Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 05/13/21 in Posts

  1. I must be missing something. Somebody arguing for the properties of the fabric of space, quotes Tesla for support, who said "... for the simple reason that it can have no properties ...".
    2 points
  2. I'll try a logical explanation with more detail without referring to math of specific laws of physics this time: Let's say two hypothetical devices are working perpetually* as a unit without external energy source. Perpetual motion device A feeds energy (1) into device B and then device B feeds energy (2) to device A. Since no external energy is added and operation is perpetual there is no internal energy wasted; efficiency is 100%. Device A runs from the energy provided by B and B runs from the energy provided by A. Hence, over time, A must supply B with the same amount of energy that
    2 points
  3. How do I tell if something is made of normal matter or has exotic matter in it?
    1 point
  4. What would be the demarcation between these two types of masses? Are asteroids small or exotic? Moons? Comets? Gravitational interactions have been observed on fairly small masses. Are ~1kg lead spheres normal matter?
    1 point
  5. Say you have some uranium (VI) fluoride UF6, and it decays. It spits out a helium nucleus and forms Thorium and helium. But the helium nucleus is shot at at a huge speed. So, according to the conservation of momentum, the Thorium nucleus must be kicked the other way by the recoil. It is usually set moving so fast that most of the fluoride ions simply get left behind. Indeed, most of the outer electrons get left behind too So you get a mess of fluorine, helium, thorium (as ions) and electrons all moving in different directions.
    1 point
  6. There were solar updraft towers proposals around, warming the air in a flared "hothouse" base. Is that what Revl has in mind? Other ways of using low grade heat to make mechanical movement or electricity include stirling engines and thermocouples.
    1 point
  7. Anyone who think from the perspective of Space-time, are wasting their time. Oh no, not another Tesla crank. That's two in the space of a week! Tesla was a turn of the c.20th inventor, electrical engineer and Groucho Marx lookalike, who went mad* and died 80 years ago. Quoting what Tesla had to say about a branch of physics he knew nothing about, not being a physicist, does not enhance anyone's credibility. *In 1932 he announced he had invented a motor that would run on cosmic rays:
    1 point
  8. My position is that held and suported by observational and experimental data. Not at all. The vast majority of professional cosmologists hold that view, and it is supported by the evidence. While Tesla made some notable discoveries, he was also some what eccentric.
    1 point
  9. That clock wouldn't work no matter how she put it up.
    1 point
  10. Work is Fd, force times distance. To calculate the work done, you need to know not just the force but the distance through which it is applied. Do not run away with the notion that you can get limitless power from the expansion of ice. The bigger the load, the smaller the distance through which it will be lifted. Ice is not incompressible. The work it does will be finite - and small compared to the latent heat released. But to be honest I think I am wasting my time now. At every turn, it seems, you generate another bogus complication, to evade acceptance of what I and others here have b
    1 point
  11. Maxwell, Stokes and others worked all this out in great detail in the early to mid 1800s. But they rejected these mechanical models is unsatisfactory for a variety of reasons, and finally devised experiments to disporove aether models once and for all. How much less satisfactory do you think we now find them 150 years alter, armed with our greater knowledge and many, more refined experiments ?
    1 point
  12. You are asking this question of the Physicists here. In most Physcis textbooks the authors are not to worried about charge so the equations presented do not generally observe conservation of charge. So the equations presented often have a beta minus or alpha positive charge on one side, but no charge on the other. So these equations do not balance in respect of charge. For example Chemists are more careful so here is an extract from a Chemistry textbooks that explains this in detail, balancing the charges as well. And yes the equations now balance
    1 point
  13. I don't see what is so contradictory about saying I understand a point of view, I just don't completely share that point of view. Given my way of looking at things and my experiences in life, I see things differently. I'm willing to discuss it, and I will try very hard to understand why someone else thinks the way they do, or sees things differently, and I'm more than willing to be convinced, if the argument or explanation they present makes sense. But when people just take on an air of authority and expect me to accept whatever they say without question, I'm not impressed. For examp
    -1 points
  14. My position on this would be the same as Nikola Tesla: Anyone who think from the perspective of Space-time, are wasting their time.
    -2 points
×
×
  • 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.