Jump to content

Sensei

Senior Members
  • Posts

    7683
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

Posts posted by Sensei

  1. So, then, why triangles?

     

    Simplify said he is programmer. In 3D graphics and 3D games triangle is the main building brick. The all more complex objects can be simulated using triangles. Square, or quad, are 2 triangles with uniform normal vector which share one edge.

     

    But he is extending this idea to the whole real world... without any experimental confirmation.

  2. I am also finding it very encouraging.

    Now, they need to invest in scientists to create free (never patented) cheap, and effective (>15%) solar panels,

    create (or buy) solar panels creating companies, and sell them as cheap as possible to the all people on the world, or simply give them away for free (with clause not for resale).

  3. In Newtons time they were interested in predicting position of some planet in advance. If prediction was correct model was correct (more or less precise).

     

    It's similar to mine example from #34 post, but instead of observation of failing body at hand, record location of Venus through whole year, record location of Mars whole year, record location of Moon whole year.. Analyze their positions, to get velocity, analyze how they change in time. And basing on previous values, predict where body will be in future.

  4. It's not an overcomplicated model though.

     

    Simply, you simply don't understand how Universe is working..

    Sorry to be honest.

    Model has to predict something, with higher or lower precision, but being able to predict anything.

    Your model is predicting nothing.

    Meshes is 3d applications, 3d games are made of triangles because it's the elementary object with area (line has area = 0), which can be used to created any other 3d object.

     

    But if you would be able to zoom in quantum world, you would see empty space with just some electrons and nucleus instead of solid surface.

  5. venus = g 7.5 m/s/s

    Venus a = 8.87 m/s2

     

     

    mars = g 12.7 m/s/s

     

    Mars has a = 3.69 m/s², or a=3.711 m/s²

    according to Wikipedia..

     

    Is it wrong to question:

     

    Who or what calculated 9.8 m /s /s on earth in the first place..

     

     

    In other words if you can calculate the force of acceleration on other worlds, and have different values.

     

    Where did 9.8 m /s/s come from??

     

    How can you even ask such question after reading post #34???

    http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/84336-if-pi-ratio-was-squared-and-98-mss-how-would-this-change-the-whole-of-science/?p=815752

  6. Is it because it is that "Complex" to figure out??

     

    Why should someone just give up??

     

    It's not complex,

     

    but you're not taking care of anything,

     

    writing 6.626e-33 (post #40) (10x higher than should you use)

    but you should write 6.62607e-34 (Planck const)...

     

    etc. etc. etc.

     

    These values are not some random values made up by scientists, but we can prove these values to be true.

    Simply make thread "how to calculate Planck const at home" and I will show you experiment confirming it's value that we know...

  7. micron is 1/1,000,000 (1 per million) of second.

    So result should be 67/1000000 = 0.000067 = 6.7e-5

    (four zeros after dot, not three)

     

    t = 2*distance/c = 2[10*10e3 km]/ c 3*10e8 = 6.7*10e-5 = 6.7*10e-5 = 0.00067= 67 micron s

     

    We have been talking about it in thread

    http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83549-is-coulumbs-law-symmetrical/page-2#entry809747

     

    You can write 10*10^3 or 10e3 or 1e4.

    You can write 3*10^8 or 3e8

    Don't mix these two systems..

  8. simplify3, you basically don't even know what ToE (Theory of Everything) has to be about...

     

    ToE MUST predict energy of photon, rest and kinetic energy of electron, the all particles, the all decay modes, calculate the all half-lives, calculate ionization energies of every atom/isotope, calculate spectral lines of every atom/isotope, etc. etc. etc.

     

    f.e. I am asking in what temperature, pressure, volume some molecule will be solid, liquid, gaseous and you straight away should tell me, if you have ToE..

     


    ToE should be able to calculate everything..

  9. Oh, no I don't, how do you do that?

     

    Take photo camera, attach it to tripod (so it'll be steady recording in one direction), and point it to f.e. white wall with attached vertical scale.

    Start recording movie, and release some solid heavy small object f.e. metal ball (because we're not interested in air resistance, or other effects - if density of object would be smaller than air density like balloon with hydrogen or helium it would actually flight up).

    Then transfer movie to computer and load it to movie software such as VirtualDub, Movie Maker or After Effect or so, where you can scrub timeline and see each frame of movie.

    Read distance object traveled at given frame from vertical scale.

    In 30 FPS (frames per second) movie, each frame is 1/30 second = 0.03333(3) second.

     

    You will receive data like f.e.

    t = 0 s, distance = 0

    t = 0.1 s, distance = 0.04905 m = 4.9 cm

    t = 0.2 s, distance = 0.1962 m = 19.62 cm

    etc.

     

    Enter data to OpenOffice Spread Sheet to Distance column like in this image:

     

    post-100882-0-87028000-1405207035.png

     

    post-100882-0-87028000-1405207035_thumb.png

     

    To calculate velocity you have to subtract distance at time t1, from distance at time t0, and divide by time it took flight.

     

    v = (x1-x0)/(t1-t0)

    so in OpenOffice it's calculation:

    =(B3-B2)/(A3-A2)

     

    (it's in third column)

     

    Then acceleration is

    a = (v1-v0)/(t1-t0)

    so in OpenOffice it's calculation:

    =(C4-C3)/(A4-A3)

     

    (it's in forth column)

     

    As you can see, it's steady 9.81 m/s^2 for this little home experiment.

     

    If it wouldn't be "home experiment" we would also pomp out air and do experiment and hermetic tube with vacuum to remove any air influence, and use high frequency recording camera like 1000 FPS or more.

     

    Without camera it's possible to measure it with precise stopper and scale. Release object from 1m and see how long it takes to reach ground, then repeat for 2m, 4m etc. The more precise time measurement, the better result you will get. But in times when everybody have digital camera, why not use it.

     

    Repeating it on the moon or other planet would show different accelerations.

     

    Repeating it with higher air pressure, or in liquid would show also different result. Especially in liquid.

  10. BUT! I have to admit, I did not notice you asked me if I knew how to derive pi ratio from planetary motion which I assume is f=ma..

     

    Simply no I don't, I don't need to...

     

    No, I didn't ask how to drive some "pi ratio"..

     

    PI^2=9.869604

    but

    g = 9.81

    That's >0.6% difference.

     

    I asked whether you know how to measure and calculate acceleration in experiment that your can perform anytime at home..

  11. If we can put up with your rudeness,

    I don't think so Iwonderabouthings was ever rude. At least I have not seen such behaving.

     

    I hope the moderators will delay acting on your request, to give you time reconsider.

    I hope so too.

    Iwonderabouthings, I will give you in private message mine private database of science discoveries & theories in order they were published (1600-2014 years)..

    With links to articles and links to authors, people involved in discovery or theory.

    So you will have a couple months of reading.

     

    Please don't speculate, don't create your own theories how something works before learning mainstream explanations that are well documented, well tested.

  12. My history is not good - but I think the lumpiness of the photon was discovered whilst the other two forces were found to be (or to be excellently modelled as) lumpy through the development of the respective quantum field theories rather than observationally.

    Cloud chamber was showed to public in 1911.

    Wilson saw the first time traces leaved by cosmic rays in 1894.

     

    Oil drop experiment, to measure quantization of charged particles, was done in 1909. Published in 1913.

  13. Hi Sensei... can you tell me more... Did you calculate with sun-tracking panels or fixed ones?

    Fixed.

     

    I was calculating from perspective somebody with solar panels at hand at any time from nearest shop selling them.

    Exact model. 1600x800 mm size, with area =1.28 m^2, giving 190 W (15% efficiency), for 315 usd with tax each. 36.6 V and 5.2 A according to shop specification.

    I was simply interested "what quantity of them do I need to cover all mine needs".

    14 such solar panels (for $4410) = 18 m^2, and it should give me all what needed, including winter time.

     

    Time (whole year) would tell whether it's correct quantity...

     

    Is this 330kWh/month with or without home heating/cooling?

    Without. It's what I am personally spending (the most of it is server running 24h/d)

     

    Did you also compute the storage battery capacity that you might need to live, say, 90% of the time off grid?

    Nope.

  14. I wonder what the ratio of land area required for nuclear and solar plants respectively is for producing equivalent output.

     

    Each m^2 of Earth is receiving average 1360 W, but part of energy is absorbed by atmosphere, which gives max 1050 W per m^2.

    Solar panel typical efficiency is 15%, so from 1050 W there is remaining 160 W/m^2.

    Then you have to take care of that Sun shines just between 4-20 at summer, or between 8-16 (or so) at winter, and max output is varying depending on hour.

    For mine latitude I have calculated that I need 18 m^2 to cover all mine needs 460 J/s (which is 330 kWh per month), regardless of season and hour. During day there must be enough gathered for all night.

    So if nuclear power station have 1000 MW it's giving energy to ~2.2 mln houses like mine. And it's equivalent to 39 mln m^2 of solar panels.

×
×
  • 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.