Dear Sir:
Can you direct me to any discussions of Universal Physics on
the web? I am enjoying what I have read so far but am wondering what
others think.
Thanks,
J.U., British Columbia, Canada.
Hello J.U.:
Thanks for asking. I have been involved over the years
with several discussions regarding the concepts of Universal Physics on the
internet. These exchanges are often lengthy and challenging. Over
the years I have learned that the time spent figuring out the true cause of an
event, such as Earth's dual tides, is always much less than the time it takes to
figure out exactly what is wrong with the conventional theory or position.
These discussions often help me to gain a better understanding of the the
conventional position. At the same time, the strength of the Universal
Physics position is put to the test. Seldom is an agreement reached in
these exchanges. Rather we all appear content if it is apparent to each
that the other party understands their position.
My longest exchange was with a UK Physicist. We tossed ideas back and forth for a year and a half about 5 years ago, give or take. Overall he was very helpful with good suggestions.
I was asked by a friend, Koos Geldenhuys, to write an article about the role
forces play in causing the mushrooming of a bullet upon impact with the target.
The article is available on his web site at
http://www.techfund.co.za/GSCOrderAccess.asp . Scroll down to the
bottom and click on the article link "Marksmanship & Universal Physics".
Koos has recently added a stop-action
video sequence of a mushrooming bullet. This amazing event, complete with a
slightly-rotating bullet, is viewable at the bottom of our article.
In the Spring of 2009 I participated in a lively
discussion with a retired Physics professor regarding the cause of Earth's dual
high tides. His mind was not open to the Universal Physics understanding
that reaction-to-acceleration forces are different compared to the action forces
that are the cause of such accelerations. "There is but one type for
force.", summed up his position. This one type of force in his understanding of
conventional Physics is limited solely to the force that plays a role in
Newton's formula Force = mass x acceleration. Even in this discussion
regarding acceleration/Action forces, he saw no distinction between
gravitational a/A forces that are being generated internally within each
component of the accelerating object's matter compared to an external-to-matter
contact a/A force impressed against the accelerating object's exterior surface.
To him, there was no distinction between these two very different types of a/A
forces. As for any acceleration/Reaction force present, he insisted
that its name was interchangeable with the name of the acceleration/Action force
responsible for the object's acceleration. This meant that in his mind it
was valid to rename the reaction force as the action force and then view this
renamed reaction force as the cause of the object's acceleration despite it
being directed opposite to said object's acceleration. I could not
get him to consider the different types of force that are so clear in my mind.
"A force is a force. There is only one type of force." was his answer.
Since then I have discovered several references in PRINCIPIA, such as on page
192 where Isaac Newton acknowledges twice that there are different types or "species" of
forces. While Newton did not get everything right, one has good company if
he ends up on your side. I give the Physics professor credit for helping us to understand the
currently held position within conventional Physics regarding Earth's dual high
tides as explained in "Classical Mechanics" A Modern Perspective - Second
Edition by Vernon D. Barger & Martin G. Olsson.
Event 5, 'The Physics of Earth's Tides' is our response.
Earlier this year (2010) I had a spirited discussion was with a very talented and respectful editor at Wikipedia, the online user-developed encyclopedia. The subject was the reality, characteristics, and importance of 'reactive centrifugal force'. I made no direct contribution to the current Wikipedia article on this subject. I did analyze many statements made in the article and made more than a few suggestions. Our exchange grew quite large so the editor moved it from the discussion page to my talk page - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ethan_Skyler&oldid=347463194 . Since there were multiple fronts of debate being worked on at the same time, our discussion can be difficult to follow. Be sure to pay careful attention to the date of each posting. I think some important discoveries are contained within. If you are a student of centrifugal force, this discussion on Wikipedia should hold your interest to the end. I have used an important quote rediscovered during this discussion within Isaac Newton's writings in PRINCIPIA to improve Article XI Reaction Forces. Thank you, Andrew Dressel!
My long-time friend, Michael O'Grady, recently sent me a link to an article at Wired.com by associate professor of physics, Rhett Allain. The title and subject of Professor Allain's well-written article is "Gravity, Weightlessness, and Apparent Weight". Thinking that "Apparent Weight" has no place in the science, I studied his article and generated extensive comments. Weightlessness is a worthy subject for discussion. Professor Allain recognizes and addresses the stacking-for-forces effect, long discussed here in Universal Physics, present in gravitational weighing events. But his conclusions, in my opinion, need additional work. The link to his article plus comments published at Wired.com is here.
Sincerely,
Ethan Skyler
Copyright © 2010 by Ethan Skyler. All rights reserved.
The author grants each visitor to The Universal Physics Journal the right to make one copy of Question 16 for his or her own personal archive as long as the author's copyright notice is permanently affixed to the archive copy.
Click here to download a copy of Question 16: Are there any discussions of Universal Physics on the web?
