Profile Page for Frederick David Tombe
Title:
Mr
First Name:
Frederick
Middle Name:
David
Last Name:
Tombe
Country:
United Kingdom
Papers
December 01, 2024 - The Physical Significance of the Fine-Structure...view
August 12, 2024 - The Uniform Straight-Line Inertial Pathview
July 22, 2024 - The Gyroscopic Theory of Electromagnetic Radiationview
June 24, 2024 - The Connection between Gravity and Lightview
March 25, 2024 - Activating the Dirac Seaview
March 22, 2024 - Radio Transmission and AC Transformersview
March 12, 2024 - A Short Note on Maxwell's Idle Wheelsview
March 07, 2024 - A Short Note on the Nature of Lightview
March 07, 2024 - A Short Note on the Nature of Electric Currentview
March 04, 2024 - A Short Note on Centrifugal Forceview
Comments
federico(Milano, Italy):
I was born 10 years after you, I am a physic like you, I left the profession (but not the passion and the study) and like you I was tormented by doubt. I thought I didn't understand ... but then I began to suspect that the relationship DO NOT TO UNDERSTAND = DO NOT TO ACKNOWLEDGE. But took me much longer to come to this conclusion and the discussions at the university, apart from a couple of exceptions, I always preferred to avoid them. Having said that I congratulate you for your works!
federico(Milano, Italy):
I was born 10 years after you, I am a physic like you, I left the profession (but not the passion and the study) and like you I was tormented by doubt. I thought I didn't understand ... but then I began to suspect that the relationship DO NOT TO UNDERSTAND = DO NOT TO ACKNOWLEDGE. But took me much longer to come to this conclusion and the discussions at the university, apart from a couple of exceptions, I always preferred to avoid them. Having said that I congratulate you for your works!
Frederick David Tombe(United Kingdom):
The surface tension forces that you have drawn attention to are no easier to explain than gravity itself. Electrostatic force and gravity both come under the jurisdiction of Gauss's law, but that doesn't explain their actual origins at a deeper level, and so to try and explain one in terms of the other would be tantamount to explaining something in terms of itself. Physics is about identifying the laws of nature, and the controversy at hand in these scientific articles is about identifying the existence of and describing the medium (the luminiferous medium) that acts as the carrier of light waves and which channels the fundamental forces in a manner that manifests as electromagnetism. Centrifugal force on the large scale is a consequence of Newton's laws of motion, and I contend that these fundamental laws of motion arise through interaction between ponderable matter and that same luminiferous medium. Mainstream scientists don't believe that any such medium exists, and so the issue in these articles is to demonstrate that it does exist. But as to how it came into existence or how it is animated, that is a deeper question which lies outside the field of physics. By analogy, we can physically describe a television set, but unless both electricity and a signal are injected into it from beyond, it is simply a dead object. Likewise, a physicist can describe the universe but can't explain the vitality that is injected into it from beyond. The tiny electron-positron dipoles that I contend fill all of space, each of which constitutes a sink and source, are portals to the beyond in like manner to the two pin electric socket in the wall which leads to the power source for the television. And there lies the source of gravity and the other fundamental forces.
TD Coker(Sunny Side, Georgia, United States):
"Gravity has a deeper cause..."
Actually, some years before seeing your papers, which I am still studying, I explained centrifugal force to a seven year old girl who was watching cooks spin pizza dough. She was so impressed, I decided that when I next saw her, I would explain gravity. That was when I went home, pulled out my Britannica, and discovered that no one seemed to know what gravity was. There were plenty of mathematical theories of what it was, all kinds of descriptions of it, but there seemed to be no practical, simple explanation. I went to my own thoughts on ionic bonding. When she next came into the restaurant, I showed her a pan of water with one drop of soap in it. I flicked the water and told her to watch how the bubbles either stuck to either each other or the side of the pan. I likened this to gravity. This still seems to be as simple an explanation as I have found. A type of ionic bonding.
I am, quite humbly, no scientist, just an observer.
Actually, some years before seeing your papers, which I am still studying, I explained centrifugal force to a seven year old girl who was watching cooks spin pizza dough. She was so impressed, I decided that when I next saw her, I would explain gravity. That was when I went home, pulled out my Britannica, and discovered that no one seemed to know what gravity was. There were plenty of mathematical theories of what it was, all kinds of descriptions of it, but there seemed to be no practical, simple explanation. I went to my own thoughts on ionic bonding. When she next came into the restaurant, I showed her a pan of water with one drop of soap in it. I flicked the water and told her to watch how the bubbles either stuck to either each other or the side of the pan. I likened this to gravity. This still seems to be as simple an explanation as I have found. A type of ionic bonding.
I am, quite humbly, no scientist, just an observer.
1 Replies
Frederick David Tombe(United Kingdom):
Frederick David Tombe (United Kingdom)
The surface tension forces that you have drawn attention to are no easier to explain than gravity itself. Electrostatic force and gravity both come under the jurisdiction of Gauss's law, but that doesn't explain their actual origins at a deeper level, and so to try and explain one in terms of the other would be tantamount to explaining something in terms of itself. Physics is about identifying the laws of nature, and the controversy at hand in these scientific articles is about identifying the existence of and describing the medium (the luminiferous medium) that acts as the carrier of light waves and which channels the fundamental forces in a manner that manifests as electromagnetism. Centrifugal force on the large scale is a consequence of Newton's laws of motion, and I contend that these fundamental laws of motion arise through interaction between ponderable matter and that same luminiferous medium. Mainstream scientists don't believe that any such medium exists, and so the issue in these articles is to demonstrate that it does exist. But as to how it came into existence or how it is animated, that is a deeper question which lies outside the field of physics. By analogy, we can physically describe a television set, but unless both electricity and a signal are injected into it from beyond, it is simply a dead object. Likewise, a physicist can describe the universe but can't explain the vitality that is injected into it from beyond. The tiny electron-positron dipoles that I contend fill all of space, each of which constitutes a sink and source, are portals to the beyond in like manner to the two pin electric socket in the wall which leads to the power source for the television. And there lies the source of gravity and the other fundamental forces.
The surface tension forces that you have drawn attention to are no easier to explain than gravity itself. Electrostatic force and gravity both come under the jurisdiction of Gauss's law, but that doesn't explain their actual origins at a deeper level, and so to try and explain one in terms of the other would be tantamount to explaining something in terms of itself. Physics is about identifying the laws of nature, and the controversy at hand in these scientific articles is about identifying the existence of and describing the medium (the luminiferous medium) that acts as the carrier of light waves and which channels the fundamental forces in a manner that manifests as electromagnetism. Centrifugal force on the large scale is a consequence of Newton's laws of motion, and I contend that these fundamental laws of motion arise through interaction between ponderable matter and that same luminiferous medium. Mainstream scientists don't believe that any such medium exists, and so the issue in these articles is to demonstrate that it does exist. But as to how it came into existence or how it is animated, that is a deeper question which lies outside the field of physics. By analogy, we can physically describe a television set, but unless both electricity and a signal are injected into it from beyond, it is simply a dead object. Likewise, a physicist can describe the universe but can't explain the vitality that is injected into it from beyond. The tiny electron-positron dipoles that I contend fill all of space, each of which constitutes a sink and source, are portals to the beyond in like manner to the two pin electric socket in the wall which leads to the power source for the television. And there lies the source of gravity and the other fundamental forces.
Posted: August 21, 2016 @ 5:03:27 pm
5 total records on 2 pages
Add a Comment
Help keep GS Journal progressing to become the most valuable scientific research website on the net!
