Physics

Dear scienceforum.net, I once tried to include myself in a discussion topic that went under the label of "what is time?" in which many individuals entered with various perspectives either championing the non-existence of time with respect to change (including me) and others who took rather standard interpretations of relativity (special or general) to describe what they mean. I felt that given some of the resources or knowledge i've attained perhaps the discussion could actually go somewhere or be somewhat more productive. Over the course of those four years I had realized that philosophy had already been discussing this with already predefined terminology whi…

Hello. This is my first post. I am nobody with an average intelligence. I have a very basic understating of time. I want to know if this makes sense. I think time is the movement of things. I am not an expert in physics so by 'things' I mean any fundamental particles. On neutron stars, the gravity is very high. This strong gravity pulls things down, so things move slowly than, say, on the Earth. Thus, time on neutron stars becomes slow. Time on an Earth-orbiting space station goes a little bit faster, because the gravity is a little bit lower than on the surface of the Earth. Time before the Big Bang did not exist, because there were no things before the Big Bang. Whe…

When a dicussion about Time begins, it usually derails into philosophical blah blah after a post or 2. I'd like to refrain from the philosophical tentation, and try to concentrate on what we really know about Time from a scientific point of vue only. For example: 1. we know that motion requires time: nothing can move from one spatial coordinate to another in zero time, it would be a transgression of the Speed Of Light. 2. we know that the rate of time is related to gravity: where gravity is stronger Time flows slower. 3. we know that time has a "direction", commonly called the arrow the time. 4. we know that time is related to causality, and causality…

Having just recently signed up as a member of SFN, a friend has asked that I post the following document relating to molten metal at WTC 1, 2 & 7. The PDF link... http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/ProfMorroneOnMeltingWTCsteel.pdf Can I ask people to give there thoughts on the accuracy of this document written by Professor Terry Morrone. This seems like the best place for people to look at this through the impartial objective lens of science.

In 340 b.c., Greek philosopher Heraclides proposed, that our planet spins. The idea was dismissed for nearly 2,000 years, on the grounds, that "If Earth rotated [then] a person jumping up would land in a different spot" (Astronomy 2010). Two millennia were lost, to ridicule, being allowed to trump sound-and-sane science (cp. 'delay is death' -- Czar Peter I). The concept of "relative motion" could easily have been demonstrated, cp. Hypatia, head of the Library of Alexandria, in the docu-drama Agora.

A few days ago I started reading Ira Flatow's Present At The Future (On a recommendation), and in the introduction it discusses his misconceptions about why an airplane wing keeps a plane in the air. On the Bernoulli's Principle 'error': Apparently this is a very common error made by physics teachers across America. He says that: I'm not entirely sure this is true. The book doesn't give any math; just this explanation. One of my questions is: How does an airplane's wing make air go down? It doesn't really make sense to me. I have with me a physics textbook I permanantly 'borrowed' from my 8th grade science teacher, and in it it says: It seems that my textboo…

This question is for the physicists mainly, I suppose, though there may also be a philosophical element to it. (Mods may wish to relocate the thread as appropriate). I ask as an interested layman. We're routinely told--by scientists--that there are four fundamental forces of nature, one of which is gravity. This is so commonly heard that I assume quotations are unnecessary. Gravity construed as a force seems entirely unproblematic under the erstwhile Newtonian paradigm. But times have moved on . . . Much of the lay reading I've done in this area seems to suggest that general relativity--if read literally--treats gravity not as a force at all; rather, it is…

Hello reader, According to general relativity mass curves space-time giving the effect of gravity... I have a challenge for you. Think of (a) reason(s) why mass causes space-time to curve. I have tried...You people are more qualified than I. So you should try too. There is no prize. Why am I making this thread? ...Because I haven't seen anyone attempt to answer this question of why. If you think of a reason you like I encourage you to make our own thread in the speculations section. I don't like equations...Try to not use them. You can add them to your post in the speculations section later. ...And the challenge begins in...1...2...3...Now...Enjoy! I will …

Planets Orbit Not Because Of Gravity Energy But Because Of Griff Energy... Why does the moon not fly off? Why do astronauts float in space? Objects fall to earth at the same speed?, All of this does not make sense. If astronauts "float" in space, then there is no gravity in space. So whats the moon doing? I thought there is no gravity in space? Very confusing It may be that each planet or moon is held in a gravity ring and between these rings is no gravity. I doubt this is true. Or is there such a thing I would like to call "Griff" in our universe that keeps things draging along such as the moon orbiting the earth while the earth orbits the sun. (G…

What does 'emergent' mean to you in a physics context, such as spacetime?

I recently inflated a balloon inside a box, how doe's the box space end up inside the balloon?

I wonder how time become a mystery to those who probe it's nature.But regarding my question,is it really a real thing or just a representation or a meter of how much change a matter had undergone because we all know in the physicality of our observable reality,it change except change itself which the second law of thermodynamics applies. Any more explanation of it to lighten more our understanding is very much appreciated.Thank you....

Mathematically, in a simple a logical sense, time just does not seem correct to me. Despite the fact that I observe it. But in order to move from one second to another, we have to travel half that distance in time. And half that distance. And half that distance. To infinity. So theoretically, we cannot move forward in time. We would have to travel through an infinity of infinities between an infinity of intervals of time. Xeno's arrow could never have never hit it's target then. It couldn't even leave the bow by this reasoning. So time seems to be just the stitching together of brief instances of existence of matter in a certain arrangement, translating the informatio…

- Question "Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental interactions of physics, approximately 1038 times weaker than the strong interaction, 1036 times weaker than the electromagnetic force and 1029 times weaker than the weak interaction. As a consequence, it has no significant influence at the level of subatomic particles.[4] In contrast, it is the dominant interaction at the macroscopic scale, and is the cause of the formation, shape and trajectory (orbit) of astronomical bodies." link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity It seems to me that the gravity or gravitation adds or builds up in interaction from microscopic (e.g. sub-atomic particles) to macr…

I have already admitted I was wrong in generalizing for massive particles. In the wave-like behavior actually the momentum p appears, not the mass. De Broglie wavelength is actually defined by their momentum p which is different for them (λ = h/p) at same velocity. But for massive particles there is a relation between the momentum p and the mass m... May be I should rethink about what I have said. The point is that in general, waves are not associated to a mass but De Broglie law precisely combines both. Definitely I must rethink about... Better to say that the wave-like behavior also omits the concept of mass although it plays a role in the determinatio…

EMR, electromagnetic radiation is emitted from the Sun? EMR is made up of a visual spectrum been several different wavelengths and also has invisible wavelengths, such has radio waves? EMR as an whole, a collective, with no interference of its natural state, is transparent? A light bulb , a naked flame, a flashlight all emit a form of EMR? Light is apart of EMR and is said as single particles are known has a Photon? Photons and emr is mass less and do not have a Physical body? EMR has potential energy? Whenever you can see, EMR must be present? EMR is always isotropic from the source? EMR is apparently present in th…

Infinity has a lot of odd, or amazing, or impenetrable, properties. Infinity can increase or decrease, but still be itself. Except that, even though infinity plus n (or plus infinity) is still infinite, infinity minus infinity is zero, but infinity minus n (some “ordinary” number that our brains can deal with) is still infinite. Infinity can be multiplied and divided and still be infinite. But infinity divided by infinity is 1. Infinity squared is infinite, as is infinity to any power. So infinity to the power of infinity is still infinity (to the power of 1). It's a really big huge meta-number that can't be transformed like other numbers. It's outside the normal beh…

Okay, most sources say that once you get past the event horizon, you will be ripped apart by the gravity and die. Yet, they also say that once you pass event horizon, every direction leads to the singularity. This doesn't make sense. If every direction leads to the singularity and you get pulled toward the singularity then you are getting pulled towards the singularity in every direction... Wouldn't the forces cancel out? Also, since the singularity is infinitesimally small, wouldn't it take you forever to actually get to the singularity as every part of you is approaching that which is infinite?

Hello everyone I have a question I have stumbled upon.. well... playing with stuff. In my bathroom, I have some sort of cup with a chalice-like-shaped 'cover' (see attachment) The black boll is a solid metal ball at which I hold this 'cover'. The rest is, of course, hollow. Now, I've experienced something rather strange; when I tap my finger on the hollow, metal part, keeping hold of the solid ball, it produces a sound - rather logic. The strange part is, that the sound is extremely loud (well, it IS extremely loud when held less dan 2 cm from my ear) at the outer sides (outside of this 'chaliceshape') and there is absolutely no sound in this chalice shape. (So …

How did space come into existance?

This is with reference to the following recent short video by Sabine Hossenfelder: I must say that, while I don’t necessarily share all of her pessimism, I do find myself agreeing to some of what she says here. My problem though is that I have never myself worked in professional academia, and have only a peripheral awareness of how exactly funding, the “paper mill” etc work when it comes to research in the foundations of physics. I also haven’t read her book Lost in Maths. I am thus curious to hear from those on this forum who do work in professional academia - what do you think about her comments? Is there any merit in the notion that there are systemic is…

Please see the attached "concept" pdf file. If the mechanism does not generate energy then there should be physics which can clearly show that without it being assumed in the method of analysis used. Included in the analysis should be clearly shown details of a torque opposing the rod's rotation since the absence of such a torque would mean that the mechanism continues to operate indefinitely and in doing so continues to power the motion of m2 indefinitely. If it does produce energy then energy is not conserved. More could be said about this interesting mechanism e.g. acceleration of m1 in the x direction without a force being applied to it in that direction, the for…

Hello, I am wondering if anyone has heard of anything that can be used as a heating element , yet is transparent. Like transparent metal for example ? Glass as we all know is a poor conductor of heat ! But there has to be something else Thanks

Just note I couldn't find this on Google. So why? Why not slower, or faster? This is a confusing question that I hope someone could answer. And another question along these lines, if a photon has no mass, how does it "fall" into a black hole. Gravity is the force of attraction between two objects, right?