## Posts Tagged ‘natural phenomena’

### Gravity is Not a Force: A term designed to explain state of nature

Posted on: December 5, 2014

Gravity is not a Force: A term designed to explain state of nature

Maybe I’m  not saying anything new: Taking a new perspective might be the proper way for education.

The  term of force, and all types of forces are terms invented to explain the state of nature, its equilibrium and unstable nature.

Two terms have material reality, and all natural laws are deduced from them:

1. Mass of bodies, including  particles and the tiniest of elements

2. Movement of bodies or trajectory

Speed is a mathematical derivation of movement, and Acceleration is a derivation of speed that is linked to the notion of force on a mass or by a mass.

It is the revolutions of big masses (planets, asteroids…) on themselves and around other planets that engendered natural laws due to their respective masses.

The mass of the immediate outer atmosphere is included in the total mass of a planet, so that their volume is commensurate  to their total masses.

If a planet is constituted of gases, its volume is as large as its total mass represented by the movements of the planet on itself and around the other planets, Sun and the nearest galaxy.

The shape of the movement of the planet and its mass is described by their speed and distances from the other adjacent planets, the sun and galaxy.

If the mass of a planet is changed (reduced or augmented), the shape of its movement is changed to maintain equilibrium.

As the mass of the Sun is reduced, the shape of movement of earth around the sun is altered to keep their distance in equilibrium.

Consequently, the shapes of movement of all planet are continuously changing: The ellipse shapes are altering accordingly.

For example, the speed of revolution of earth on itself is exactly the consequence of its mass in order for all “massive bodies” on it to remain grounded, otherwise, everything will be navigating off the ground at the speed of earth around the sun?

The bodies will be circulating (levitating) in levels (altitudes) according to their masses: The heavier circulating closer to the ground?

It is the centrifugal force of this rotation that keeps masses directed (falling) toward the ground

The tangential force direct earth forward on its trajectory around the sun in an elliptic shape.

For example, this zone of weightlessness (no effect of gravity)  between earth and the moon is determined by the respective masses of these two bodies.

Now, as a corollary, if we need to create a reduced weightlessness  atmosphere on earth, we might build an enclosure that rotate counter clockwise to earth: The closer the speed of the enclosure is to the speed of earth the more weightless is the body inside the enclosure.

For example, the “magnetic force” of the core of earth is the result of the movement and total mass of the liquid and gases in the core of earth. Reduce the mass of the core and the shape of the movement of this hot amalgam will be transformed to compensate for the reduced acceleration of the mass.

Question: What set in motion the revolution of earth on itself?

Possibly the Sun winds? These highly dense and charged particles that have great effect when earth was mostly a gaseous entity?

As earth began to acquire its own rotating cycle, matters (particles with masses) settled firmly on the surface and then created this magnetic field to repulse further “sunny winds” attacks, thus allowing organic or living creatures to be created and evolve.

Question: Has the moving magma in the core any effect on the velocity of earth on itself?

I tend to conjecture that it is the rotation of earth that set its liquid interior into movement, and thus creating the magnetic field that is preventing the outer dangerous radiations from reaching earth surface. All these radical transformation of ice ages and desert ages are the direct consequences of the altering of the magnetic field.

This alterations of earth magnetic fields were consequences to the alterations in earth speed rotation due to galactic changes, in the sun location to the center of the Milky Way galaxy.

With mankind tampering with earth environment, it is highly plausible that the movement of the core will have direct impact on the speed of earth rotation.

What make the comets and other celestial bodies (not classified as planet) so dangerous?

They don’t have magnetic fields and earth magnetic field has no repulsive effect on them to change their trajectories away from earth when they come close.

Since nature behaviour has nothing to do with time, time is used as a mathematical factor to facilitate the derivations of many natural phenomena laws.

Attaching time as a fourth dimension for the structure of the surface of planets’ movements is purely a mathematical manipulation in order to explain a few relativity laws.

What do I know?

Just an essay to draw professional responses and get you to reflect on our state of existence and check your hypothesis.

### Nature is worth a set of equations

Posted on: November 18, 2009

Nature is worth a set of equations; (Nov. 17, 2009)

I have been reading speeches and comments of Albert Einstein, a great theoretical physicist in the 20th century.

Einstein is persuaded that mathematics, exclusively, can describe and represent nature’s phenomena; that all nature’s complexities can be comprehend and imagined as the simplest system in concepts and principles.

The fundamental creative principle resides in mathematics.  And formulas have to be the simplest and most beautifully general. Mathematical concepts can be suggested by experience, the unique criteria of utilization of a mathematical construct.

I got into thinking.

I read this dictum when I was graduating in physics and I have been appreciating this recurring philosophy ever since. The basic goal in theoretical physics for over a century was to discover the all encompassing field of energy that can unite the varieties of fields that experiments have been popping up to describing particular phenomena in nature, such as electrical and magnetic fields as well as all these “weak” and “stronger” fields of energy emanating from atoms, protons, and all the varieties of smaller elements.

I got into thinking.

Up until the first quarter of the 20th century most experiments in natural sciences were done by varying one factor at a time; experiments never used more than one independent variable and more than one dependent variable (objective measuring variable or the data).  Even today, most engineers perform these kinds of totally inefficient and worthless experiments: no interactions among variables can be analyzed, the most important and fundamental intelligences in all kinds of sciences. These engineers have simply not been exposed to experimental designs in their required curriculum!

Although the theory of probability was very advanced, the field of practical statistical analysis of data was not yet developed; it was real pain and very time consuming doing all the computations by hand for slightly complex experimental designs.

Sophisticated and specialized statistical packages constructs for different fields of research evolved after the mass number crunchers of computers were invented.

Consequently, early theoretical scientists refrained from complicating their constructs simply because they had to solve their exercises and compute them by hand in order to verify their contentious theories.

Thus, theoretical scientists knew that the experimental scientists could not practically deal with complex mathematical constructs and would refrain from undertaking complex experiments in order to confirm or refute any complex construct.

The trend, paradigm, or philosophy for the theoretical scientists was to promoting the concept that theories should be the simplest with the least numbers of axioms (fundamental principles); they did their best to imagining one general causative factor that affected the behavior of natural phenomena or would be applicable to most natural phenomena.

When Einstein mentioned that equations should be beautiful in their simplicity he had not in mind graphic design; he meant they should be simple for computations.

This is no longer the case.

Nature is complex; no matter how you control and restrict the scope of an  experiment in order to reducing the numbers of manipulated variables to a minimum there are always more than one causative factor that are interrelated and interacting to producing effects.

Currently, physicist and natural scientists can observe many independent variables and several dependent variables and analyze huge number of data points.

Still, nature variables are countable and pretty steady over the experiment. Unlike experiments involving” human subjects” that are in the hundreds and hard and sensitive to control.

Man is far more complex than nature to study his behavior.

Psychologists and sociologists have been using complex experimental designs for decades in order to study man’s behavior and his hundreds of physical and mental characteristics and variability.

All kinds of mathematical constructs were developed to aid “human scientists” perform experiments commensurate in complexity with the subject matter.

The dependent variables had no longer to be objectively measurable and many subjective criteria were adopted.

Certainly, “human scientists” did not have to know the mathematical constructs that the statistical packages were using, just the premises that justified their appropriate use for their particular field.

Anyway, these mathematical models were pretty straightforward and no sophisticated mathematical concepts were used: the human scientists should be able to understand the construct if they desired to go deeper into the program without continuing higher mathematical education.

Nature is complex, though far less complex than human variability.

Theoretical natural scientists should acknowledge that complexity. And studying nature is worth a set of equations!

Simple and beautiful general equations are out the window.  There are no excuses for engineers and natural scientists for not expanding their imagination and focusing their intuition on complex constructs that may account for many causative factors and analyzing simultaneously many variables for their interactions.

There are no excuses that experimental designs are not set up to handle three independent variables (factors) and two dependent variables; the human brain is capable of visualizing the interactions of 9 combinations of variables two at a time.

Certainly, scientists can throw in as many variables as they need and the powerful computers will crunch the numbers as easily and as quickly as simple designs; the problem is the interpretation part of the reams and reams of results.

A set of coherent series of relatively complex experiments can be designed to answer most complex phenomena and yet be intelligibly interpreted.

It is time to account for all the possible causatives factors, especially those that are rare in probability of occurrence (at the very end tail of probability graphs) or for their imagined little contributing effects: it is those rare events that have surprised man with catastrophic consequences.

If complex human was studied with simple sets of equations THEN nature is also worth sets of equations.

Be bold and make these equations as complex as you want; the computer would not care as long as you understand them for communication sake.

### Blog Stats

• 1,522,552 hits