Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Dizhechko Semyonovich: on 4/7/17 at 9:24am UTC, wrote Dear Sirs! Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of...

Bishal Banjara: on 4/3/17 at 6:03am UTC, wrote Dear Don Limuti, thank you for your appreciations...thank you so much...I...

Don Limuti: on 4/3/17 at 5:40am UTC, wrote Hello Bishal, I like your direct attack on the link between mathematical...

Bishal Banjara: on 3/30/17 at 11:38am UTC, wrote Dear peter, thank you for your best comments and praises...I searched...

Peter Jackson: on 3/29/17 at 16:26pm UTC, wrote Bishal, I think your identification of centrifugal force as a mitigator of...

Bishal Banjara: on 3/26/17 at 12:30pm UTC, wrote dear Bayarsaikhan Bayarsaikhan Choisuren, thank you for your comment....

Bayarsaikhan Choisuren: on 3/23/17 at 12:28pm UTC, wrote And also, is there any difference between gravitational centripetal force...

Bayarsaikhan Choisuren: on 3/23/17 at 12:26pm UTC, wrote Dear Bishal Banjara, Your question is right that Besides going to ask,...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Sophia Stephens: "We offer the ultimate in the selection with thousands of kits, Check out..." in Quantum Physics, Mini...

Vladimir Rogozhin: "Many thanks to the Foundational Questions Institute for the opportunity to..." in What Is Fundamental? –...

asdf: "desired service per your demand at your house. These females square measure..." in A Wonderful Outcome

Lorraine Ford: "As is usual with physicists, first prize winner Emily Adlam seems to have a..." in What Is Fundamental? –...

marco sanchez: "This is truly a decent and instructive, containing all data furthermore..." in A Stitch in Quantum Time

Noram Singer: "If you want to know How to Fix Asus wireless router setup wizard access..." in Sounding the Drums to...

Anonymous: "Back to the Article... Q&A with Chanda Prescod-WeinStein." in Whose Physics Is It...

Dona Gilbert: "Is this a solar panel? I liked the design of the panel very much and would..." in Cosmic Dawn, Parallel...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Fuzzballs v Black Holes
A radical theory replaces the cosmic crunchers with fuzzy quantum spheres, potentially solving the black-hole information paradox and explaining away the Big Bang and the origin of time.

Whose Physics Is It Anyway? Q&A with Chanda Prescod-Weinstein
Why physics and astronomy communities must take diversity issues seriously in order to do good science.

Why Time Might Not Be an Illusion
Einstein’s relativity pushes physicists towards a picture of the universe as a block, in which the past, present, and future all exist on the same footing; but maybe that shift in thinking has gone too far.

The Complexity Conundrum
Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

Quantum Dream Time
Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.


FQXi FORUM
May 21, 2018

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: Newtonian Dynamics: An explicit diversion from Reality by Bishal Banjara [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Bishal Banjara wrote on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 20:20 GMT
Essay Abstract

This essay is all about the validation of ω^2 r ( v^2/r) as a real mathematical as well the physical form that corresponds to both radial centripetal acceleration, ω^2 rr ̃ and real tangential acceleration,ω^2 rθ ̃ in circular motion within the uniform magnitude of tangential velocity verifying the centrifugal acceleration/force but varying in both magnitude and direction.

Author Bio

Mr. Bishal Banjara is an Independent Researcher, researching in the foundational aspects of whole Physics. And the author of the book entitled as 'Unique Perceptions on Physics: Commentaries with Solutions Papers on Physics', a different perceptive angled vision on Physics. Also,he is the author of different research papers published in www.ijser.org website contradicting GR with real observable fact, predicting the cause for elliptical motion of planets, notifying the defect in two-body reduction and so on.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Branko L Zivlak wrote on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 08:35 GMT
Dear Mr. Bandjara

Nice analysis. Maby, the third force is Coriolis force.

Regards,

Branko Zivlak

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Bishal Banjara replied on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 10:22 GMT
Hi,Branko!

I, at first supposed like you but as Coriolis force is effective for the body which lies just above the rotating mass (say earth) without the contact touch (it is well illustrated in my book (see ref.2, chapter 2)) but my equation search a real applied force that would acts against gravity and gives the tangential acceleration.....Thank you for your best comment(which I was hoping may probably asked),thank you so much!!!!

Bookmark and Share



Author Bishal Banjara wrote on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 10:33 GMT
what this means is, if you applied a force to a mass to move it (in any direction), the real force you applied in against gravity is not seen or no direct visualization rather you will see only the consequence that these forces produced as a resultant.....so, every kind of moving body is not directly linked to the direct effect of force ( as how Newtonian F=ma law treats) but as a consequence...

Bookmark and Share


Author Bishal Banjara replied on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 11:07 GMT
And why i called it as centrifugal is because, we are trying to answer for the cause of such motion from the kind of centrifugal word....see ref. 1 in detail

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 16:02 GMT
Dear Bishal Banjara,

I merely wish to point out that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

This means that all of the physicists who have ever lived have been completely wrong about the singular real visible physical condition of the real Universe.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Bishal Banjara replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 09:55 GMT
dear joe,

your sense is highly philosophic, my hard-disk is incapable to load it..

best regards

Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 20:28 GMT
Nice essay Banajara,

Your ideas and thinking are excellent and matching with mine…. For example in your Bio you said “he is the author of different research papers published in www.ijser.org website contradicting GR with real observable fact, predicting the cause for elliptical motion of planets, notifying the defect in two-body reduction and so on.”...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Bishal Banjara wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 10:16 GMT
Dear snp,

"when there are multiple n-bodies the simple centrifugal force will not work. Probably Dynamic Universe Model is the only solution available now……”-I think you need to know a bit more background in the history of physics...you know if there was no Newton's second law, the General relativity would not be theorized...so, like the second law, my formulation is like this but exists in against of it....a real need in physics to pillar-up new foundation...so,to say like yours is quite inadequate as it is not exact form of whole unification but it will guide the path to follow...and In my essay, i have not mentioned such words, do I?.....more, you don't understood or you didn't generalized my essay, the centrifugal force is just 'a grain in the whole bucket' from where one could extract different forms of force dealing with mass nature...for more detail you need to see chappter 2 of reference 2..

best regards from Nepal

Bookmark and Share



Branko L Zivlak wrote on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 10:35 GMT
I am surprised with the score. Now its better.

Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Bishal Banjara wrote on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 11:36 GMT
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!

Bookmark and Share



Bayarsaikhan Bayarsaikhan Choisuren wrote on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 15:01 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


David Pinyana wrote on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 22:43 GMT
Thus,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Bayarsaikhan Bayarsaikhan Choisuren replied on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 12:26 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Bayarsaikhan Bayarsaikhan Choisuren replied on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 12:28 GMT
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?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Bishal Banjara wrote on Mar. 26, 2017 @ 12:30 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 16:26 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Bishal Banjara wrote on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 11:38 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share



Don Limuti wrote on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 05:40 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Bishal Banjara replied on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 06:03 GMT
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....

Bookmark and Share



Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 09:24 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.