Jump to content

Capiert

Senior Members
  • Posts

    552
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Capiert

  1. 7 hours ago, swansont said:
    7 hours ago, Capiert said:

    How do you KNOW
     if they (EM_waves)
     are NOT
     a disturbance
     in a medium?

    Because we’ve done experiments. A medium has to have properties, and have a measurable effect on light.

    I think the most significant (=notice_able)
     affect
     on light
     is the medium
     slows down light
     (e.g. due to the medium's mass (density).

    The reverse (logic)
     would be:
     light would travel
     at infinite_speed
     in NO time(_delay)
     if there were NO medium.

    Does light go so fast
     e.g.
     at infinite_speed
     taking NO_time?

    NO it does NOT.
    So what is slowing light down?

    Perhaps a medium?

    The devil is in the detail(s).

    7 hours ago, swansont said:

    Stellar aberration tells us that if there is a medium responsible for the deflection of the light, the medium is stationary and we must be moving through it. 

    That'( i)s what bugs me.
    Michelson threw a distraction
     into the project
     at the very 1st
     to distract
     sidetrack
     & confuse (us),
     with an uncleared topic=theme,
     just to divert us.

    E.g. (To) Waste & exhaust
     our brainpower.

    Einstein used a similar method too
     (early in his career
     with other themes).

    Tired we wouldN'T bother further
     to search.

    7 hours ago, swansont said:

    But when Michelson and Morley tried to confirm that with an interferometer, they could not measure any effect on light

    That'( i)s NOT true.
    Michelson's 1st attempt in 1881 failed
     as NOT suitable
     for the search.

     

    In that paper
     he clearly stated Maxwell's recommendation
     to abandon
     terrestrial
     forth & back light experiments
     on Earth
     (in favor of astronomical observations
     of Jupiter's moons).
    Maxwell stated (=predicted)
     ONLY a (useless*)
     tiny wee observation*
     would be observable
     with such forth_&_back light experiments
     (that Michelson intended)
     on Earth
     (because he (Maxwell) had done a similar
     (although NOT identical)
     experiment,
     years before (his death).
    (*E.g. much less than 1% observed,
     when more than 50%
     would be needed
     to decide).

     

    But (Maxwell was)
     talked out
     of publishing it
     (by Stokes)
     because it would have insulted Fizeau.

    Maxwell mailed the
    (bidirectional, forth & back)
    experiment_calculations
    to Higgens
    (who eventually published
     it as a letter).

    Stokes found a 3 page letter (note)
     (for the 1_way Jupiter astronomy observation proposal)
     after Maxwell died
     & rated it as "important"!

    Michelson read that 3 page note
     & rejected it
     stating any observation could be made
     no matter how small (& tiny).

    But he (=Michelson) was NOT prepared for the thermal (noise) motion.
    His (=Michelson’s) original 1881 experiment flopped.

    Later in 1887 he (=Michelson) teamed up
     with the chemist Morley
     to perform
     the (Earth's speed v)
     experiment
     in (Alexander Graham) Bell's lab(s).
    The telephone inventor
     because of his (=Bell’s) sick wife.


    Granite slab
     floating on Mercury
     hindered (=reduced)
     vibration
     in the cellar.

    Michelson managed to synchronize
     the 2
     90°
     multi_reflected light_beams
     between 5 cm metal mirrors
     each about 8 times
     for the extra_distance needed
     for increased accuracy.

    According to the calculations
     the beams a NOT suppose to meet
     because of too much (time) delay,
     but they did.

    & there is 1 (asymmetric 90°) path
     with enough tolerance
     in which both beams
     are equally delayed,
     fig 2 (1887)
     if the bean goes straight up
     hitting
     the mirror at 90°
     (instead of slanted up
     at an angle)
     & then diagonally down.

     

    The sketch Fig. 2
     also demonstrates
     inconsistency
     in the input
     incident (45° mirror) angle,
     compared to the further reflection (at 90°, above).
    E.g. More carelessness.

    1 footnote 1887 mentions a (confusing) correction to 1881.

     

    Michelson was astounded
     that the results were so small
     & (thus) questioned
     whether the medium existed
     at all.

    Physicists did NOT want to hear about Michelson’s results
     expecting an answer (explaination)
     would be found later.

    A decade past
     & Michelson’s WRONG experiment
     was an eye_sore,
     even for Lenard.

    Michelson did NOT get a Nobel prize
     for his Earth speed experiment 1887
     because he proved NOTHING, there.

    (You do NOT get a Nobel prize
     for disproving something;
     you get a prize for finding (=discovering) something.)

    Einstein also did NOT get a Nobel prize for Relativity.

    Instead, Michelson received the 1907 Nobel Prize privately
     for his diffraction_grating Echelon spectroscope experiment(al accuracy) 1898
     because the Swedish King died 3 days before.
    So there was NO party, instead mourning.

     

    Michelson continued
     (WRONGLY) experimenting
     for the Earth’s speed
     til his death
     because he also
     could NOT believe
     light had NO medium.

    But hey,
     tuff luck
     if he CAN’T take Maxwell’s advice.

    Maxwell said abandon that kind
     of (2_way) experiment;
     use something more effective
     (a 1_way experiment).

    Who was right?
    Maxwell or Michelson?

    Maxwell was right.
    Something very tiny was observed
     (by Michelson 1887).
    But so small! (<<1%)

    Michelson was also right
     he could measure something very small;
     but (unfortunately) it was useless scientifically;
     because it was the WRONG kind of experiment.
    He wanted to challenge
     the famous Maxwell
     to disprove him.
    Absolute egoism.

    It was NOWHERE near
     what was needed. (>50%);
     & verged on randomness!

    Was Michelson successful?
    Did he accomplish
     what he had set out to do?
    Partly.
    Qualitatively
     we would like
     better results.

    I mean,
     Michelson should have found (absolutely NOTHING=)
     ZERO results
     (if the medium did NOT exist)
     but he did NOT.
    Instead,
     he (=Michelson) found
     what Maxwell
     predicted.
    E.g. A slight disturbace
     which could be attributed
     to the glass_thickness
     (medium’s speed change)
     of the 45° half silvered mirror.

    That leaves us with the speculation,
    1.
     would a large chunk of glass
     in 1 of the paths
     help improve
     that (M&M) experiment’s results,
     to increase the notice_able delay
     for a greater time_delay
     between the 2 light_beams?
    2.
    A simpler 1_way experiment is needed.
    E.g.
    A (simple) laser
     aimed
     at a wall
     many meters away
     & the tiny light spot’s position(al motion)
     observed
     (either (far_away) with a telescope
     or (near) with a microscope).

    Light falls,
     but sound does NOT (fall).
    The difference being their medium.

  2. On 2/17/2024 at 3:40 PM, Sensei said:
    On 2/17/2024 at 12:24 AM, Capiert said:

    Naturally I have NOT co_related
     the photon's intensity
     to its size.

    But why NOT?

    Diameter has a unit of meters, area has a unit of meters ^ 2. Volume has a unit of meters ^ 3.
    What is the unit of intensity?

    Maybe, we could give it (=Intensity)
     the units
     for the
     (average_)momentum squared
     per area, or per volume

     so it would be some kind
     of density,
     as
     kilograms_squared
     meters_squared
     per
     second_squared
     per meters_
    (squared or else )cubed.?

    On 2/17/2024 at 3:40 PM, Sensei said:

    What is the unit of power?

    Power's unit
     is Joule per second.

    On 2/17/2024 at 3:40 PM, Sensei said:

    What is the unit of energy?

    Energy's unit
     is Joule
     or
     kilogram
     meters_squared
     per second_squared.

  3. On 2/17/2024 at 3:18 PM, MigL said:

    Quantum foam 'exists' ( ? )
     at a scale where space-time becomes chaotic,
     and virtual particles b
     ( the ones without a defined position or momentum )
     pop in and out of existence
    ( for an undefined time ).
    How would you specify a position relative to it ?

    I "guess", statistically,
     wrt to an average.
    E.g. The forest;
     NOT the tree(s).

    On 2/17/2024 at 3:18 PM, MigL said:

    You can consider anything a medium, but what is actually 'waving' ?

    Noise?

    On 2/17/2024 at 3:30 PM, Sensei said:
    On 2/17/2024 at 12:24 AM, Capiert said:

    If that is because it is NOT round
     then please describe
     this real particle's shape.
    I.e. Photon.

    None a single particle has the shape..

    I guess what confuses me there
     is 2 answers
     (in 1 sentence).

    Are you saying:
     a photon
     does NOT have a shape.
    (But)
     Only a (single) particle
     has a shape.
    ?

    E.g. (It has)
    None (=NO shape), a single particle has (a) shape
     ((but) NOT a photon).

    On 2/17/2024 at 3:30 PM, Sensei said:

    If you have many particles bound together by forces (e.g. proton, meson, exotic atom), they have what can be called shape ("the probability density function of finding a particle in a certain place at a certain time").

    That'( i)s a good explaination.

    On 2/17/2024 at 3:30 PM, Sensei said:

    Look. particles mostly pass through each other undetected. Hence the Geiger-Marsden experiments, also known as the Rutherford gold foil experiment.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger–Marsden_experiments

    When there is a lot of them, e.g. thick layer of Gold, particles eventually hit something and are being reflected. But some of them pass through it like they were flying through nothing.

    Macroscopical equivalent is a swarm of meteors passing through the solar system. A collision with some planet occurs after billions of years.

     

    If you have macroscopic object with billions of billions particles e.g. ball, it will hit the wall, and being reflected by it, there is billions of billions particles in the ball, and there is billions of billions of particles in the wall which interact.

    If we have a single particle and a single "target," the chance of hitting and interacting is extremely low.

    Good.

  4. 8 minutes ago, swansont said:

    QM = quantum mechanics

    Which has little to do with trajectories, but does study the quantities that classical mechanics studies, e.g. energy and momentum 

    Don’t project your confusion onto others.

    Welcome to science. 

    Thank you.

    8 minutes ago, swansont said:

    When experiment and theory disagree, you modify the theory. We’ve been doing that for hundreds of years.

    It meant
     you(r scientists)
     were WRONG!

    Why should things
     be different now?

    Mistakes will happen.

    Nobody is perfect.

    When experiment and theory disagree, & you modify it (=the theory)
     then please DON'T expect me
     to believe it.
    (You'( ha)ve lost credibility.)

    You are still learning.

    (Meaning you DON'T know everything yet
     (& NEVER will,
     because NOBODY can know everything, right?)).

    NOBODY expects my claims
     to know everything
     or anything.

    But everybody
     expects yours
     are correct (now)
     even when they get thrown out
     20 years later (in the future).

    I'm just trying
     to figure things out;
     & buffer myself (preventatively)
     (against) when you change your minds(' opinions).
    E.g.
     (Your) Old idea out,
     new idea in (takes over).

    On 2/17/2024 at 1:26 PM, John Cuthber said:
    On 2/16/2024 at 10:34 PM, Capiert said:

    What do you mean there, John?

    I mean that it's impossible to define your speed with respect to a vacuum.

    Yes perhaps in the infinitive sense.
    But I still can NOT see a connection.
    Speed needs
     to be with respect
     to a(n other) speed.
    That means,
     you need an(other) object, body, mass (momentum).
    A vacuum is NOTHING=NO mass, object, NOR body. 

    On 2/17/2024 at 1:26 PM, John Cuthber said:

    (This makes life rather difficult for traffic police in interstellar space.)

    :-)
    You bet!

     

    On 2/17/2024 at 2:40 PM, geordief said:
    On 2/17/2024 at 1:26 PM, John Cuthber said:

    mean that it's impossible to define your speed with respect to a vacuum

    If the vacuum
     is filled with quantum foam
     (a big "if", as I don't understand what that means)

    You are NOT the ONLY 1

    On 2/17/2024 at 2:40 PM, geordief said:

     could an object's speed/velocity be referred
     to different locations in that quantum foam?

    Does the term "location" not apply,
    perhaps wrt quantum foam?

    Said in another way,
     could the quantum foam be considered
    to be a medium?

    A rose
     (re)named
     anything else,
     smells just a sweet.

  5. On 2/17/2024 at 4:45 AM, MigL said:

    An Electromagnetic Field is a value and direction ( vector ) associated with each point in space.

    That is a mighty tall (=big, =demanding) sentence(=statement).

    That means an infinite number
     of points!

    E.g.
    Although you (generally) specify
     specific (limited)
     numbers
     of flux lines
     (per area or per volume).

    On 2/17/2024 at 4:45 AM, MigL said:


    A Medium is a particle at each point in space, that has an oscillation as part of its motion.

    OK. I find that interesting.
    From NOTHING
     e.g. a field's virtual (math) point;
     the mass "grows"
     around that point
     to e.g. an atom (or molecule);
     & thus due to electrostatic (& magnetic) repulsion,
     excludes further mass
     in that mass's volume.

    The atoms are born
     (in conception);
     & a (math) continuum
     is established.

    Bravo!

    From virtual((it)ly =NOTHING),
    to real (matter).

    On 2/17/2024 at 4:45 AM, MigL said:

    A Photon is best described as a point ( dimensionless )

    When I see
     that "dimensionless"
     I think
     of,
     NO x,y,z lengths
     (e.g. differences).

    On 2/17/2024 at 4:45 AM, MigL said:

    quantum particle
    that is 'smeared out' over a volume with no distinct edge.

    Bizzare!

    On 2/17/2024 at 4:45 AM, MigL said:


    But in its other model of a wave, an 'exact' value of its energy will make its wavelength infinitely long, so it is in no way related to its size.

    I think
     I will need
     an example there,
     why that (photon) wavelength
     will become infinite
     (with an "exact" energy value).

    On 2/17/2024 at 4:45 AM, MigL said:

    You may have gathered, by now, that quantum objects don't act the same as macroscopic objects.

    Yes.
    Einstein, Schroedinger, & Feynmann
     NEVER liked QM.

    On 2/17/2024 at 4:45 AM, MigL said:

    So, I ask, again, why do you think quantum particles, like photons, would need a medium like macroscopic objects, such as water waves, do ?  

    Simply because nature
     does NOT make exceptions
     but people do.

    & your (photons') "lambda" wavelengths
     are (ruffly=approx.)
    "squared" values.

    Disclaimer:

    I'( a)m only answering
     your question.

    We live in an electromechanical universe.

    It (=matter) functions elastically
     with charge (repulsion).
    Charge always has mass
     (e.g. e/m ratio);
     but the opposite
     is NOT true.
    It seems we can have mass
     without charge.
    But that is probably NOT true
     e.g. tiny amount (negative)
     in the neutron.

    Moving
     Charge deals with electromagnetism.

    Quantum calculations
     have failed
     in the past
     for the proton's gyromagnetic ratio
     although scientist's thought
     their predictions were (absolutely) dead sure.
    They were NOT correct.
    Measurements gave different results.
     

  6. On 2/17/2024 at 1:19 AM, Bufofrog said:
    On 2/17/2024 at 12:24 AM, Capiert said:

    I suspect I need
     a comparison
     of a field
     & a medium.

    Then you need some work to do don't you.

    I guess so,
     because my question
     "What is a field?"
     was NOT answered.

    On 2/17/2024 at 1:19 AM, Bufofrog said:
    On 2/17/2024 at 12:24 AM, Capiert said:

    But I suspect
     you are implying
     that photons
     are (particles)
     too small to see.

    Nope not saying that at all.  Most anti-science trolls

    Do you also believe in trolls?
    I DON'T.

    On 2/17/2024 at 1:19 AM, Bufofrog said:

    have some knowledge about science, I guess you are the outlier.

    Ever consider (then)
     that I am NOT a Troll?
    Scientists (as well as any person)
     do make false assumptions.
    To error is human.

    On 2/17/2024 at 1:19 AM, Bufofrog said:
    On 2/17/2024 at 12:24 AM, Capiert said:

    I have a big gulf (gorge)
     between
     talking about
     a wave_"length"
     e.g. 21 cm
     versus
     something
     as small
     as an optical photon.

    Expand  

    Yes, that is because you have not spent any time to learn anything.  Photons can have a wave length of a kilometer, so you must think those photons are 1 km in size?  Maybe this will help the wavelength has nothing to do with the 'size' of a photon.

    On the contrary.
    I'm fascinated.
    I NEVER thought of a 1 km concept before.
    Nature is systematic (=NO exceptions).

    On 2/17/2024 at 1:19 AM, Bufofrog said:
    On 2/17/2024 at 12:24 AM, Capiert said:

    It does NOT make sense.

    Well if you can't understand it then we must immediately change all of our theories!

    Joker! :-)

    On 2/17/2024 at 1:19 AM, Bufofrog said:
    On 2/17/2024 at 12:24 AM, Capiert said:

    If that is because it is NOT round
     then please describe
     this real particle's shape.
    I.e. Photon.

    I think I already said that a photon doesn't look like anything.  It makes no sense to think a photon looks like something.

    Sorry, but I will NEVER understand that.
    I'm too old fashioned.
    Physical means for me some sort
     of form
     when dealing with particles.

    (Yes)
    Optically we can NOT see
     a (single) photon's shape;
     but I would like
     to (at least) conceive
     of 1.

    -400 years ago,
     atoms
     were NOT imagined.

    Now we have 3D models
     of them
     & their nuclei.

    On 2/17/2024 at 1:19 AM, Bufofrog said:
    On 2/17/2024 at 12:24 AM, Capiert said:

    Naturally I have NOT co_related
     the photon's intensity
     to its size.

    But why NOT?

    Because that is nonsense.

    100's of years ago,
     light's_speed was instant;
     til someone began
     trying to measure it.

    Was that "instant"
     an amount
     of time;
     or NO time?
    (Descartes).
     

    On 2/17/2024 at 1:27 AM, KJW said:
    On 2/16/2024 at 10:27 PM, Capiert said:

    Why do water_waves need a medium?

    What is a water wave without the water?

    That'( i)s a good question (analogy).

    On 2/17/2024 at 1:27 AM, KJW said:

    In the case of an electromagnetic wave, without the medium, one still has the electromagnetic wave.

    An electromagnetic wave
     is NOTHING
     without electromagnetism!

    Thus electromagnetism
     must be its medium.

    That includes
     the electromagnetism's functionality.
    E.g. The way it behaves.

    I can NOT see air
     & I (can) barely sense it
     (as though it does NOT exist
    although it does (exist);
     but it (=air)
     propagates
     sound waves.

     

  7. On 2/17/2024 at 1:18 AM, swansont said:
    On 2/17/2024 at 12:24 AM, Capiert said:

    Real particles
     have real dimensions.

    Not so much. Fundamental particles are point-like.

    That sounds like
     you are taking center of mass
     into account.
    E.g. Going virtual,
     math conversion.

    On 2/17/2024 at 1:18 AM, swansont said:

     

    Physical size has little meaning in QM;

    QM?
    Mechanics is the study
     of mass's motion. (y/n)?

    On 2/17/2024 at 1:18 AM, swansont said:

    it’s the interactions that matter.

    It'( i)s doubtful
     anyone
     would understand that
     (those interactions).

    I'( a)m (truly) amazed
     chemist can make
     3D views
     of (the) atoms. 
     

    On 2/17/2024 at 1:18 AM, swansont said:

    EM radiation requires no medium;

    That'( statement) i)s
     what makes me wonder.

    How do you know?

    On 2/17/2024 at 1:18 AM, swansont said:

    electric and magnetic fields can and do exist in a vacuum.

    The rest is ok.

  8. On 2/16/2024 at 11:52 PM, Sensei said:

    It is relative. The one observer will detect it as 21 cm, the other might it detect as 42 cm (red shifted), the other might it detect as 10.5 cm (blue shifted). Actually any wavelength. Because in Special Relativity you have no absolute wavelengths..

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift#Blueshift

     

    None a single particle has the shape..

     

    Such questions have no sense..

    Particle is detected if it interacts ("hits") the other particle. If it hits it, it transfers some physical quantity on the second particle. Therefore we know there was interaction..

    So really your data
     is about interactions;
     & NOT particles.

    But you have the nerve to say "particles", instead;
     so that people might understand
     (at least the substitute (name)).(?)

    On 2/16/2024 at 11:52 PM, Sensei said:

    The diameter of an atom can be "measured" because scientists use the flux of other particles toward the nucleus. If these are reflected, the "diameter" of the multi-particle entity, called the "nucleus," can be measured by the angles at which the initial particles were reflected.

    It is called cross section.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_section_(physics)

    The different isotopes have different cross sections.

     

    "If a poacher shoots birds with a shotgun, he will eventually shoot any bird.."

    That sure sounds like hit & mis(sed).
    It does leave me doubting a bit.
    E.g.
    You assume
     hitting the atom(s)
     dead on 0°
     at their center
     when measuring
     their reflected angle?
    & with thermal motion.

    How do you know?

    That is surely bound
     to fail!

    It's NO wonder
     your data
     does NOT (always) corelate
     with real sizes.

    It's a MESS!

    On 2/16/2024 at 11:52 PM, Sensei said:

    The wavelength is a property of the particle. Its (kinetic) energy can be mentioned instead of wavelength and get the same results.. e.g. the beam of electrons in vacuum with kinetic energy of 100 keV has similar effects on the matter as beam of photons with 100 keV. e.g. electrons in the matter will be excited and/or ejected (with the exception that other physical quantities such as Lepton number,

    What is Lepton number?

    On 2/16/2024 at 11:52 PM, Sensei said:

    must be preserved, so electron gives its kinetic energy, and is not disappearing (is not absorbed) ).

    Instead of saying "green photon" or "photon with a wavelength of 532 nm," you can say "photon with an energy of 2.33 eV." It's all the same.

    Good!

    On 2/17/2024 at 12:52 AM, Genady said:

    In QFT, photon does not have dimensions.

    I guess you mean,
     we can NOT measure
     a photon's dimensions (yet).

    We ONLY have theory,
     e.g. assumptions.

  9. On 2/16/2024 at 10:33 PM, Bufofrog said:

    EM radiation and water waves are very different things.  A water wave is a disturbance in a medium.  EM waves are not a disturbance in a medium,

    How do you KNOW
     if they (EM_waves)
     are NOT
     a disturbance
     in a medium?

    Science can only measure,
     but its technical ability
     is limited;
     & often needs
     to be invented
     (in the future).

    E.g. More accurate measurements.

    Nature does NOT make exceptions;
     but people do.

    On 2/16/2024 at 10:33 PM, Bufofrog said:

    they are a disturbance in a field.

    What'( i)s that?
    What is a field?

    I ONLY use that word intuitively
     (NON_specifically, generally)
     the way I am accustomed (traditionally).

    E.g. For an acre (where the crops grow,
     also has the Earth's magnetic field
     in &/or around it;
     or a playing_field
     where the magnetism
     dances around.

    E.g. A spray (~fog)
     of magnetism (produced,
     perhaps from
     (high_)speed collision (or) distortion
     against (our) stationary matter (wrt the Earth).
    In other words,
     NOT the whole picture,
     i.e. ONLY part of the picture,
     e.g. the changes (=differences) that happen
     (when colliding with (or against) disturbances).

    Some abstract thing,
     usually area;
     (but) it could be volume;
     or a topic=theme
     field of knowledge.

    On 2/16/2024 at 11:52 PM, Sensei said:
    On 2/16/2024 at 10:52 PM, Capiert said:

    what does it look like?

    Is it round like a ball?

    None a single particle has the shape..

    I DON'T understand that sentence.
    Could you please restate it, differently?

  10. 40 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

    As I said before, EM radiation and water waves are very different things.  A water wave is a disturbance in a medium.  Photons are not a disturbance in a medium, they are a disturbance in a field.

    I suspect I need
     a comparison
     of a field
     & a medium.

    40 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

    It doesn't look like anything, the question doesn't even make sense.

    Yes! (So) We (now) have something
     that looks like NOTHING.

    But I suspect
     you are implying
     that photons
     are (particles)
     too small to see.

    We would need
     a particle
     much smaller
     than a photon;
     & the vision apparatus
     for that smaller particle.

    Basically, (then)
     I'm asking
     for (what is) the "shape"
     of a photon
     because
     (you claim)
     it is (suppose
     to be)
     a (real=physical) particle.

    Otherwise
     "your" physics
     is (still) NOT making sense
     to me.

    40 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

    No

     Well if the photon (particle)
     is NOT round;
     then what is its shape.

    I'm NOT satisfied
     with pseudoscience.

    Real particles
     have real dimensions.

    They are NOT just imagination
     dreamt up
     by pseudo scientists.

    Science is measurement;
     NOT (always) its theory (ideas).
    I.e. Opinions from scientists.

    40 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

    Depends on what you mean by "really".

    I have a big gulf (gorge)
     between
     talking about
     a wave_"length"
     e.g. 21 cm
     versus
     something
     as small
     as an optical photon.

    I have difficulty
     conceiving
     a real particle
     with the (conflicting) info (clues, hints given).

    It does NOT make sense.

    Thus I am requesting
     a (more) reasonable example.

    40 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

    It makes no sense to ask what it's diameter is.

    If that is because it is NOT round
     then please describe
     this real particle's shape.
    I.e. Photon.

    40 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

    You don't.

    Naturally I have NOT co_related
     the photon's intensity
     to its size.

    But why NOT?

  11. 1 hour ago, Sensei said:
    1 hour ago, Capiert said:

    Can you please explain that
     to me?

    A wave of(=on) what?

    1 hour ago, Sensei said:

    Wavelength is part of the photon energy equation E=hc/wavelength

    That looks (a bit) like you are avoiding my question Sensei.
    We KNOW we are dealing with a wave,
     thus it has a (pretty obvious) wave_"length".

    But I did NOT ask that.

    I asked what was the wave "on".
     

     

  12. 7 minutes ago, Sensei said:

    Philosophy is a pseudoscience. Physics is a real science. Too often you ask philosophical questions.. ask physical questions, such as "how to measure the speed of something", "how to measure some physical quantity", etc., and you will get the right, truthful answers..

    Hi Sensei
    This (thread's) question
     is a real question
     expecting real answers.

    I'm trying to figure it out.

    "Your" questions
     DON'T answer
     "my" question.

    But they can help.

    7 minutes ago, Sensei said:

    ..one water molecule hits another molecule, which hits another molecule, and there is a momentum transfer between them in all directions, they hit something, while molecule remain at place (plus, minus, a little margin of tolerance (in global scale) )..

    You say they hit
     but Bohr showed us
     from the very 1st
     in his younger year
     that contact
     is a virtual thing.

    The atoms do NOT touch each other.

    They (atoms) interact elastically
     at a distance
     with fields.

    7 minutes ago, Sensei said:

    They are called photons..

    OK. That's a good place
     to start.

    If you have a (single) photon
     with a wavelength
     of 21 cm,
     what does it look like?
    Is it round like a ball?
    How big is it really?
    E.g. what is its diameter?
    How do I co_relate its intensity
     to its (physical) size?
    How much momentum
    does it have?

     

    20 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

    What is that supposed to mean?  Since you used e.g. which means 'for example', you are saying, "As far as I know water_waves travel [for example] at c."

    Yes, water waves travel,
     they are travelling on or in a medium
     (called water);
     & the (traveling=propagation) speed
     of that medium
     is typically (the symbol) c
     (in the formula),
     which in that case (=example)
     is 2 m/s.

    Although sound waves travel 1500 m/s in water
     (compared to 340 m/s in air).

    So depending
     on what kind of wave,
     then c has different values.

    20 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

    No water waves don't travel at c.

    I'm sorry,
     but water waves (do) travel at c,
     & "that" value for c is 2 m/s.

    20 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

    EM radiation and water waves are very different things.

    Yes, I think so.

    20 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

      A water wave is a disturbance in a medium.  EM waves are not a disturbance in a medium, they are a disturbance in a field.

    What is a field?

  13. Hi John

    14 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

    If you are heading towards the  transmitter really fast, a radio wave is light.

    That's a good example!

    14 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

    And a vacuum can't tell how fast you are going.

    What do you mean there, John?
    I DON'T think a vacuum
     can tell us anything.

    We would need a(nother) speed (as) reference
     which could be either in
     or out
     of the vacuum
     (to compare speeds).
    DON'T you think?

     

     

  14. Thank you, both of you.

    1 hour ago, MigL said:

    They would ask "Why is a medium needed ?".

    Why do water_waves need a medium? (elastic, mechanically like a flexible_spring).
    Why do you exclude with electromagentism? Didn't Maxwell (also) calculate
     the (mechanical) Young's Modulus (~Flexibility)
     for electromagnetism (too)?

    1 hour ago, MigL said:

    They might also ask about the formatting of your posts ...

    Why only might?

    1 hour ago, Externet said:

    Radio waves propagate same as light from the sun does without a medium.

    Can you please explain that
     to me?

    A wave of(=on) what?

    1 hour ago, Externet said:

      Low or high frequency mean nothing.

    Good.
    I thought a slower frequency
     might be
     a bit helpful (simpler)
     to comprehend
     & understand.
    At least for me.

    1 hour ago, Externet said:

    Waves in water are a mechanical disturbance, not electromagnetic.

    I assume by mechanical
     you mean
     a sort of elasticity.(?)

    If an ion fluid
     is vibrated
     then electromagnetic disturbances
     (such as waves)
     are also produced!
    Or at least expected (by me).
    E.g. Sea_water.
     (But that effect does NOT have to be with salt.)
    E.g. (The) Water (molecule) is polar & has a dipole moment.
    E.g. The photo_acoustic effect
     producing soundwaves (ultrasound)
     from light's interaction.
    I suspect a similar process
     in reverse
     is also possible.
    Perhaps in a crystal.
     

  15. (apparently) dead?;
    or
    stressy & still alive. 


    Why would
     the Babylonians
     use 60 divisions,
     e.g.
     for minutes
     & seconds;
     & (=but) then (suddenly, break that pattern, &)
     divide the day
     into (only) 24 hours?

    That does NOT make sense (to me),
     unless there was something important
     about (also) 60 hours.

    1.
    E.g. Anthro(a)pology?
    Rising (ruffly) on the 3rd day,
    apparent death.

    Recommendations exist nowadays
     to delay burials 1..2 days
     to prevent being buried alive.

    https://www.amboss.com/us/knowledge/death/)
    (PS: But accidents still happen.)

    2.
    (Psychologically)
     astrologically (=Psychologically, historical repeating social tendency, (1880s?) statistics: Moods & attitudes. Behavioral clock & calendar.
    E.g. Peoples’ emotions can be influenced (disturbed) by electromagnetic disturbances,
     from solar storms, (solar) wind & (their) turbulences, e.g. The Earth’s location orientation wrt angle to a (sidereal) source. E.g. (Radiation) illnesses).
    Most scientists prefer to ignore the statistics’s tendencies (trends, arrow_scope=direction [H]oro[w]scope). Kepler was an astrologer.
    Estimating past & future behaviour.

    I've noticed stressy (psychological) levels (here,
     on Earth).
    ~2 days good, & (followed by) ~2 days bad.
    (They are irregular.)
    The extra 1/2 (day) would be part
     of the 3rd day.

    Maybe (it'( i)s) a (stressy) solar_wind (electromagnetic) shielding, deflection;
     caused by the moon?

    Who knows?

    (The numbers DON'T add up otherwise.)
    Why 24 (divisions, for a day)? 

    ---

    (Something else must have been more important (valuable)
     (to people
     back then)
     for the factor 60 [hours].

    ---

    Appendix:

    Apparent death (Scheintod)
     is still alive.
     (It'( i)s NOT Fake(d) death.)


    https://www.amboss.com/us/knowledge/death/

    Death is the cessation of life, but where life ends and death begins is not always clear.

    Death is an ambiguous term referring to the cessation of life. Death "can" be diagnosed if a patient meets the criteria for brain death or cardiopulmonary death.

    (PS: That "can" ((also) means) Even if NOT completely dead!)


    Apparent death
     

    o   Reduction of vital function to a minimum, creating the appearance of death without signs of certain death

    o   Misdiagnosing apparent death as clinical death can have grave consequences such as postponing vital care, false alarms for organ donation, and unnecessary emotional stress for family members.

     

    ·         Uniform determination of death act

    o   In the US, legal provisions regarding death and the clinical examinations or legal investigations it may entail vary from state to state.

    o   However, all states have adopted the “Uniform determination of death act” (1981), which specifies that the determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards and depends on either cardiopulmonary death or brain death.

    ---

    ·         Clinical death (somatic/systemic death): a term for the cessation of respiration and circulation

    o   May be reversible

    o   Some descriptions may also consider the loss of brain activity as a component of clinical death.

    ·         Cardiopulmonary death: irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions

    ·         Brain death: irreversible, complete loss of function of the entire brain (including the brainstem), even if cardiopulmonary functions can be upheld by artificial life support

    o   2 physicians are required to make the legal diagnosis of brain death.

    o   See “Requirements for the diagnosis of brain death” for more information.

    ·         Intermediary life: the period of time between irreversible cardiopulmonary death and biological death

    ·         Biological death (molecular/cellular death)

    o   Permanent and irreversible cellular damage with complete cessation of metabolic cell function

    o   Tissue that has undergone biological death is unsuitable for transplantation.

    ·         Legal death

    o   Recognition of a person's death under the law

    o   Legal death comprises medically determined death (e.g., via a doctor's declaration of death) as well as the presumption under the law that a person is dead after a prolonged and unexplained absence with no signs of life (declaration of death in absentia).

     

    ---

    Signs of death

     is important for correctly declaring death.

    ·         Prematurely pronouncing death can have grave consequences, including neglecting potentially vital care, giving false alarms for organ donation, and unnecessary emotional stress for family members.

    ·         Uncertain signs of death must be considered in relation to certain and irreversible signs of death, such as cardiopulmonary and brain death.

    ·         If there is a delay before death has been pronounced or the events leading up to death are unclear, irreversible postmortem changes can help also in determining both the manner and time of death.

    Uncertain signs of death

     include:

    ·         Cardiac and respiratory arrest

    ·         Unconsciousness

    ·         Pale, dry, tight skin

    ·         Areflexia

    ·         These signs must be considered in the context of determining cardiopulmonary death or brain death.

     

    E.g.1
    I met a witness (Helmut Ziegler)
     of an apparent death,
     declared brain death.
    The doctors were packing (up) their cables & equipment
     for ~1/2 hour.
    He (HZ) put his hands on the woman
     & she opened her eyes
     & so he talked to her
     & welcomed her back.
    The doctors were ((just) stunned)
     speechless,
     (just) looking at each other.

    PS: So (I assume) mistakes happen
     (& or other things, (not known)
     e.g. in which timing (e.g. rythems)
     is vital).

    The body has amazing remarkable healing (=repair) abilities,
     NOT all are (well) known.
    Healing takes time.

     

    E.g.2
    I have also seen a video documentary
     about an african car crash victim (Friday morning),
     driven to 2 hospitals (successively),
     (but) both pronounced him dead
     so he was (finally) delivered to a morgue,
     lay in a coffin (2 days)
     til early Sunday morning
     with cotton batten
     stuffed in his nose.
    Life signs were noticed
     so they brought him to a basement.
    He was stiff as a smoked fish
     so (he) was massaged,
     & eventually gained consciousness,
     & full recovery later.

    E.g.3
    Relatives reported
     an eyewitness's account
     of coffin knocking & opening
     in the middle of a church funeral.
    The deceased was NOT deceased
     & was helped out.

    So these (apparent) errors (are rare, but) still happen.

    Disclaimer:

    Other than those 3 (examples)
     I know no other modern 1's, nowadays.

    I did NOT expect
     to get into such a creepy theme (later),
     because I was only interested
     in the (inconsistent) math, clue (60 & unit);
     but it (=apparent theme) is (really) about life, instead.

    Those 2 ideas (apparent, & stress)
     are the only possible explanations
     I have found, yet:
     for 60 "hours".

     

     

     

  16. That (also)
     means
     a compass
     will always point
     to a north_pole,
     even a magnet's (north_pole,
     whichever is stronger)
    .

    If I bring my compass
     near a magnet,
     then its needle('s blue_part, arrow_tip)
     will point
     at the magnet's north_pole (instead).

    So that magnet's north_pole
     is the same ((kind of) magnetism pole)
     as the (Earth's, Canadian) "North"_Pole.

    =It'( i)s NOT a south_pole (magnetism).

    (=Only the compass_needle tip is a south_pole (there),
     & the magnet's opposite end, (is) also (a south_pole).

    The same (kind of)
     south_pole (magnetism)
     found in antarctica
    (where the Penguins live).)

    ((The compass_needle's tail=(opposite_)end
     is (also) a north_pole (magnetism).))

     

  17. Orientation:

    (Oversimplified)

    It’( i)s (perhaps) easiest
     to say (ruffly=approximately),
     although the Earth rotates Eastwards,
     (but) it (=the Earth) travels:
     ((in a) net) west(ward direction)
     around the sun,
     e.g. (at) noon (slightly_)slower (e.g. slowest)
     & (at) midnight (slightly_)faster (e.g. fastest);
     & (=but) ruffly at the (same) net_speed
     at (both) 06:00 (sunrise_equinox, south)
     & 18:00 (sundown_equinox, north).


    Earth’s matter (mass) moves
     at many different speeds
     (& directions)
     wrt to its center.

    It'( i)s very dynamic.

    =Disclaimer:

    NOT all of Earth's matter
     moves at the same speed,
     NOR in the same direction.

    Newton made the best 3 motion laws=observations;
     but he did NOT always use them.
     (..when he should (have ((also) used them, too))).

    Complaint:

    The (Earth’s rotational) water’s inertia
     is missing
     in (most) Physics explanations!

    You can NOT stop the (automatic) laws of inertia
     from happening;
     they are expected.

    Something (inertial) must be happening
     to the oceans(‘s waters)
     because of the Earth’s rotation(al) inertia (=average_momentum)
     direction_(angle)_change.

    The direction of motion
     changes
     into the opposite direction, (=180°)
     (ruffly) every ~12 hours,
     e.g. ½ a sidereal day
     (is) 11 h 28 m 2 s;
     which works out
     to slowing
     & speeding (up)
     of the (net west)
     speed,
     around the sun.

    E.g.
    Parts of the Earth are moving faster
     around the sun,
     while other( part)s are moving slower.


    E.g. It (rotational inertia) is happening
     (to water),
     (& so) it exists (as the tides);
     but (it is ridiculous, that)
     NOBODY mentions it
     as though it does NOT exist.


    Is it possible
     that instead, they (people)
     (ignore Newton’s laws,
     & their (laws) affects
     & implications; & (those people))
     prefer to 1st discuss
     their hocus pocus (NONSENSE, about the)
     “pull of the moon” (& (imaginary))
     “action at a distance”
     hypothesis
     (for what reason I do NOT really know)?

    The Earth’s rotational_inertia
     also affects
     the (Earth’s) tectonic plates.

    The(ir) friction which causes heat
     & thus volcanic activity (melted stone, lava)
     & Earthquakes (irregular movement,
     caused by its (=stone's, =mother Earth's)
     irregular braking (deceleration)).

     

  18. On 12/8/2023 at 8:56 PM, swansont said:

    This is about acceleration. Acceleration is not motion.

    That'( i)s new to me.
    What then is your definition
     of motion?
    Mine is, a change of position
     with time.

    On 12/8/2023 at 8:56 PM, swansont said:

    You can have an acceleration when v = 0.

    Please explain.

    I can NOT imagine acceleration
     without a change
     of position
     (wrt time).

    On 12/8/2023 at 8:56 PM, swansont said:

    Acceleration is not relative.

    Please fill me in, there.

    (=That (statement) does NOT make sense
     to me.
    E.g. I can NOT have a chicken
     without the (prerequisite=)egg, 1st.
    I can NOT build(=continue)
     upon NO foundation.)

    On 12/8/2023 at 8:56 PM, swansont said:

    If an object is accelerating, you can tell.

    As I said (=implied),
     I need help there.

    On 12/8/2023 at 8:56 PM, swansont said:

    At the earth's surface.

    g = GM/r^2 where r is the radius of the earth, i.e. it is determined at the earth's surface

    So it (=g) is wrt radius r. (y/n?)

    On 12/8/2023 at 8:56 PM, swansont said:

    g does not depend on anything being in orbit.

    g is only an acceleration
    (it's called free_fall acceleration),
    & it is vertical.

    (That means:)
    It has magnitude, & direction.
    (So it must (also) be a vector, too. ?)

    On 12/8/2023 at 8:56 PM, swansont said:

    You can use g in an equation, but then you have to do things like correct for the fact that the actual acceleration is not g

    That sentence is a head_twister
     for me.
    Would you mind explaining
     a bit better.
    I assume your 1st "g" is a symbol,
     but your 2nd "g" makes NO sense
     to me.
    My examples stated how (my) g varied,
     e.g. wrt height,
     because they were wrt to a reference.
    At least I knew (exactly) what & where
     I was dealing with.
    But with your definitions
     I go off
     into nirvana
     (because they seem not_founded
     e.g. NOT specified enough,
     or arbitrarily ambiguous).

    I DON'T mind
     an extra complication
     if it helps me understand clearly,
     instead of get lost.

    On 12/8/2023 at 8:56 PM, swansont said:

    if you are not on the surface of the earth, which is an unnecessary complication of the formula.

    Unnecessary? complicated? maybe for you;
     but NOT for me.

    On 12/8/2023 at 8:56 PM, swansont said:

    Follow the KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid)

    I DON'T want to make it stupid;
     I want to make it thorough.
    It'( i)s too easy
     to get lost
     if a definition
     is lost (=missing).

    On 12/8/2023 at 8:56 PM, swansont said:

    But causes unnecessary complication.

    I DON'T like the complexity either;
     but your (physics) definitions
     (e.g. calculus)
     which dominate the scene,
     force me
     into a more (extensive) complex syntax
     just to make the (algebraic) distinction.

    Considering it (=my syntax)
     is only algebra
     I should NOT (even) need
     to state "average_" every time;
     NOR delta, etc.
     for simple differences.
    But I do (have to)
     (just to make the (algebraic) distinction.)
    It'( i)s that simple!
     but has become
     that complicated.

    On 12/8/2023 at 8:56 PM, swansont said:

    Compare how many lines is took Janus to derive the equation and how many lines it took you to do it.

    Yes! 2..3 lines.

    Tkepler=k*ra1.5

      On 1/21/2023 at 1:40 AM, swansont said:

    If your equation for period doesn’t have the form T^2/R^3 = constant, you’ve done it wrong.

    Rooted gives
    k=T/(r^1.5).

    T=(2*Pi/((G*M)^(1/2)))*(r^(3/2)).

     Wt=Fg
     m*g=G*M*m/(R^2), /m
     g=G*M/(R^2).

    NO big deal. Right?

    On 12/8/2023 at 8:56 PM, swansont said:

    Indeed they do. 

    If you are standing on earth you are not in orbit. You are not in freefall.

    Naturally, NOT falling.
    Standing, was (ONLY) an analogy
     (to an orbit equivalent).
    Take it or leave it.
    I find it useful.

    On 12/8/2023 at 8:56 PM, swansont said:

    An orbit has more conditions than a circular motion. 

    Yes. Ellipse, etc.
    That'( i)s why I kept it simple KIS
     to start with ONLY circular_motion.
    Once the basics have been established correctly,
     the (complexity) details may be (included later &) improved upon.

    On 12/8/2023 at 8:56 PM, swansont said:

    Any object moving in circular motion has an acceleration toward the center of the circle

    That'( i)s an interesting point.

    On 12/8/2023 at 8:56 PM, swansont said:

    The vertical fall is observable. But there is an equal amount of sideways motion as well,

    I DON'T deny it.
    (I mean I will have to consider & deal with it, later, of course.)

    On 12/8/2023 at 8:56 PM, swansont said:

    which is why the path is circular, and why vertical (y) and horizontal (x) aren't the most useful descriptions.

    There you go preferring
     a (particular, alternative) coordinate system;
     when I simply convert
     (if needed)
     as option.

    On 12/8/2023 at 8:56 PM, swansont said:

    In a circular coordinate system you use radial and tangential.

    Why is that (suppose to be) better?
    I assume you mean simpler.?

    On 12/8/2023 at 8:56 PM, swansont said:

    An object in orbit is not free;

    Thus it can NOT fall.?

    On 12/8/2023 at 8:56 PM, swansont said:

    it must be in a bound state.

    What does that mean (more exactly, please)?

    On 12/8/2023 at 8:56 PM, swansont said:

    You have to add energy to get it to an arbitrary distance

    Yes. Faster (orbit_speed) is a larger radius.
    So if things like a sattelite
     go faster,
     then they automatically (ascend)
     & go up
     to a higher radius.

    By the same token
     if they slow (down)
     their orbit_speed vc=cir/T
     then they will (automatically)
     decrease their (orbit_)radius.

    On 12/8/2023 at 8:56 PM, swansont said:

    Freefall just means you are acceleration

    accelerating(?)(y/n?)

    On 12/8/2023 at 8:56 PM, swansont said:

    at the local gravitational acceleration.

    ?
    I assume you mean to say:

    Freefall just means
    you are accelerati
    ng
    at the local gravitational acceleration.

    But I am still NOT clear
     on what you mean by local
     & how you measure
     that acceleration,
     e.g. what reference
     do "you" use
     (to measure, with).
    How is such a measurement done=performed?

    On 12/8/2023 at 8:56 PM, swansont said:

    The acceleration is centripetal (center-seeking)

    Well done!

    On 12/8/2023 at 8:56 PM, swansont said:

    It's not expressed as an area per time squared.

    But its units are so.
    Energy too.
    (Kilogram) Meters_squared per second_squared.
    Should that mean otherwise.
    Orthogonality is NOT stated mathematically for a rectangle.

    On 12/8/2023 at 8:56 PM, swansont said:

    Weightless (especially in this context) means no weight.

    Yes, that is (also) my intended meaning for this thread.
    (But I also tolerate a NON_zero decrease as well,
     NOT that its usage is wrong,
     because it is NOT,
     but because I am (lazy &) accustomed
     to using inappropriate usage.
    E.g. I have bad habits.

    On 12/8/2023 at 8:56 PM, swansont said:

    Again, we should

    Please fill me in
     as to the necessity!,
     if any?

    On 12/8/2023 at 8:56 PM, swansont said:

    speak of radial, and there is a radial acceleration.

    I'm still trying to picture that.
    E.g. From what perspective.
    You talk about the (circle's) center.(?)

    But that tends to erase (some) things
     (perhaps definitions?)
     in my head.

    On 12/8/2023 at 8:56 PM, swansont said:

    I refer you again to Newton's first law. If there was no

    (center seeking)

    On 12/8/2023 at 8:56 PM, swansont said:

    acceleration, the object would travel in a straight line.

    Yes, most likely (I think, perhaps?).

    On 12/8/2023 at 8:56 PM, swansont said:

    Do you deny the correctness of Newton's laws?

    NO. I DON'T think so.
    I suspect they are accurate (observations=laws).

    (Sidetrack:
     My only beef (=complaint),
     is he (=Newton) did NOT always use them (3 laws),
     although they were the best ((universal) observations).
    E.g. for the (~12 h) tides.)

    Newton's 1st law
     of inertia
     is, objects
     in motion
     (tend to) stay in motion
     (thus (they) stay moving in a straight line);
     & objects at rest
     (tend to) stay at rest

     (in other words
     they do NOT change
     (what they were doing
     or NOT doing);

     til (Newton's 2nd law)
     they are accelerated
     or decelerated;
     by a (repelling) collision recoil-Newton's 3rd law.

    There is a particular detail
     concerning
     the in_line (NO_angle) affect
     which I have forgotten.

    Newton's 1st law says (indirectly)
     that there must be a reason
     for any (speed_)change
     that happens;
     a speed_change does NOT happen automatically
     on its own
     for NO reason.
    The 1st law is basically
     conservation
     of (average_)momentum.
    Or the law of constant(=consistent)_speed.

    The 2nd law
     is the law of acceleration.
    Particularly linear_acceleration.
    I interpret it (=The 2nd law)
     as the average_momentum squared.

    On 12/8/2023 at 8:56 PM, swansont said:

    No, I'm using physics definitions. If you're going to use physics terminology, you have to use the same definitions.

    If you make up your own definitions you can't communicate ideas.

    I CAN'T communicate to Physicists
     because they will be the last to understand, otherwise.
    (They seem to me,
     to be on their own (isolated) island,
     NOT always good.)

    A normal (NON_physicist) person usually gets my drift (faster, easier).

    On 12/8/2023 at 8:56 PM, swansont said:

    At the location under discussion

    Yes, but a ("local") location
     is usually typically
     wrt to some reference
     that is meaning
     2 (different) points,
     NOT just 1;
     otherwise why a distinction.

    On 12/8/2023 at 8:56 PM, swansont said:

    Why NOT?
    Orbit is ZERO vertical_acceleration (observed).

    On 12/8/2023 at 8:56 PM, swansont said:

    Patently untrue

    Then I must conclude (=interpret, centripetal_acceleration)
     zero_seeking
     is (instead) deceleration.

    Disclaimer:

    I can NOT explain it (=that (radial), vertical orbit position, constant height)
     any other way.

    How otherwise
     can you get more
     from less?

    How (else)
     can you get a (linear, vertical) "acceleration"
     from a constant (circular_)"speed" vc=cir/T, cir=2*Pi*r.

    Normally (=Typically)
     it is the other way around.
    An acceleration will produce a speed
     (on a resting object).
    Newton's 2nd law.

    On 12/8/2023 at 8:56 PM, swansont said:

    Acceleration is a change in velocity.

    Yes.

    On 12/8/2023 at 8:56 PM, swansont said:

    It works in more than one dimension.

    Yes, but NOT always.
    Sometimes it works in ONLY 1 direction.
    But yes 3D automatically includes all 3 dimensions
     (for any "thing",
     in the universe).

    On 12/8/2023 at 8:56 PM, swansont said:

    Velocity is a vector; it has a magnitude (the speed) and a direction

    =angle.

    Let us say
     wrt the x_axis,
     e.g. (x,y,z)=(1,0,0).
    But that still (also) needs y, too.
    ?

    On 12/8/2023 at 8:56 PM, swansont said:

    . If you change direction, there is an acceleration, even if speed is constant.

    Yes. (Good example (last phrase).)

    On 12/8/2023 at 8:56 PM, swansont said:

    If the discussion is about circular orbits, you can't be looking at this in one dimension.

    Yes.

    On 12/8/2023 at 8:56 PM, swansont said:

    A circle has two dimensions

    .
    Yes.

  19. On 12/7/2023 at 5:20 PM, swansont said:

    g is the acceleration due to gravity

    wrt

    On 12/7/2023 at 5:20 PM, swansont said:

    on the surface of the earth.

    Motion is always relative to some reference.

    In that (acceleration motion) case
     (which is the (experimental) observable)
     it sure looks
     to me like
     wrt the Earth's surface.

    The rest (=explanation) is theory.

    On 12/7/2023 at 5:20 PM, swansont said:

    It depends on the mass and radius of the earth.

    As the formula says.

    On 12/7/2023 at 5:20 PM, swansont said:

    Those are not orbital parameters,

    Why NOT?
    They are variables
     that can be mannipulated
     for other examples.

    On 12/7/2023 at 5:20 PM, swansont said:

    and are specific to the earth,

    Their values are specific
     e.g. to Earth;
     but (as) the variables
     they do NOT need
     to be specific
     to (ONLY) the Earth.

    Nature does NOT prefer
     for her (natural) laws.

    Her laws are universal.

    Thus other (different) examples
     (must) exist.

    I'm NOT telling you anything new.

    You know that already.

    On 12/7/2023 at 5:20 PM, swansont said:

    not other celestial bodies.

    Other celestial bodies have their own values
     for the parameters.

    On 12/7/2023 at 5:20 PM, swansont said:

    There’s no reason for it to show up in an orbital equation;

    The same variables
     can be used
     more or less universally.
    You just have NOT seen the connection yet.
    Or am I wrong?
    You will naturally say yes
     if I am NOT mistaken.

    On 12/7/2023 at 5:20 PM, swansont said:

    objects generally do not orbit at the surface of the earth.

    If you are on the Earth,
     then you are (also) moving with it
     ((as) circular motion),
     without a (visible) change in height.

    An orbit can be equated
     (at least by me)
     to circular motion
     (which is)
     without height change.

    At least I can attempt
     to (try &) do that
     (if you can NOT).

    On 12/7/2023 at 5:20 PM, swansont said:

    g is small at GSO, but it’s not zero.

    If there is NO_fall vertically
     then I see NO acceleration (vertically, either).

    On 12/7/2023 at 5:20 PM, swansont said:

    Objects in orbit are in freefall.

    But a GSO has NO vertical_fall.
    It (vertical_"fall") is NOT observable.

    I think you are confusing
     that
     objects are "free" (NOT bound)
     to fall
     if they could;
     but they do NOT fall ("down", vertically)
     (perhaps because they are moving?).

    Each orbit radius (value) r=(vc^2)/ac
     has its own circumferential_speed vc=cir/T=2*Pi*r/T;
     but that centrifugal_acceleration ac=(vc^2)/r
     is only a math_construct, anyway.

    It stems from squaring
     the circumferential_speed
     vc^2=ac*r
     & then splitting
     that into an acceleration ac
     & (r radius_)distance product.

    It'( i)s otherwise total NONSENSE
     to express an orbit
     in "area" (units)
     per time_squared;
     when (circumferential_)speed vc=cir/T
     will do (already).

    The ac*r product was only created for convenience.

    On 12/7/2023 at 5:20 PM, swansont said:

    That’s why they are weightless.

    Weightless per word definition
     is "less" weight;
     NOT NO weight.

    But here I use it
     as otherwise intended,
     meaning:
    Weightless (as like floating)
     indicates
     zero (vertical_)acceleration.

    E.g. Einstein's Equivalence.

    I DON'T care what you "believe"
     (to explain),
     I am interested in the (experimental) observables
     (in order to formulate).

    If the weight
     Wt=m*g
     but the mass m
     is NOT falling
     (e.g. NOT changing its vertical_position)
     then its weight is (also) zero.

    Its (=The mass's)
    g=0 wrt the Earth's surface.

    It (=The mass) does NOT change vertical_height h=constant.
    Its (=The mass's) vertical motion is zero wrt the Earth's surface.
    That means (both): NO speed, & NO acceleration wrt the Earth's surface.
    (I can NOT understand why you think so rigidly.
    I suspect you forget that you are using only (math_)constructs.)

    On 12/7/2023 at 5:20 PM, swansont said:

    It’s not because the local g is zero.

    What do you mean by local (there)?
    Up in the sky at the mass? (y?);
     or down on the Earth's surface (n?).
    The reference
     is the Earth's surface;
     but it'( i)s observing the mass
     (from there=Earth's_surface).

    On 12/7/2023 at 5:20 PM, swansont said:

    (if there were no acceleration, it could not be in orbit.

    Why NOT?
    Orbit is ZERO vertical_acceleration (observed).

    On 12/7/2023 at 5:20 PM, swansont said:

    By Newton’s first law, if there is no acceleration, its motion would be in a straight line)

    You can still have (1D) "linear" acceleration (or deceleration, completely) without (circular) orbits.
    (Thus) That is NOT an exclusive decisive example to rely on.
    It (=Your(=That (particular)) argument)
    does NOT decide ANYTHING.
    (It'( i)s NOT a double blind proof.)

    I would need a (much) better example than that to convince me otherwise.
    Sorry.

  20. On 1/21/2023 at 1:40 AM, swansont said:

    Kepler’s 3rd law is a proportionality, not an equality

    Thanks, that'( i)s exactly what I needed.
    Tkepler~ra1.5
    Tkepler=k*ra1.5

    On 1/21/2023 at 1:40 AM, swansont said:

    If your equation for period doesn’t have the form T^2/R^3 = constant, you’ve done it wrong.

    Ok. Rooted gives
    k=T/(r^1.5).

    On 1/21/2023 at 1:40 AM, swansont said:

    (g should not be in your equation.

    But, I do NOT see why (NOT).
    Surely you mean ONLY the end result;
    NOT the starting basis. ?

    On 1/21/2023 at 1:40 AM, swansont said:

    Put it in terms of M, R and G)

    From Janus's post

    On 1/21/2023 at 2:40 AM, Janus said:

    Newtonian Physics says the period of an orbiting object is T = 2pi R^(3/2)/(GM)^(1/2)

    Independent
     of this thread's presentation syntax:
     (as side_track)

    I quickly (also) see**
     (in her 1st line)
     (that)
     Newton's gravitational_force
     Fg=G*(M/R)*(m/r)
     is 2 mass_per_distance (linear_)ratios (M/R)*(m/r)
     multiplied together,
     & then multiplied by a proportionality constant G,
     where their (common) center_to_center distances R=r
     are (intended as) identical(ly the same).

    (I.e. Caution (poor) syntax, (clash):
    Distance, NOT just a radius.
    It's a ruff approximation.
     NOT to be confused with each (masses') radius separately
     (with their own (different) radius size);
     but instead the sum of both radii (distances + 1 height), (all) together.
     E.g. r=rm+rM+h=R, h=separation_height, surface to surface.
    Disclaimer: That'( i)s how I intuitively interpreted Fg, in a flash.
    That example of (symbol) r has NOTHING to do with my orbit radius r, later.)

    **
    The Key (move=mano[e]uver): is
     shift (=move)
     the rooted_G*M (denominator)

     1/((G*M)^0.5)
     (to) under the 2*π (numerator)
     (to obtain the proportionality constant k).

    T=(2*Pi/((G*M)^(1/2)))*(r^(3/2)).

    On 1/21/2023 at 2:40 AM, Janus said:

    Thus 1/(2pi) = R^(3/2) / T(GM)^(1/2)

    Square both sides:

    1/(2pi)^2 = R^3 /  GM T^2

    Move GM to the left side of the equation:

    GM/(2pi)^2 = R^3 / T^2
     (is (surely) enough info
     to follow thru correctly,
     & ignore the typo)

    On 1/21/2023 at 2:40 AM, Janus said:

    1/GM(2pi)^2 = R^3 / T^2

    Invert both sides

    ((2pi)^2)/GM = T^2 / R^3

    On 1/21/2023 at 2:40 AM, Janus said:

    GM(2pi)^2 = T^2/R^3

    On 1/21/2023 at 2:40 AM, Janus said:

    So what Kepler's law states is that for any central body, there is a specific relationship between R and T.

    Newton keeps the relationship.  It just includes the mass of the central body, so if you know any two of T, R, or M, you can find the third.

    Great inspiration.
    Thanks.

    ---

    So giving it another go, again.

    A circular orbit_Period, is
     Tcircle=2*Pi*((R/g)^0.5).

    Equating, the Weight (Force)
     Wt=m*g
     of a mass m,
     with Newton's gravity_Force

     Fg=G*M*m/(R^2)
     for the Earth's_mass M,
     separated
     by their total (radial) distance R
     (center to center),
     (& due to Newton's 3rd law
     of opposite & equal reaction)

     we have (equal & opposite forces, balancing (out))

     Wt=Fg
     m*g=G*M*m/(R^2), /m
     & dividing both sides
     by the (small(er)) mass m
     we get
     the free_fall (gravitational) acceleration

     g=G*M/(R^2).

    (Please Not(ic)e:
     that g
     is typically measured
     near the Earth's surface;
     but (g) gets smaller
     as the separation ((e.g. orbit_)radius R)
     gets large(r),
     e.g. to a GSO
     (geo_stationary orbit's) radius
     RGSO~g*(T^2)/(2*(Pi^2))
     where the weightless(ness)

     gGSO=0
     is zero.)

     Inserting that (g, as inverse factor
     1/g=(R^2)/(G*M))
     into the circular orbit_Period

     Tcircle=2*Pi*((R*(1/g))^0.5), gives
     Tcircle=2*Pi*((R*(R^2)/(G*M))^0.5)
     & we get R^3 under the root(_sign)
     Tcircle=2*Pi*((R^3)/(G*M))^0.5).

    The Key (move=mano[e]uver): is
     shift (=move) the rooted_G*M (denominator)

     1/((G*M)^0.5)
     (to) under the 2*π (numerator)
     (to obtain the proportionality constant k).

     Tcircle=((2*Pi/(G*M))^0.5)*((R^3)^0.5)rooting the (R^3)
     to 
    (R^3)^0.5=R^(3/2)=R^1.5
     we get
     Tcircle=(2*Pi/((G*M)^0.5)*(R^3/2), 3/2=1.5
     Tcircle=(2*Pi/((G*M)^0.5)*(R^1.5)

     or ingesting(=incorporating)
     the 2*π
     into under the root_sign,

     as rooted 4*(Pi^2);
     we have

     Tcircle=((4*(Pi^2)/(G*M))^0.5)*(R^1.5).

    Janus's (wonderful method) tells me:
    Newtonian Physics says the period of an orbiting object is

    T=2*Pi*(R^(3/2))/((G*M)^0.5), *1/(T*2*Pi)

    Thus

     1/(2*Pi)=(R^(3/2))/(T*((G*M)^0.5)), ^2=Square both sides

     1/((2*Pi)^2)=(R^3)/((T^2)*G*M), *G*M

    Move G*M to the left side of the equation
     (by multiplying both sides by G*M,
     gives):

    (G*M)/((2*Pi)^2)=(R^3)/(T^2), invert both sides

    ((2*Pi)^2)/(G*M)=(T^2)/(R^3), swap sides

    (T^2)/(R^3)=((2*Pi)^2)/(G*M), multiply by  R^3

    T^2=(((2*Pi)^2)/(G*M))*(R^3), ^0.5=root both sides

    T=(2*Pi/((G*M)^0.5)*(R^1.5)

    So Swansont's (searched (for (proportionality)))
    constant, is

     k=2*Pi/((G*M)^0.5)

     for the circular orbit_period

     T=k*(R^1.5)

     with orbit_radius R.

×
×
  • 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.