Dear Branko,

Here the people are with more philosophy not with physics...my essay deals with real physics than philosophy, it may be the reason...anyway thank you for your rating but only if you really understood my essay..thank you!

8 days later

Dear Bishal Banjara,

Your idea makes something interesting.

"the real liveliness of any interacting systems could be stimulated within the Relational mechanics only such that the isolated system is really not a functional one, as how the theme is comforted by this whole essay." This phrase is interesting.

I invite you to read my essay "A SPACE-TIME AS A PERFECT FLUID SINK FLOW" at the site of essay contest of FQXi, when you have a free time.

Ch.Bayarsaikhan

4 days later

Dear Bishal Banjara,

Your question is right that

Besides going to ask, "What is matter made up of?,

What are the constituents inside of space and time?,

What is there inside the atom or at universe and how it works?.... etc."

If I say that centripetal force is kind of inertial force, would you agree with it?

And also, is there any difference between gravitational centripetal force and the centripetal force exerting on an electron that moves on a stable orbit around an atomic nucleus?

I just want to share ideas with you.

Ch.Bayarsaikhan

And also, is there any difference between gravitational centripetal force and the centripetal force exerting on an electron that moves on a stable orbit around an atomic nucleus for a reality?

dear Bayarsaikhan Bayarsaikhan Choisuren,

thank you for your comment. please dont mind but i don't believe that centripetal force is inertial force...to be real inertial force, it must be based on a=(v-u)/t tendency so, the kind of inertial force view for centripetal force from the way that Etvos did is absolutely wrong...and so far your question about this in atomic scale is also not sensible in two ways, one is that I already mentioned above and next is that the electron's circulating motion is because of charge effect, not because of mass effect. one thing we can assume is the analogy in between them but not equality, i mean mass and charge are two different entities. The analogy pattern in between them is exactly same but not their origination.

Bishal,

I think your identification of centrifugal force as a mitigator of the gravitational potential is perfectly reasonable. I have great sympathy for those who find things beyond current doctrine, which may be of great import, but are criticised and ignored by those with less analytical capability and imagination. Indeed I'm in precisely the same position with a classical derivation of the predictions of QM. The mechanism is self explanatory and self evident, but as it's not part of current doctrine people will run a mile rather than seriously address and analyse it! I've similarly seen no falsification of your hypothesis.

My essay starts by explaining why, which I suggest is the present limited state of mans intellectual evolution, and how it might be overcome, by 'self directed evolution' (thinking analytically not just 'intuitively').

I recently mentioned Daniel Schechtman in a post. He discovered 'quasicrystals', dismissed, ignored, laughed at, lost his job and suffered for 40 years! Then finally someone else found them, and he now has a Noble Prize! He says be 'right' then be like a Rottweiler; bite on and don't let go!

Your essay and case is rather too short and incomplete but it's score is still way too low, so mine will boost it. Well done and keep it up.

I hope you'll also read, like and score mine well. (I've now received 11 '1' scores from trolls who are either cheats or fear advancement!)

Were you aware galaxy rotational velocities 'step' at virial radii? This must give traceable differenced in centrifugal force. A while ago I also concluded the Yukawa potential looked a better description than others including MOND. Have you studied it?

Keep going, and Very best of luck

Peter

PS; If you do get to read mine do also see the video as 3D dynamic evolution is far better shown in motion.

Dear peter,

thank you for your best comments and praises...I searched your essay in the list but I am not getting it right there!!! please tell me your essay title.

Hello Bishal,

I like your direct attack on the link between mathematical forms and physical forms. Yes, mindless mathematical laws can be goofy!

You may find my recent work (reminiscent of MOND) to be of interest: http://prespacetime.com/index.php/pst/article/view/1188/1163

Thanks for your excellent essay. It is underappreciated and I rate it highly.

Don Limuti

    Dear Don Limuti,

    thank you for your appreciations...thank you so much...I will definitely read your article as this kind of things attracts me much more....

    4 days later

    Dear Sirs!

    Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use «spam».

    New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.

    New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.

    Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.

    Sincerely,

    Dizhechko Boris