Sensei

( By the way ---- It is strange that nature, which play with parity, on the case of gravity work only in one way. And most strange, is the absence of science efforts to explain it)

Because real scientists are describing observable phenomenons, not imaginary..

If I will make theory for something that I have no way to prove or disprove using currently existing experiments, it'll remain unnoticed (or forgotten) until somebody accidentally will find out experiment a few hundred years later which matches my theory..

I showed experiment how to calculate gravity at home in this thread

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

Currently you don't have alternative experiment for antigravity to perform.

I have no idea in what language it's written but A answer is almost certainly wrong. J is always constant in whole inter loop..

Doing floor( value ) has no sense for integer also. It should be used only for float argument.

Imagine simple electronic circuit, battery with red LED (Light Emitting Diode).

Single red photon which has 650 nm wavelength has energy E=h*c/650nm = 3.056*10^-019 J

3.056*10^-19 J / 1.602*10^-19 = 1.9 eV (in electron volt unit)

Electron in electronic circuit that has voltage U has kinetic energy E=e*U

so if voltage in above circuit will be smaller than 1.9 V, there will be too little energy to emit red photon, and LED won't shine.

Q=I*t,

current I you read from ampere meter,

time t you read from stopper,

so quantity of electrons in electronic circuit is:

quantity of electrons = Q/e = I*t/e

(for t=1 s, current I=1 A, it's 6.24*10^18 electrons per second)

Electron is emitting red photon, and losing its kinetic energy ("voltage drop on element").

Typical LED allows 10-35 mA so it's 0.01-0.035 * 1s / 1.602e-19 = 6.242e+16 to 2.185e+17 electrons per second passing through it.

(After exceeding limit I, LED will burn - too many electrons/photons per second will destroy it (if you will touch it, you can feel how hot it's becoming very quickly) )

If you will repeat this experiment with green LED, blue LED, UV LED, white LED you will see different threshold voltages at which they emit light.

UV LED and white LED are similar, because in reality white LED is emitting UV photon that is later absorbed by fluorescent material and emitted in full visible spectrum.

UV LED is not working with 2 AA 1.25 V (2.5 V total) batteries, but it's working with 3 AA (3.75 V).

UV photon with 350 nm, needs U > 3.54 V.

UV photon with 400 nm, needs U > 3.1 V.

Experimentally checked.

Do you now see how to calculate h?

We know that white and shiny surface is a good heat reflector and black and dull surface is a good heat radiator/absorber. My question is how is it possible that the white and shiny surface aluminium plate could turn out to be a good heat radiator in this condition.

I think so you're misunderstanding this a bit.

White color surface is good at reflecting photons at VISIBLE spectrum (approximately 400 nm-700 nm wavelengths).

Black color surface is good at absorbing photons at visible spectrum.

But it doesn't tell how good or bad they are at reflecting or absorbing photons at frequencies that are below or above visible spectrum.

Hot black color surfaces usually are emitting light at infrared range. And are visible by IR cameras.

f.e. hot carbon might still be black to us, but emitting a lot of IR photons.

They need to lost energy that they absorbed from visible range photons (or other sources of energy), otherwise energy would go to infinity.

If energy increases faster than material is able to emit it, it's starting changing state (solid -> liquid, liquid-> gas)

Carbon dioxide gas emitting IR photons video:

Metals are good at conducting heat, because (but not only) they are made of uniform atoms, which have average very short distance to each other.

1 m^3 of Aluminum has approximately 6.022141e+28 atoms

1 m^3 of Oxygen has approximately 2.69e+25 molecules.

Read about signed integers. The most important bit is sign bit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer_%28computer_science%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signed_number_representations

Byte is 8 bits.
Nobody stores floating point number using a byte.

Everything is in article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_floating_point

I get that. But I don't see a need to explicitly display everything as a triangle when the graphics are capable of drawing pretty good spheres and polygons, etc.

Computer graphics cards don't render anything but triangles.

Sometimes gfx card driver is even simulating lines using triangle drawing procedure (one shared vertex and triangle looks like line).

This saves need to create line and point drawing in hardware using transistors, for rarely used tasks.

Sphere made of 528 triangles:

Sphere made of ~29,000 triangles:

It looks pretty smooth:

Not distinguishable from perfect sphere.

Concave polygon:

If we order gfx card to draw polygon, it's triangulated internally:

And gfx card is receiving just stream of triangles to render..

Especially when physically these things aren't triangles.

Yep. That's why I am suggesting he is extrapolating his experiences in computer programming to also real world..

He thinks it simplifies it, but I think making everything 3 sided obfuscates it more than it helps.

I am not sure. Maybe he is suggesting that real world is some kind of simulation.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

Are you saying that 9.8 meters per second g on earth is the same on other planets too???

 

Or " references other planets?

He said that acceleration is different on different planets/moons....

9.8696044010893586188344909998762 / 9.81 =

1.0060758818643586767415383282239

So in percentage it's difference by 0.6% higher..

PI^2 = 9.8696044010893586188344909998762

g = Earth's acceleration at sea level is 9.81 m/s

These two things are not equal.

If pi ratio " was" squared and = 9.8 m/s/s how would this change the whole of science?

PI^2 (PI multiplied by PI) is 9.8696044010893586188344909998762

which in your vision is close to 9.8..

Accident.

On Moon or other planet it won't be close each other.

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...

I wonder if anyone has considered this before (and discarded it) ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation

Very quantum friendly.

So the same initial Newtons light theory, that was also particle-like (but he used corpuscle word instead of nowadays particle)

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)

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..

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..

OpenOffice is free to download. Don't confuse it with Microsoft Office.

Sorry, mine English dictionary is showing the same word for both liquid and fluid..

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:

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.

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..

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.