Capiert
-
Posts
552 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Capiert
-
-
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.0 -
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.
0 -
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.0 -
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.
0 -
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.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.0 -
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.
0 -
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.0 -
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?0 -
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?0 -
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".
0 -
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?
0 -
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?0 -
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.
0 -
As far as I know
water_waves travel
e.g. at c.
How do you deal
with low frequency RF?Radio_particles? (Radions?)
0 -
You Physicists claim gravitational waves (exist),
1.
so what kind of wavelength (& range)
do you expect?
2.
& what (kind of) medium (properties)
are you talking about?0 -
(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".
-1 -
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).))
0 -
-
I'm also happy for your happiness. Merry Christmas.
0 -
because opposite poles attract.
That (interpretation)
has been the (obvious) definition
for centuries, i.e.
based on the Earth('s poles' names),
standard.So my compass_needle's blue_part
which points North,
must be a south_pole magnet.0 -
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)).-1 -
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
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 accelerating
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.0 -
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.0 -
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*ra1.5On 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 haveTcircle=((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 isT=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, isk=2*Pi/((G*M)^0.5)
for the circular orbit_period
T=k*(R^1.5)
with orbit_radius R.
-1
How do scientists explain RF waves traveling, without a medium?
in Speculations
Posted · Edited by Capiert
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).
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.
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.