the radiation from the other side is gravity, according to William's theory. The only thing that'd make sense to me is some form of half-life. So, leaving the constants as unknowns, that'd be , where is our constant, is the density, and is the distance the rays had to travel through the substance. It would then make sense to assume that the force imparted by this ray would be proportional to , which we'll need later.

The next step is to work out how this would effect a point mass. This is where things start to get tough. For each possible direction out of the point, we have to figure out how much mass the ray would pass through. This is symmetric about the line from the point to the center of the ball though. If I remember my calculus correctly, we'd only need to figure out the effects on a circle, then integrate this over the rest of the sphere.

So from the point of view of the point, for a given angle , we need to figure out how much, if any, of the ball is in that direction. This is a really tricky calculation. I think I'll take a break here until I can figure out what to do next. (Or until someone can help me a bit with this, though I wouldn't be surprised if no one felt like it.)
With that attitude you should just move on to something else.

I am really talking about doing sector math, or cone math. Or what a sector or cone shaped ray, of less gravity would do to other objects.

I would like to know how much the cone shaped area, plays into creating the attraction. What is the angle that regular gravity rays can no longer push a body.

I think you could do the math to some degree. Or build a model. You might even be able to demonstrate the importance of the cone shaped area between two objects. With a large weak magnet and a powerful small magnet. And a similar test magnet or piece of steel, to see the ratio between them.

I found that the size of the magnet played as an important role as the strength of the magnet, when effecting another object.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
Gravity rays ?

Bill, have you been drinking again? Now tell the truth.

"His mother should have thrown him away and kept the stork."
Mae West
You cannot demonstrate attraction forces. No scientist ever did. That was the reason for the collapse of science in America.

Rays are just electrons, moving at a certain velocity. X-rays, Ultraviolet rays, heat rays, light rays, Gravity rays. All electrons. Just at different velocities.

I know you did not learn this. I was told that it would probably be to late even if you did.

Maybe they were right.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

5. Originally Posted by CoolEJ
Rays are pretty convenient to explain everything.

I know you guys are just short on doing actual experiments.

Do you know and understand that two identical projectiles, one fired from a gun at low velocity, and one fired at a high velocity can both create a hole in a soda can. In and out of each side of a soda can standing up? But that the high speed round can leave the can unmoved. And the low speed round will knock it off a table or perch?

If you know and understand that, how can you not at least give berth to the premise that gravity is caused when an object accelerates gravity rays into rays that are no longer gravity? And do not at higher velocity effect matter by repulsing it. Allowing the gravity rays to push another object to it.

I know it is this way, and that is how Grumman got to the moon. They fixed a lot of things on the Apollo rocket that would have caused it to crash.

This is how I learned gravity in school.

I believe it would be a complex math problem or formula to calculate just how much gravity an object places on another object. Because temperature comes into play. But angle as well, causes most of the effect.

Actually better put, how much gravity does an object take off another object. Ha-ha.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

Page 4 of 4 First ... 234
 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement