Jump to content

Capiert

Senior Members
  • Posts

    486
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Capiert

  1. If you don't know (=recognize, exactly) what you are doing then I can't help you much until you recognize it yourself. That might take you some time. Good luck. I can only hint, & hope you get it someday. If the radius stays the same, what is falling? Answer: only x & y's change (but that's cartesian). r alone demonstrates no change, thus no acceleration (of the height). Got it? No. Not that I know. Maybe. If it makes nonsense. Please consider: radius r=((x^2)+(y^2))^0.5, is (a constant or variable) legal for cartesian x,y coordinates; but x & y are not necessarily legal (as in reverse) for radial coordinates. Either you're discussing (only) radial (which does NOT include x,y because they are named Cartesian) or else Cartesian (which can include the radius). I guess your professors weren't very fussy. I see your education has made you incapable of distinguishing some things. Let's drop (the radial theme), you don't get. Please leave the thread open. The significant (speculative) part has been said (but you're still against it).
  2. No, it was a rhetorical question. I explained it was NOT falling in radially coordinates; but you insist on using cartisian coordinates with them radial to cheat the perspective. I question whether you can see the perspective mixture created for you in your institutions. We can drop the (radial) theme, instead of the thread, if you are not willing to notice the hash in coordinates. No sense if you're NOT ready for it yet.
  3. Yes I must admit it was difficult (getting stuffed with too much info, that conflicts). Sorry, but the paradoxes stand out (to me). How then is it falling? It does not fall (wrt radial coordinates; instead (it falls) only wrt cartisian x,y,z coordinates, because it curves.) Your (radial) perspective is inconsistent. Radius r, & height h do NOT change when weightless.
  4. Sorry John, but that doesn't make sense to me from that perspective. I haven't (really) noticed when the moon fell down onto the earth, & crashed. Significantly the moon earth distance varies a bit, but radially to say "fall" as in "down", isn't that relatively out of the question in radial coordinates? Does that mean a helicopter, hovering at constant height is falling (too)? I'm talking about the observed phenomena of decent to the earth's surface. Are clouds (that are hanging in the air) falling? Yes, sometimes. (I'm not perfect.)
  5. Radially there is no fall acceleration (neither) up (n)or down because the height is constant (as part of the radius); although, acceleration occurs in both x,y coordinates. (I hope that's said ok, now.) Naturally. That's usually determined by which 1 is different of 2 from the 3rd (or else 3 watches).
  6. (For an orbit, I said zero (vertical) fall acceleration was equilibrium.) (I suppose your are talking about x,y coordinates, instead of my radial coordinates? Maybe that is why you did not understand?) While orbiting, & the radial height distance is constant, then the orbiting object is (radially) neither falling, nor rising.
  7. If the device is disassembled & no hidden mechanism is found then your assumed guess is useless. Why should I do something like that & lie, doing something that I am not convinced of? Your idea is perhaps not new, but nobody has succeeded (to report the exact mechanism, as far as I can see). Thanks, but if it is so easy as you say, then surely you will have more success than me. Sorry, that has (also) not answered my question. (I've stated how it functions if the exact mechanism is not otherwise declared.)
  8. Thank you. Sorry, that still didn't answer my question. I.e. What is the mechanism? Independent if hidden or not. I didn't ask whether it was fake or not. Sorry, that also didn't answer my question. Yes, it seems the people at this forum do not understand (my question). Sorry, that did not answer my question.
  9. I suspect they didn't because they (attempt to) use constant voltage(s) V. Piv^0.5=((V^2)/R)^0.5=V/(R^0.5) =I*(R^0.5). Metering (for billing) is indicating current flowing.
  10. Unfortunately (I suspect) you might have missed my point? The electrical "watt" (definition), conflicts (severely) with the mechanical value in (=by) an exponential amount. I.e. According to (my) experiment(s), using Hooke's spring law, equating forces, for the same (=identical) angular displacement. I can NOT verify the committee's (electrical) definition (because it is way off!). I do not get the correct (electrical) values (when compared to mechanical values) using their assumption (=definition). I do get correct (electrical & mechanical, corelation) values using my formula Fiv=(I*V)^0.5, (=F=ma=Wt=m*g) instead. That is why the(ir) (electrical) units are crazy! (According to my formula derivations (the (electrical) units for), current multiplied by voltage should be (mechanical) watt_squared, instead of (only) watt units.) & I don't know how to explain that (discrepancy, problem) to you otherwise. Maybe you can help? I think you have made your point, that (our earthly) work energy WE=F*d (concept) is a very limited (=restricted) basis for studying the total cosmic system (accurately) (because it lacks the static case, & can only document moving things). It's useful for studying some (e.g. moving) things, but not everything (e.g. static wrt to our own (earth's) speed), thus useless in those cases). I however, am looking for a more universal formula instead of those (limited) restrictions. restrictions (=limits) (That sounds (a bit) like using a crutch, as a sports car, for the (human) race.) (I think) I've made some sense out of the chaos. Quite right. But do you have a problem with (using) a (D'Arsenval_meter's) spiral_spring (versus linear_spring) & seeing the (for me, obvious) correlation, & (my self_allowed) substitution? Either: weights or electrical rooted_power produce identical deflection angles (confirming Hooke's law F=-x*k, angularly F=-theta*k). As you can (or will) see, there are discrepancies between the electrical versus mechanical watt values. So at least 1 of them is doubtful. Quite true & I propose the committee's personal concerning the electrical concerns might need to brush up a bit on the facts. To my person, I am always learning. I agree, as we have seen. e.g. my errata thread. I would have said, (heat) energy('s randomness) could have a net direction of all directions, thus an exclusive single direction is NOT discernible. Yes. I tend to agree with you (improvising where possible). Could you (please) summarize that for me that I could comprehend it better (that it would stay better in my memory)? OK. It's a repeat (from above). Newton's force Fn=m*a Wt=m*g Hooke's (spring) force Fs=-x*k then angularly Fa=-theta*k2 electrical (rooted power's) force Fiv=(I*V)^0.5 Equate Newton's force (gravitationally as weight) with the electrical force because the angular displacements are identical gives Wt=Fiv m*g=(I*V)^0.5 Should I go further? If I may say(?), during an elastic collision there is a brief period (=duration of time) when the collision is non_elastic. ? What do you mean (there) by conveniently? Are you saying, many collisions are very complicated? I see that KE fails to account for everything, & that some of the other (so_called converted energy) forms might be (unjustifiable) guesses=assumptions. I don't see the problem with putting things on a momentum basis, but I don't know the thermodynamics you are looking for. (Could you please tell me the formulas you want & mean?) Momentum is mom=m*v mom=m*((vi^2+2*h*g)^0.5)-vi) with speed_difference v=((vi^2+2*h*g)^0.5)-vi) initial speed (velocity) vi, & mass m. The only problem there is sequentially dealing with negatives under the root sign, correctly, when squaring both sides. Please give me a simple thermodynamic problem (to get started), that needs the momentum conversion. If you give me enough hints maybe I can convert (for you)? I do not know if I can, because I don't know enough of your thermodynamics (syntax & concepts you exclusively use) to evaluate if I can. I know (next to) nothing about them (inclined planes & friction). If you help get me started (with the energy description setup), maybe I could (also) convert that to momentum for you? For (starting with) a non_elastic collision The total momentum of the system is (also) mom3^2=mom1+mom2, ^2=square both sides mom3^2=(mom1+mom2)^2, gives mom3^2=mom1^2+2*mom1*mom2+mom2^2, rearranged that'( i)s mom3^2=(mom1^2)+(mom2^2)+(2*mom1*mom2). So you (can) see there is some continuity. Assume mom4^2=-2*mom1*mom2. If mom1 & mom2 are the initial momentums, then mom3 & mom4 are the final momentums; where initial mass1 m1=m3 mass3 final, & initial mass2 m2=m4 mass4 final. I.e. Odd postscript numbers are for the same mass. & even postscript numbers are for the same mass. Please choose some values, & we can (try to) extract some answers. Before=After collision (mom1^2)+(mom2^2)=(mom3^2)+(mom^4^2). If a wave has momentum (e.g. impulse) then I would say it also has a very small mass m (=mom/c) value based on the momentum formula (& wave_speed c=v), only as a number. I mean I can equate.
  11. I believe you! The units are crazy! Yes. The answer depends on how things are defined (versus how they are derived=self_defined, instead); & which basis of reference(d definitions should be used for trouble_shooting). I question both of James Watts definitions: mechanical_power P_W=F*va; & work_energy WE=F*d (as possible culprits of the problems). Thus, I should isolate both & NOT_use (=avoid) them as my (starting) basis. Instead I should choose another definition (that is more reliable) on which to rely (on) just (in case) to be careful & see what gets derived (out, from that (other or new) usage). In my case I have used the 2 (simple) quantities: (Newton's) force; & displacement (angle) distance. E.g. If a units problem occurs, then there is always the question: where (=at which end, or perspective) should we tackle the problem (1st)? What could be corrupt? & what could be used, instead that is (more) reliable? heat (=random mechanical energy, in 6 directions: +/-x,y,z) moved mainly in only 1 direction (.e.g. angle). But if the cart is braked, or too heavy when you push, then it will (also) NOT move (thus no mechanical work, even if you are using a bull_dozer e.g. to push a(n extremely large) tree, or mountain of granite that does not budge (a bit), although your gasoline gets wasted trying all day till the gas tank is empty (although paid, for that chemical energy). James Watt's (2) definitions (P & WE) do NOT account for what does NOT get moved! How can you rely on that deficit when dealing with (a declaration of) conservation of energy? It's ridiculous! Via a (self_defining) derivation. Yes. Those told me how you are looking at things, so I can orientate better as to finding the problem (in the communication gap). You do NOT see any problem with energy so you trust it completely, & automatically use it (instinctively); while I do the opposite avoiding energy as much as possible with the suspicion that it is corrupt & unreliable (in some cases). If I multiplied force by time, instead I would get momentum, which I would prefer (& trust more). I'd trust Newton's force & momentum; over Leibnitz's energy, & James Watt's power. Yes, that exclusion (of motion) in (James) Watt's definition of work (energy) & power is the (deficit) problem. That deficit won't (always) allow a total account for registering energy conservation. Intuitively, we know we can loose energy without being able to account for it (=the lost energy) with Watt's method. E.g. bull dozer against a mountain all day getting nothing done except getting warm=hot. Here I (hope I) have shown why. I hope that (above) helps better. I do not brag about any of my experimental results (precision), they are only done to orientate me, for what tendancy is to be expected (based on my algebra). As I have said that's the weakness in (James) Watt's definition. His definition is unacceptable (for me). It does NOT fit in well enough with Newton's math (for me). I suspect you are right there. I must drop the usage of mechanical work (energy) & attempt to exclusively use (Newtonian) momentum (& force); instead of (work) energy (& James Watt's mechanical power). Otherwise I'm only asking for future problems with such unreliable definition as those from James Watt. Please explain a bit. Isn't mechanical, a motional (=moving) mass study (analysis, e.g. measurements). Don't waves have momentum mom=m*v?
  12. Yes. They are equal. (Is that too difficult to believe?) (I suspect the answer (to that question) is yes.) What do you mean (exactly) by electrical work? (E.g What formula are you referring to?). I know I can achieve the same amount of spring displacement (angle distance), with either: weights; or electricity (as rooted power). Their affect is identical=the_same (to the meter's spring, Hooke's law F=-k*x). Similar forces, produce similar displacements, thus I achieve identical results with 2 different methods. Yes, I believe that is true, I have been convinced it is possible. In that it contradicts your statement that 2 equations must (always) be used (separately), instead. True. If you insist waves' motion is not mechanical.?) (Most likely, at lot for me to still do (if possible, at all?).) I stated Maxwell versus Heaviside as a tendancy (analogy) (towards simpification, from a non_PhD (Heaviside) to their wonder (e.g. at least Maxwell)); but Oliver's uncle was Kirchhoff whose law pertains to the meter's functioning, as well. (If that's the connection (relavance) you are searching for, from my statement, as to why I ever mentioned something like that, at all.?) Naturally my (own, (formula) compression) ratio is not 20:4, but instead only 2:1.
  13. What happens when I declare they are equal (as well, just to present my dilemma)? I mean I'm assuming you can understand my problem. (I "can" equate both (as mechanical) forces.) How should I proceede (acceptably)? I have applied rooted_power to a D'Arsenval meter; & I have weighted the needle with weights (without electrical power) & found (calculating the torques' force) that they (both: electrical (rooted_power) force & weight force) are "directly" proportional. I claim no great precision in my own measurements, you are the experts there. But the effect is obvious (to me, experimentally; & mathematically). I recommend you to (also) investigate (to convince) yourselves (also), if possible. I do not see the error you imply. (Enlighten me.) (My problem is more, getting "you" to understand my perspective & observations. It's often easier to explain to a simple person on the street, than it is to scientists.) I hope the above can explain my perspective. Me too. I have tried to tell "you" what I observed. (Prof) Maxwell started with 20 equations. The telegraph operator Heaviside compacted them (20) into only 4. Amazing things are possible. Especially simplification. (Nature often uses similar blueprints. There is often a similar general scheme (to be found (in nature)).)
  14. Nobody is arguing with you there. (For an orbit (=moving, =not stationary)), I said zero (fall) acceleration was equilibrium.) In my equation, it does. (Doesn't it?) Never. Capiert says: a person with 2 watches can know when 1 is wrong. A person with 3 might tell which is wrong. Even if all 3, or less. Wrong (guess): I don't know what "you" are talking about, there. (I.e. You said, my idea of (a2's fall acceleration) polarity getting changed (via mass, or orbit speed change) was wrong; after I asked what was wrong, giving you a + & - hint.)p I guess "you" did not understand me. (I do make mistakes.)
  15. PT=? Sorry, rumours don't interest me either (unless they can be backed up, & traced). I.e. That still did NOT answer my (debunk) question: What makes that "10 Tons" constantly turn?
  16. (I feel) Resignation ((but) accepting your criticism (as your good intent)). Let's try again: (James) Watt defined ((horse_)power): P=F*va with the (average) speed va, horses could pull weights Wt=m*g=F. (I'm sorry you missed your history lesson (if you did?); or was I too brief (& that's why you did not understand (me))?). I'll assume the later. I suspect a specific quotient (instead) might have fit Newtonian (physics) structure better (tendencial). Yes, mechanical versus electrical definitions clash. It would be easier (avoiding conflicts) to maintain the electrical units Ampere*Voltage as maybe A*V; instead of (re)naming them Watts W, (unlike) as the committee did. The unit Watt has unfortunately been double defined (e.g. electrically & mechanically), & that is more than double trouble! Theoretically, the 1st definition receives priority (in honour=respect) to be maintained, while the 2nd (named usage) must (=should) be stopped. Watt's definition does NOT give us the whole picture, & that is 1 aspect (point of view) indicating its weakness (in this argument). How would you describe that point? Your cosmologists are still trying to make sense of energy, because they report their stupidity not knowing what "dark energy" is. (The exception can define some rules.) Your Nasa article below confirms they don't know "what" they are talking about (if you'll excuse the pun). Add the +27% dark matter (related to energy by E=m*(c^2)) & that adds to 95% dark (universe). So the expansion of the universe has not been slowing due to gravity, as (scientists wished) everyone thought, it has been accelerating. No one expected this (although I did, (but) why don’t they mention me?), no one knew how to explain it (but I did (with gravitational push*). Is that quote suppose to be scientific propaganda=brainwashing?). But something was causing it. *I predicted Hubble’s constant starts small, increases, & (then) tapers off as we progress outwards from the (universe’s) center. Scientists originally did NOT know if it was a straight line, curved: up; or down (=taper off). Energy is Leibnitz’s (math) physics (NOT Newtonian). Momentum is Newtonian physics. Maybe you should (also) deal with the real McCoy? Theorists still don't know what the correct explanation is.. Their solution is called “dark energy”. More is unknown than is known. We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the universe's expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery. So they are pleading their (own) stupidity, & attempting to put everyone in the same boat. roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. Together that (& mass as energy) constitutes 95% total (of the universe). 2 affects, both dark=unknown why or what. Other than that, the article (is friendly &) explains well. Thanks. Another explanation for how space acquires energy comes from the quantum theory of matter. In this theory, "empty space" is actually full of temporary ("virtual") particles that continually form and then disappear. But when physicists tried to calculate how much energy this would give empty space, the answer came out wrong - wrong by a lot. The number came out 10120 times too big. That's a 1 with 120 zeros after it. It's hard to get an answer that bad. So the mystery continues. At least they are honest, (thus) making themselves credible. Now if Swansont says (or continues to say) Physics has NO problems; & that only I have the problems, then I guess he was not (really) aware of that 1. The article confirms you guys need help, because you’ve got big problems you have NOT solved. If I believed you 10 years ago, it’s all wrong today. How do I know what you now declare, is not wrong, & will not be declared outdated, again? Who had expected a 180° change, in views? (Some) TV documentaries are (now) suggesting physics may need to be newly redefined. (& just guess who has been working on that?) A last possibility is that Einstein's theory of gravity is not correct. But if it does turn out that a new theory of gravity is needed, what kind of theory would it be? I don’t want to get (too) “pushy” (t)here. Btw the book on the (book)shelf (mentioned earlier) is being pushed up (& maintained) at that (bookshelf) height, by the bookshelf (itself). The maximum pressure is on the lowest side (of the book). I'm sorry I am not familiar with him. Or is that an acronym for no_ether? Would you mind showing me how. I can't make it always work mathematically. How can you? ? Your Nasa paper (above), also indicates the non_sense. I can't take the "credit" for being the only 1 that gets non_sense from the physics theory.
  17. Zero polarity is equilibrium, there. (E.g. Neither fall (-), nor ascension (+).) What's wrong?
  18. True, g is defined as "free" fall, & being bound to a rope is not (being) free. But I assume you understood my intention to discuss altering our fall acceleration a2 in stunts. In that equation, changing "something" like 1 of those masses (i.e. m2) by making it smaller (wrt the other mass m1), will change the polarity (sign) of its (fall_acceleration) a2. There is a sidekick, however to that theme when considering orbits: Faster orbits will increase the (orbit's existing) radius; while slower orbit speed will decrease the orbit radius to a new equilibrium. I get the idea those changes are altering the polarity (sign, away from zero, when they happen).
  19. I'm not rich like you. It's in a laptop that overheats while in internet (& hangs in slow motion); & I don't know how to get the hackers out, either. I'm attached to it. That's Watt's definition. I challenge it, because it (still) costs. Watt defined with the speed horses could pull weights. But if the weights were too heavy, they wouldn't budge (=move, a bit); & the horses would get exhausted, wasting their (bio_chemical) energy, on getting "NO WORK" done. Facit: Watt's definition does NOT give us the whole picture. & your cosmologists are still trying to make sense of energy, because they report their stupidity not knowing what "dark energy" is (as much as 95%?, in the universe). (A few years back it was only ~75%?) I'm trying to tell you the culprit is energy's definition. ENERGY DOES NOT FIT with momentum. You can NOT serve both conservation "laws?" at the same time. Somewhere along the line you are going to get hash=chaos=trash=garbage non_sense (if you do)!
  20. An (exact) equality (=equation) can state a proportionality, but a ruff idea proportionality cannot always state an equality. That'( i)s my (1, major) complaint. The units totally conflict, although the concepts (excluding the units) are proportional. Something is very wrong (with the definitions)! Simply because we are dealing with displacive force. That is the link, the basis, for equating. That can be translated into pressure (multiplied by area). Let me ask it so: wouldn't it be better (=an advantage, as less bother, simplification) if electromechanical power had the same (=only 1) equation? Stating 1 as a proportionality was the only way I could state the problem (without getting into too much difficulty, & conflicts). That's Watt's definition. I challenge it, because it (still) costs. Thanks for your emogies.
  21. Atomic repulsion (power?) is what keeps the atoms away from each other. But you'( a)re right, the bookshelf doesn't have an electrical bill (after it was made; & transported into place. Those costs (seem to) fall away). =(in) theory (=where'( i)s the practice?) Are you sure you are talking about a D'Arsenval meter here? I was not aware he had superconductors in his time. Please show me 1, (that) you mean. But I'd hate to pay for that power bill (for making those superconductors (& that they) work =stay cold & magnetized).
  22. Here'( i)s a spin_off (=sidetrack)) of Ewert's pulley experiment. The driving (=pulling) weight difference (force) (m2-m1)*g=(m1+m2)*a2 (of 2 different masses, stringed over a pully) must accelerate (to drive, all=) the ((total) whole=100%, =sum of) mass m3=m2+m1 (because the rest (=not_different=non_difference) is (equal=) equated_out (as the same, or identical)). a2=g*(m2-m1)/(m1+m2). & a1=-a2, so a1=-g*(m2-m1)/(m1+m2) or swapping the mass difference a1=g*(m1-m2)/(m1+m2) Thus we have the eccentric equation(s) & mass2('s excess, wrt mass1) determines its (own) acceleration_direction (polarity). Note: g=-9.8 m/(s^2) is negative, thus a large(r) mass2 (than mass1) will naturally have a negative acceleration2=a2 (down(wards)). I suspect (=find) that is a remarkable formula, (i.e. + & -, =eccentric); & quite good for some TV stunts, e.g. the 3 Musketeers jumping on a rope, pullyed with a weight similar to the person to slow the descent(‘s acceleration). E.g. To get more done in the scene, like in slow motion. E.g. How can we slow down g (& make it smaller). The final trick would be to make the (negative) g so small, that it becomes positive, & will gently levitate to rise a person. Assuming the person is m2, then m1 must be(come) larger (than m2). Identical (masses) m1=m2 is (simply) levitation. Please not(ic)e, that slowed (=smaller) acceleration a1=-a2 is (still) “acceleration” if (=when) the pulley “friction” is cancelled out! So a constant speed is NOT expected for that trick (=stunt). ..13:29 E.g. Star Wars: falls; & ascenssions. (Blue (or green) box, video overlay effects.) Very slow acceleration, can be made to (optically) look like expansion (=expanding, against the background) or shrinking (in the opposite (slow) acceleration). Over_simplified math just won’t do (the same (effect)) in our heads(‘ imagination).-Disclaimer. ..13:39 I was a little puzzled that I couldn’t make that conclusion in (only) 1 (=the 1st) session (=sitting) e.g. why it confused me at 1st; & that I had to let my intuition take over to finish the job. Lucky enough that it did. E.g. My intuition gave me the task in the 1st place, as a curiosity (=peculiarity). If it didn’t then somebody else did, e.g. ET’s etc (moma=mother nature)? I can’t blame it (=success) on my ego, because that (=ego) failed.
  23. Capiert

    Nickel?

    is extraterrestrial, it(s origin) does NOT come from this world (earth). Or does it? I suspect nickel is a fusion product from the intense heat of (some) material entering the earth's atmosphere. Keyword: atmosphere. Asteroids are smaller objects without a significant atmosphere. The moon's atmosphere is also (probably) insignificant, as seen from fotos (dark background, no blue sky, nor clouds). But dust (from impacts), & impacts into sand can also get hot, as something (=material, other than air) to rub against (for the friction(al heat production))). Cosmic rays have been reported in the upper earth's atmosphere, (presumably) high speed particles, striking=hitting into the atmosphere, with AtNo element ions high as nickel. I've often wondered why meteorites had so much nickel; & the earth (had (next to)) none in its rock(s) (bedstone, e.g. granite) mother earth. Why was nickel an extraterrestrial material? Did those meteorites travel near a nuclear (fusion) reactor, the sun? Most of outer space was dark, empty & cold. Most asteroids did NOT seem to have enough nickel, if any at all. (Space exploration for precious metals seemed like a ridiculous pipe_dream fantasy: like looking for gold in the sahara desert, or at your local beach, or a volcano (would be more profitable, because), it's just NOT there, in plenty.*) Where then did the meteorites get their nickel & iron(!) from? Observing the mass_defect peaks at iron (AtNo 26), I (now) suspect fusion (temperatures) are the (major) cause for why (almost) any junk (=material) entering earth('s atmosphere), if not getting vaporized in the process (hint: =cosmic_ray ions), can have nickel & iron (in it). (*So (now) all nasa(like industrial companies, have=)has to do is shoot up boulders (into the sky) (beyond the upper atmosphere), & (then) let them fall, (transforming in)to iron_nickel meteorites. & dig out the crater (later). That's mighty expensive for a few grams of (man_made) nickel. Isn't it easier just to dig out the rubble that has naturally landed, instead; which we do?)
×
×
  • 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.