`hýsøŕ

i am in a proper education at the moment, this is merely a side thing i was thinking about for interests sake. and it's so handwavy right now i would consider it psuedoscience myself, maybe someday i can perfect the idea and turn it into a legitimate hypothesis to be tested. nothing too serious anyway, but thanks for the advice.

sorry if this sounds too insulting but i dunno which is the more unbearable, your 'proof' of god, or the fact that you put a space before every exclamation mark you use

i see, thanks. this is very unlike anything in classical mechanics, though i guess i was warned beforehand so the eigenfunctions will give a set of discrete eigenvalues and if instead you get a continuous range of values for E that means that isn't an eigenfunction, because if it was a continuous range, then H≠E right?

in the schrodinger equation, say, or any other eigenfunction equation in quantum mechanics, what does it mean when the wavefunction is not an eigenfunction of the hamiltonian operator (or the operator in question)? does that mean that you cannot measure the energy or that its variable or what? :S confuses me

how would you get enough resources to build such a planet? already there's limited space on earth

might do when its all fleshed out and ready for showing, atm its a little vague and i've only just begun making the calculations anyway

oh right, well.. hmm .. perhaps i'll save the idea for when i can safely say im a qualified scientist then post it as a real paper (maybe i'll have scrapped it or improved it by then accordingly anyway)

this has probably been noted a bajillion (10^58) times before but if you see the 'UFO' is always side on to the camera and never gets further away, so it's moving in a circle around the camera, and to me it seems way more likely that this is some fake instead of the UFO basing it's path around a camera somebody on the ground was using.

Could do, the speculation place is probably a better place than a journal to post it anyway since my idea is trying to apply physics to something thats not really a physical system. might post it on here when im done with it. and yeah If i saw a paper which wasn't expressed very well or was very unscientific I'd probably dismiss it too, hopefully my idea fits some definition of being at least a bit scientific xD if you post on that vixra site, is that like 'patenting' your idea? (so that somebody else can't just come and use it for themselves)

ah i expected as much xD was asking because i got several like.. tiny theories (more like small ideas or problems) which i have some urge to share but i guess they'd probably be dwarfed by proper research papers, ty

i was wondering whether there's some site most scientists use to publish/post and look up research papers, there are several i'd like to have a look at. also can you post a paper as a student? or do you need to have a degree or some kind of qualification first? (i doubt any papers posted by a student will be useful so i doubt you'd be allowed to post any)

ignore me if this has already been said (have yet to read through the other posts in the topic) depends on your definition of real i think rainbow's are real in the sense of them being something you can see, but not real in the sense of them being a physical object made of regular matter hanging around in the sky, real in the sense that they are due to some physical phenomenon, namely total internal reflection of light.... also you could say it's not real because it's appearance changes depending on where you are relative to the 'curtain' of moisture causing the rainbow, or you could view that as being some kind of varying physical system, like how the colour of an object changes depending on it's state of motion relative to you (doppler effect).

time and space can both be treated as coordinates in some sense (thanks to relativity) so asking what time is is very similar to asking what space is. in that sense time is like a new direction of space which isn't physically visible to the eye but we're nevertheless travelling through it. as for asking 'no but really... what .. is it?' is a philosophical question which depends on your choice of definition of the word 'what' and 'is', which isn't necessarily the job of a physicist to answer. (that's what i'd say if you ask me now, my answer'll probably be radically different in 5 years lol)

sounds almost like an interlude into abstract algebra xD thanks for the info though. and with the help of one of these video series' on youtube, im getting a bit more used to the notational rules of tensors and things, hardest part it seems is remembering the rules. this video series also explains why they're useful, when you combine the contravariant and covariant together, their transformation properties between coordinate systems cancel and you get an invariant. (i can send you a link to the series if you want to show it to somebody also struggling with tensors, so far i've found it very helpful)

both somebody on earth and the satellite are acceleration because they're moving in a circle.. change in direction of motion with time ->> acceleration

ah, many thanks for the resources those will definetly come in handy, before i wasn't really sure what textbooks to get when the time comes where i get some time to study tensors in depth. also i think i'll have a look at the stress strain approach. right now i don't find it clear why something so ..strange.. would come in so useful. eh maybe its not strange when im used to it.

thanks for the info, so far im kinda getting used to the notation with all the contraction and the summation convention, still a bit unusual though. doesn't help that this is my exam period where tensors aren't on the syllabus so i don't have time to study it in depth xD you say i need a grounding in the algebra of linear spaces and other things, do you mean like topology and differential geometry? thats what i've seen people reccomend when i google tensors

thanks for the replies; @ajb i guess that seems reasonable, the idea that getting used to the beginnings of the theory is relatively doable but the deeper you go the harder it gets. that seems to be the case everywhere anyway lol @rktpro true, i hope that applies to all mathematics though, i've been trying to learn what tensors are for a while now with only some success

yeah, im not convinced its worth the time going into string theory

hopefully when i'm older and more experienced I'll know more about the existing theories in physics in depth, but until then, I'm interested to see which theory you all think is the hardest to learn (for any reason, hard maths, hard concepts, etc). From what i've heard it's probably string theory, but GR and QFT look pretty intense too, lots of unfamiliar maths required to understand them.

You seem to be the type who could use getting kicked out of church lol. It's more a place for those who aren't a fan of asking questions or searching for understanding, so when one goes to a church and asks questions and tries to be as logical as possible, one gets kicked out. If they wanted logic and reason, they'd have left the church the hour they read some pages out of a bible.

can't decide between einstein and newton xD

If you could heat up wood in a vacuum, it would melt. usually it reaches the point where it can react with the air and ignite before it reaches the melting point, so it typically turns into ash first.

interesting, I don't think you should ever stop as long as you're bored and have nothing to do hehe. and yeah granular mechanics sounds like an area that might have some nice uses. i've heard bouncing sand can be considered like a new state of matter in some sense. the other day for interest's sake (i doubt it'd have much real use) i was tryinga see what happens to regular old newtonian mechanics if you have more than one time dimension, so i got that you'd need more than one velocity (one for each time coordinate) but im not even sure if this really even counts as a reformulation at all. does quantum mechanics ever get reformulated?

I've learned that a while ago, several reformulations of classical mechanics were made, like lagrangian, hamiltonian mechanics and poisson brackets and things, which can do all kinds of fancy stuff that would be incredibly difficult or impossible using the original mathematical picture of newtonian mechanics. Is there any hope or need for more reformulation? sounds like a fun thing to do to be honest lol