Petrus's Opinion on Gravifugal Force

[agravity]

For a long time I am dealing with a gravifugal force. I am interesting in a your opinion in that matter.
My opinion you can find at.

http://www.geocities.com/agravity/ANTIGRAVITY.htm

Thank you
Petrus

 

[HallsofIvy]

The fact that this guy starts of by talking about how brilliant he is and how he, personally, is sign of a "maturing" civilization is somewhat offputting.

An example: "Q Are you really a new Einstein, Tesla, Leonardo...?

A In one of the previous interviews, I have just explained my place and my function in this part of universe , and I can only repeat that explanation:

" At the first, God created the natural being, nature. After it, man has created the artificial being. Than, I came, and explained to them what they have done."

That together with the fact that asserts that he "revolutionized philosophy" and that, as a result, he was "excommunicated" from "academic society" (He was a professor of philosophy and history of art!) makes me tend to be cautious.

He states that he patented this marvelous device (essentially a flying machine that violates conservation of momentum) in 1989 but still hasn't built a prototype.



The rest of the paper is a lot of undefined terms, generalities, jargon and "philosophical" maundering.

 

[Doc Al]

You mean, Halls, that it's bogus?

 

[agravity]

Originally posted by Doc Al
You mean, Halls, that it's bogus?

I can not comment your ansver, but I like cautious people and critical mind. Your reaction is quite correct, but please, read slightly more carefully my article. It will be good for you and for me, and for other people too.
Thank you
Petrus

 

[agravity]

Originally posted by HallsofIvy
The fact that this guy starts of by talking about how brilliant he is and how he, personally, is sign of a "maturing" civilization is somewhat offputting.

An example: "Q Are you really a new Einstein, Tesla, Leonardo...?

A In one of the previous interviews, I have just explained my place and my function in this part of universe , and I can only repeat that explanation:

" At the first, God created the natural being, nature. After it, man has created the artificial being. Than, I came, and explained to them what they have done."

That together with the fact that asserts that he "revolutionized philosophy" and that, as a result, he was "excommunicated" from "academic society" (He was a professor of philosophy and history of art!) makes me tend to be cautious.

He states that he patented this marvelous device (essentially a flying machine that violates conservation of momentum) in 1989 but still hasn't built a prototype.



The rest of the paper is a lot of undefined terms, generalities, jargon and "philosophical" maundering.

Thank you for your answer.
That is a correct reaction, but slightly to fast

He states that he patented this marvelous device (essentially a flying machine that violates conservation of momentum) in 1989 but still hasn't built a prototype.


Reading more carefully you will see that it confirm "conservation of momentum" in the same way like the spin of stars in globular clusters.

Prototype, and measurements was not done only my me

""The rest of the paper is a lot of undefined terms, generalities, jargon and "philosophical" maundering."" [/B][/QUOTE]

Reading more carefuly you will also see your own words as wrong, incorrect.
Please read my article slightly more carefuly, specially equations.
Howewer, your answer is good written.
Petrus
http://www.geocities.com/agravity/ANTIGRAVITY.htm

 

[yanniru]

Petrus,

My view of you is that you play with the truth. For evidence I prsent the following quote from your site:

"Rather, it deals only with the distortions of man's perception, just like Epicycles Theory favored by Ptolemy, which was better, and more precise, experimentally proved than Einstein`s theory"

Very sincerely,

Richard

 

[ahrkron]

I'm with Halls, I don't think there's much substance in that page.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by ahrkron
I'm with Halls, I don't think there's much substance in that page.

Hey, but he did get you guys to click his link and inflate his hit count. I'll pass, thanks.

My view of you is that you play with the truth. For evidence I prsent the following quote from your site:

"Rather, it deals only with the distortions of man's perception, just like Epicycles Theory favored by Ptolemy, which was better, and more precise, experimentally proved than Einstein`s theory"

Cute. Translation: 'I'll try to convince you I'm right by decieving you (wanna buy my book?).'

 

[pallidin]

Greetings,

You have made a certain statement from your website which appears to be the foundation of your theory. The statement is:

"When speaking about the gravifugal force we in fact refer to a certain sort of centrifugal force created by rotation in which gravity acts as centripetal (i.e.gravipetal) force."

My question #1: What specific rotational arrangement causes this effect?

My question #2: If this arrangement is in diagram or concept, surely it can be constructed and independently tested. Do you offer such?

 

[agravity]

Originally posted by yanniru
Petrus,

My view of you is that you play with the truth. For evidence I prsent the following quote from your site:

"Rather, it deals only with the distortions of man's perception, just like Epicycles Theory favored by Ptolemy, which was better, and more precise, experimentally proved than Einstein`s theory"

Very sincerely,

Richard

Thank you for your critical and constructive reply. It would be dificult to explane my statements here.It would be much better to visit one my short article about Einstein at site:
http://free.hostdepartment.com/k/kahless_index
I firmly believe it will satisfy you and it will be very interesting to you.
Thank you very much
Gratefuly
Petrus

 

[agravity]

Originally posted by yanniru
Petrus,

My view of you is that you play with the truth. For evidence I prsent the following quote from your site:

"Rather, it deals only with the distortions of man's perception, just like Epicycles Theory favored by Ptolemy, which was better, and more precise, experimentally proved than Einstein`s theory"

Very sincerely,

Richard

Richard

Thank you for your critical and constructive reply. It would be dificult to explane my statements here.It would be much better to visit one my short article about Einstein at site:
http://free.hostdepartment.com/k/kahless_index
I firmly believe it will satisfy you and it will be very interesting to you.
Thank you very much
Gratefuly
Petrus


__________________

 

[yanniru]

Epicycles

I found nothing about epicycles on your site. Give me an exact link.

The only interesting thing I found was your request to send money.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by yanniru
The only interesting thing I found was your request to send money.

Originally posted by russ_watters
wanna buy my book?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I am clarvoyant (don't tell Ivan).

 

[agravity]

Originally posted by pallidin
Greetings,

You have made a certain statement from your website which appears to be the foundation of your theory. The statement is:

"When speaking about the gravifugal force we in fact refer to a certain sort of centrifugal force created by rotation in which gravity acts as centripetal (i.e.gravipetal) force."

My question #1: What specific rotational arrangement causes this effect?

My question #2: If this arrangement is in diagram or concept, surely it can be constructed and independently tested. Do you offer such?

1.Cohesipetal or solidopetal force enables mass of solid body to rotate is a pseudoforce. Its value directly depends on velocity of rotation of solid body F = mv(squared)/r. This force always is perpendicular to axis of rotation. Cohesifugal, or solidofugal force too.
Gravipetal force enabling mass of celestial body to rotate is fundamental force. It depends on mass of celestial body and radius R and not on velocity of rotation of celestial body.
Moreover,this force is inversely proportional with velocity of rotation of celestial body.
This force is perpendicular to axis of rotation only at the equator -- gravifugal force too.
2. Yes
Thank you for your very instructive and good questions.
Other people interesting in this matter can see details at the site:
http://www.geocities.com/agravity/ANTIGRAVITY.htm
Sincerely
Petrus
P.S.
I believe those diferences between cohesipetal and gravipetal force has a great importance for future technology.

 

[agravity]

Originally posted by yanniru
Petrus,

My view of you is that you play with the truth. For evidence I prsent the following quote from your site:

"Rather, it deals only with the distortions of man's perception, just like Epicycles Theory favored by Ptolemy, which was better, and more precise, experimentally proved than Einstein`s theory"

Very sincerely,

Richard

I made an error in a process of posting message to you.
Message to you, you can find bellow
Excuse me
Petrus

 

[agravity]

Originally posted by yanniru
I found nothing about epicycles on your site. Give me an exact link.

The only interesting thing I found was your request to send money.

Very good written!
Regard money, probabbly you are scientist and without money like me.
But it is not important in this moment.
That article is in department of physics and title
Einstein
It is not difficult to find it. Click the Physics, and after it click
the Einstein.
Thank You
Petrus

 

[agravity]

Originally posted by yanniru
I found nothing about epicycles on your site. Give me an exact link.

The only interesting thing I found was your request to send money.

I just sent you the message, but there is no any message.
Go to http://free.hostdepartment.com/k/kahless_index/physics.htm
and click department of
Physics
after it click the
Einstein

Thank you
PETRUS

 

[chroot]

I just sent you my life savings -- $23,612.43. Please continue your ground breaking work with my support.

- Warren

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by chroot
I just sent you my life savings -- $23,612.43. Please continue your ground breaking work with my support.

- Warren

What are you, cheap? Don't you have a car you could sell or a house you could mortgage? And you don't need a brown and a black leather belt, do you?

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by russ_watters
And you don't need a brown and a black leather belt, do you?

You're right. Okay, make that $23,640.61.

- Warren

 

[agravity]

Originally posted by chroot
I just sent you my life savings -- $23,612.43. Please continue your ground breaking work with my support.

- Warren

Thank you,
I will resend you all interests and dividends.
Petrus
P.S.
Perheaps you are not understanding situation in Croatia.
Here, many older top scientist have no money for the food every day, neither house, neither car... Croatia is a very poor country.
I do not understand this life here, and I do not know how to explane
that situation. I want to leave Croatia and work somewhere, but I do not know how to do it. In the newspapers you can not read about real situation in our country.
But it will be much better to discuss gravifugal force. This forum serves for disscussions in physics.

 

[FZ+]

At first glance no one would venture to say they veer constantly toward the centre of the celestial body (say, Earth). The mass of the ring resists this veering toward the centre of the celestial body, i.e. it resists the change in direction of its motion

I think you are having serious misunderstandings about circular motion. In short, there is simply no such thing as centrifugal force. A ring as illustrated in the diagram will simply fall southwards until its internal circumference matches the Earth's circumference at that, at which time it would crash. Certainly the motion of the ring will be towards the centre of the earth. EM repulsion will perhaps prevent the ring itself from collapsing, but nothing stops it flying southwards.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by agravity
Here, many older top scientist have no money for the food every day, neither house, neither car... Croatia is a very poor country.

I understand. You are one of the top scientists there, and I wish to support your work. I'm sure my $23,640.61 will go a long way there.

- Warren

 

[pallidin]

Originally posted by agravity
But it will be much better to discuss gravifugal force. This forum serves for disscussions in physics.

OK, good call. Let's discuss it.
Is your theory purely hypothetical, or do you have some evidence to support it? Please state all acceptable scientific references in support, and we can go from there.

 

[yanniru]

Epicycles

No mention of epicycles on the following page:

"I just sent you the message, but there is no any message.
Go to http://free.hostdepartment.com/k/ka...dex/physics.htm
and click department of
Physics
after it click the
Einstein"

Apparently you cannot justify that epicycles are more accurate than General Relativity.

 

[agravity]

Originally posted by FZ+
I think you are having serious misunderstandings about circular motion. In short, there is simply no such thing as centrifugal force. A ring as illustrated in the diagram will simply fall southwards until its internal circumference matches the Earth's circumference at that, at which time it would crash. Certainly the motion of the ring will be towards the centre of the earth. EM repulsion will perhaps prevent the ring itself from collapsing, but nothing stops it flying southwards.

""In short, there is simply no such thing as centrifugal force""
I agree! There are only cohesifugal and gravifugal force.
""EM repulsion"" ? It does not come in.
""A ring as illustrated in the diagram will simply fall southwards""
Why?
Several experiments carried out by spining gyroscopes shown they are falling down (acceletating) slightly slower, in despite of very smal average velocity of its total mass.
Of course, those small differences maybe were caused by errors in a process of meassurements.
But, my calculations shown those very small values are in very aproximative accordance with equations presented at site:
http://www.geocities.com/agravity/ANTIGRAVITY.htm
The ring of the next experimental device will have much larger average velocity of its mass - cca the 1300m/sec.

Thank you for your disscusion.
Petrus
P.S.
In my project is the most difficult to understand the gravifugal force, and double curved tracectory of the rotating ring mass.

 

[agravity]

Originally posted by yanniru
No mention of epicycles on the following page:

"I just sent you the message, but there is no any message.
Go to http://free.hostdepartment.com/k/ka...dex/physics.htm
and click department of
Physics
after it click the
Einstein"

Apparently you cannot justify that epicycles are more accurate than General Relativity.

Sorry.
Try with:
http://free.hostdepartment.com/k/kahless_index/

Than physics
than
Einstein
Good luck
Petrus

 

[agravity]

Originally posted by pallidin
OK, good call. Let's discuss it.
Is your theory purely hypothetical, or do you have some evidence to support it? Please state all acceptable scientific references in support, and we can go from there.

Yes,
all gravimetrical meassurements, at all geographical altitudes, and several experiments with spining gyroscopes, These the last, unfortunately gave very small values.
Many scientist regard it as an errors in meassurements.
Crutial experimental proof up now is a changing in direction of spie
military satelites. When they are changing the direction of its motion (orbit, its behaviour is identical to that of mass of rotating ring. During the changing of direction those satelites are not loosing its altitude.
Thanks for your disscusion.
Petrus

 

[ophecleide]

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that a single free-body diargram could disprove (or prove) this whole thing. I simply do not see where this force is coming from.

 

[agravity]

Originally posted by ophecleide
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that a single free-body diargram could disprove (or prove) this whole thing. I simply do not see where this force is coming from.

Please consult my site at:
http://www.geocities.com/agravity/ANTIGRAVITY.htm
Thank you very much
Petrus