Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Yes I do need to learn and I am always willing to learn . c=F<E Force , energy and the speed of EMR traversing through a vacuum . If a cold volume doesn't attract energy then how do things reach room temperature ? My chicken that is defrosting tells me otherwise !
  3. Thank you. I will take the time to learn Latex and come back with editable equations. Until then, I have respecified the defined magnitude of B4 , B5 and B6 to be equal to the length of each respective parallel side of ∆ABD. The total force seems to always be within 180° of the line between the 2 currents with the same Z angles.
  4. No. Consider the following claim. Do you see that it seems to predict gravity to be negative? Instead of objects falling down on earth they should be ejected into space? Do you understand why? So either your claims are incorrect or very poorly worded. In either case that is not a good alternative to a few pages of physics and/or a good teacher.
  5. Right. So you need to learn, too. It is not an equation (clue: there is no equals sign). All it says is that F is less than E, without saying what F or E are. That is bollox.
  6. You are correct I do not completely understand ''your'' math on light but neither did you or anybody else until they learnt the math . However , you say my equation is meaningless without learning what it means . Let me try to explain , my math teaches somebody a physical process that removes the need for pages and pages of education learning the physics process . It doesn't give and is not meant to give units and values . The result my math gives is an understanding of the actual physical process . I describe the momentum of light is because there is an applied force of attraction , this force being a sate of being <E . When I described F=<E That is showing the physical process , a physical reason for all spatial motion . I am not talking bollox when we know a cold volume attracts heat .
  7. Again: Are you discussing the moment a photon is radiated from some point. Or the photon along the path from A to B after it was radiated? It is tricky to try to write good answers since new questions and claims does not match what basic physics (observations and math) says. Again: What is your background knowledge? What concepts of math and physics are you familiar with that could act as a common starting point? It is completely OK to say "none" and then we start from explaining and providing references from there.
  8. I would suggest taking a few minutes to learn the basics of Latex so you can post the equations here. That will make them easier (possible) to read, make it possible for people to quote and correct them, etc. (And is a valuable life skill for anyone interested in math or physics.)
  9. You would need to spend a few months, maybe a year, learning some basic physics. The sort of stuff that most people learn at school, would be a start. There are a lot of good online resources. The trouble is that you seem to think you already understand these things when, very obviously, you don't.
  10. That seems to be completely incompatible with observations. Both for massive objects and photons. How many counterexamples can you find in a minute?
  11. And yet another example of you thinking that you know more than you do. That is not mathematics. It is the meaningless combination of three symbols. None of your "mathematics" made any sense for this reason; it was incoherent nonsense. You can't just throw random symbols on the page and say "see, math!" By insisting that there must be a force, you are rejecting the existing explanations - without even studying and understanding them.
  12. I don't reject this ! I am talking something different than that , force .
  13. And quantum theory tells us that photons do not actually traverse from A to B in the way that classical objects do.
  14. The thread got closed , I did present the math F<E I'd need help to put in units and a measurement .
  15. No. Another example of where you think you know things, but don't realise how little you know. c is a constant (299,792,458 m/s). It is the speed of light (and anything massless) in a vacuum. Maxwell's equations tell us how and why a changing electric current (for example) generates electromagnetic waves that propagate at c. (But you reject this: because it involves mathematics and large amounts of evidence). GR also tells us why anything massless must travel at c. (But you reject this: because it involves mathematics and large amounts of evidence).
  16. Today
  17. c is a variable passing through a medium as mediums are variable and not invariant like a vacuum . Isn't that true ? Inertia
  18. If you could present your ideas (in the Speculations forum) with mathematics and evidence then people might consider them. But you have already demonstrated you are unable to do that. So why should anyone take your wild unscientific rambling seriously?
  19. Because on the way A-B, why would there ever be a force involved to keep anything moving at constant speed in a straight line? If you have a photon going from a distant galaxy eventually ending up at a telescope on earth, are you suggesting that all along the way there are some force active that guides the photon? There is no such force. The photon does not accelerate. I think all this is already stated in earlier responses. Do you have a reason to believe that anything (light or other) needs a "reason" to traverse from A-B at constant speed? The physics is understood an modelled. As for the possible more philosophical meaning of "reason" I have no answer unless you provide some experiment that could be analysed. Note: If you are asking about the process of emitting light at point A, that is not included in the above.
  20. No. C is "the speed of light in a vacuum". And so C is constant. But, in the real world, we can see that the answers are right here in this thread. You are just ignoring reality. How do we distinguish that from trolling?
  21. I haven't rejected the answers ! I deem you haven't give me an answer yet to my question . I asked pull or push ! Was told neither in answer ! Do you wan't me to believe that light traverses from A to B for no reason at all ? No I haven't ! All that you've said is that it is emitted . Then when I ask for the physics involved in emissions you tell me there is no force , push or pull . How can something emit with no push or pull ? I suggested there is a force of attraction involved to anything that has <E Are you not willing to consider and discuss my suggestion which at least attempts to answer the question ?
  22. Yes you most definite revisit aether but when considering the aether , also consider the semantics and what an aether actually is . We on earth are within the earths electromagnetic field , when we transmit a signal we are effectively transmitting EMR through the electromagnetic field . We could consider the earths EMF an aether if we consider semantics differently in relationship to aether . What is an aether ?
  23. I am suggesting you learn instead of making things up. You have rejected all the answers you have been given (because they don’t math your fairy tales)
  24. Hi Ken, I originally used hydrometers for manually testing the silt portion of gravel (with a flocculant) in a Geotechnical and Materials Testing Laboratory in the late 1970's but the Hydroclones are a good fit for your project. Incidentally my father worked for a local sand mining operation, about 5km from where I live, that incorporated multiple very early Hydroclones into one of the the first floating processing plants connected to a floating sand mining dredge in the 1960/70's. The first separators filtered out the sand/silt and passed the denser particles to the other separators for further processing into 4 different mineral sands, Rutile, Ilmenite, Zircon and Titanium. The company my father worked for surveyed all areas before mining, grew native plants in nurseries during mining, and then restored the original profiles and regenerated and maintained the native vegetation after mining. Here's a quote from Biography of Joe Pinter, who emigrated to Australia just before WWII and developed the original 'conical spinning separator' concept for mineral sand separation during WWII, and who also founded the company my father worked for in 1946. The older separators/hydroclones were lined with hardwood and were held in place with bolted metal bands that had to be replaced regularly as it wore out. This wood was excellent for recycling as unique and unusual benches, chairs, tables and other household furniture. http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/pinter-joseph-15465
  25. ! Moderator Note The rules require a level of politeness that this post does not reach. Just the second sentence would have been enough.
  26. Plenty of answers have been given. Again: There are so many interesting aspects of light that can be understood using various models depending on the level of details required or how deep one wants to go into a certain subject. But it requires some kind of common staring point. Personally I would not have been able to follow the university professor's explanations in the electromagnetic field theory course unless I had understod the math first. In this case, a starting point for invariant speed of light may be Maxwell. Problem is you are asking us to move back! Should we revisit Aether and Phlogiston as well?
  1. Load more activity
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.