Capiert
Senior Members-
Posts
552 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Capiert
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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)).)
-
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.)
-
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?
-
(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.
-
Zero polarity is equilibrium, there. (E.g. Neither fall (-), nor ascension (+).) What's wrong?
-
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).
-
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)!
-
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.
-
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).
- 47 replies
-
-1
-
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.
- 35 replies
-
-1
-
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?)
-
Isn't it (=the meter) dissipating heat whether it (=the needle) swings or not, while electricity flows? I.e. It (=the needle's deflection) "costs" (continuous) power (=E/t, energy E, per time t), not just a once_only energy to keep that needle in place (beyond zero). Isn't there something wrong with James Watt's (mechanical power) definition? E.g. It's not universal. It does NOT include the static (equilibrium) case.
-
The electromagnetic force of a D'Arsenval (spring_loaded) meter Fiv=P^0.5 is proportional to the rooted electrical_power Piv=I*V (small postscripts used) for current I voltage V, resistance R. Isn't that in conflict to James Watt's definition of mechanical_power (caution: small postscript m used) Pm=F*va (not to be confused, with the m) for (Newton's) force F=m*a mass m acceleration a, average_speed (velocity) va=(vi+vf)/2 initial_speed (velocity) vi final_speed (velocity) vf. (I mean:) Both forces Fiv=F produce mechanical displacement that can be equated. --- (Sorry for the sloppy syntax, but yours confuses me too.) Re_done that would be: The electromagnetic force of a D'Arsenval (spring_loaded) meter F_I*V=sqrt(P_I*V) is proportional to the rooted electrical_power P_I*V=I*V (small postscripts used) for current I voltage V, resistance R. Isn't that in conflict to James Watt's definition of mechanical_power (caution: small postscript m used) P_m=F*v_a (not to be confused) for (Newton's) force F=m*a mass m acceleration a, average_velocity v_a=(v_i+v_f)/2 initial_velocity v_i final_velocity v_f. (I mean:) Both forces F_I*V=F produce mechanical displacement that can be equated.
-
Where is the nickel?! For about 65 million years ago, GMT (Greenwich Mean Time), a terrible, immense, explosion occured over the gulf of Mexico leaving (th)a(t) (great=big) crater there. All over the earth, 2 layers of iridium (sediment) (with quartz), are found in the rock sediment (clay), ruffly each (layer) are about 1 cm thick & spaced=separated about 1 cm apart. Please notice: Meteorites are (extraterrestrial (origin)) iron "nickel" rocks coming from outer space. Typical example: Sudbury mines (company) Ontario, Canada, extract the(ir meteor's) nickel from the ore; & a small percentage of that nickel has platinums; & a small percentage of those platinums is iridium. Thus iridium is an extraterrestrial metal but should be only a tiny percent of a nickel ore. But according to the iridium anomaly (hypothesis) it(s percentages pyramid) is the other way around. Instead of finding (small percentages of) iridium (mixed) in nickel (ore) sediment, we find only iridium as though nickel never existed (in the 2 layers) at all. My big question (here) is, where is(=has) the nickel (gone) for such a (so_called) meteorite (explosion)? -- Otherwise, there is no indication that the earth was "struck" by a (nickel containing) meteorite ~65 million years ago. I.e. None, =no evidence to support the meteorite (struck the earth) hypothesis. Thus the meteorite ("stuck") hypothesis does NOT make sense. =It's NON_SENSE, =NOT based on facts. No(t enough) nickel was found (by the explosion site) to validate the hypothesis (that a meteorite hit the earth). E.g. Was it a meteorite that caused the explosion? If not? What then (was the cause, for the explosion)? Instead an above earth explosion seems more possible. But that (=because) pure iridium was the fallout (dust), indicates an atomic nuclear explosion of severe (radiation) intensity. E.g. (Increasing by_products (=residue (mass), tendency) due to radiation, produces mass): I-131 (8 days), Cs-137 (30 years) & Sr-90 (29 years), Si-32 (153 years), Ir-192(m2 241 years, 2nd densest, earth metal), .. . (as ruff (approx.) idea, but those are the unstables). A kind of fusion (produced mass, similar to pair production) caused by too much (gamma) radiation. (E.g. producing larger mass (e.g. transmutation, nuclear chemistry); & it is (also) an indication of atomic mass's age. But that's another theme, on its own.) 2. I'll assume, even though iridium is the 2nd densest metal, aerosol floating would (have) be(en) possible to carry it (Ir dust) far distances, all over the earth('s surface). Otherwise, that Ir smoke would have landed locally, e.g. near the crater (to some extent); instead of throughout the whole earth's surface. But I still find it peculiar to think a meteorite struck, (that it) could have been vaporized to release its (nickel's) iridium, without a single trace, of iron, nickel nor platinums. QED.
-
I don't know. I didn't see that demonstration you mentioned. Do you have any link with time point? Maybe I should have said, much less than 1 kW?
-
discusses a man named Aldo Costa who has constructed a ferris wheel with 256 (empty, & moveable) wine bottles, (middle in Paris). The mechanism appears rather obvious (to me): the bottles on half of the wheel (vertically seen, left vs right) are (~10 cm) further out radially from the axle, than the other (half) side. The bottles are pushed up at the top (most) & bottom (most parts) of the wheel's circumference using lever rods (at the bottom) & pivots (with guide at the stand's top). Once moved (~10 cm up) each bottle (rotated) stays in position because their pivots (are not (ball) bearings but) have enough friction. So the total torques on the left versus right side of the ferris wheel are not equal, & the wheel turns (due to more torque on 1 side). I estimate the wheel could generate less than 1 kW if connected to a generator. The wheel was jammed with a crowbar to prevent it from turning (when not in use). The wheel also stops turning if 4 bottles were adjusted. My question is: what is the (exact) reason why that wheel turns? I'm NOT interested in Eric Krieg's (beliefs, nor) guesswork. Their was no wind, & that thing turns day & night (with or) without sunlight. There were no batteries, cables, chemicals nor pullies. How do they get "10 tons" of steel to (constantly) rotate (against friction)? Where exactly is (the hamster in the cage, &) the energy coming from? (Conservation of energy: energy can not be created (nor destroyed).) If you cannot debunk this (ferris wheel) with an exact answer, then I am left to conclude that the wheel functions as the inventor said, e.g. as I have explained above. I.e. It is gravity powered.
-
Thanks for all the interesting input. The objective here was to find the arguments against the gravity push concept & give you all a chance to change my mind. But it looks like I have more questions needed to help me figure out what you are saying. I chose the lounge because I thought it was an informal (casual) peaceful (non_hostile) place to discuss anything (in a scientific matter). Sensei, what charge does a neutron have? How are neutrons, accelerated, or deflected in their particle accelerators? Does the earth have a (variable) net charge on its surface? How then can we say the atoms are (completely) neutral when we can not measure all things? E.g. position & momentum. Swansont, aren't coordinate systems convertable? It does not matter what coordinate system is used. Einstein. Your selection of coordinate system might make the numbers easier for you. (But) Orbits occur, for any coordinate system (you want to use). I did NOT disagree that Cavendish demonstrated a pull, even if you insist (only) radially. (E.g. most efficient.) Then, nothing (=no equatorial pull) should be expected (by Cavendish's experiment) if (the 2nd mass is slightly) offset from the equatorial plane? Strange, are atoms neutral? How can that be? Most of them are tied up (=bound [up]) in molecules, (& are) victims of electrostatic & magnetic fields. A lot is happening, more than meets the eye. How do you know matter is not expanding, if all matter around you (including your instruments) is also expanding? I mean, how can you exclude that possibility? If the medium (which you call space*time) is flexible, why can it not "expand" & compress? (I didn't make the rules. Bending is none other than a deformation. But wrt what? Another volume (reference)?) Push is from electrostatic repulsion. (Please don't ask me how that works. You (all would) state: like charges repel. but have NOT explained (me) why (they repel).) (Similar to water waves produced from dropping a stone into a pail of water, so the amplitude of the waves decreases further away from the source:) If each atom's volume (as wave) increased ~a millionth of its volume pro second, then adding those (volume increases=) parts, for large objects gives noticeable numbers e.g. for planets' "surface" motion (& thus push)? Are you with me? (=Can you understand?) That (volume expansion) concept affects throughout all matter (=stuff) simply because matter is a wave. The concept that the universe is running down (=dissipating) energy is well known. The energy density is decreasing, due to the volume expansion (if the amount of energy is constant). But (e.g.) drop something from a very high height. The object will be destroyed when it hits the (earth's) surface (if it does not bounce). E.g. The air's pressure is being maintained against a vacuum (from outer space). E.g. The earth has a changing climate (although mostly due to the sun light). E.g.? I doubt that the earth rotates (against friction) due to gravity('s push, disapation). But why doesn't the earth slow down to a stop? Why do galaxies's (arms) curve? Everything is moving, & getting faster, although we don't always notice it (=the acceleration). The details of gravity are probably quite hairy, but what do you mean a push does not explain gravity correctly? Please explain. You probably have some specific examples in mind that you can share.
-
You're on. (Unlike you) I see (vertical) gravity as a push. (But that's putting the cart before the horse, so to speak.) (I see that) there are (really) 2 types of gravity: vertical & horizontal. It's rather obvious (that) the Cavendish experiment is a horizontal pull. I interpret that (pull) as vertically moving (e.g. accelerating) charges of atoms are electromagnetically attracted together. But has it ever occurred to you why you can NOT shield against gravity vertically? Perhaps because that might only be the acceleration of matter moving upwards. Thus any other reasoning is missing (as nonsense). (E.g. because there is nothing there to shield against.?) Hubble provided us with an interesting perspective: The universe appears to be expanding. & if so why do NOT matter waves in that (weak) vacuum also expand? (E.g. osmosis: moving from higher concentration to lower). Maybe you can convince me why vertical gravity should NOT be a push? Btw Asmov's Fantastic Voyage, of shrinking things for a period would be possible if we could (find a way to) restrict matter's expansion.
- 12 replies
-
-2
-
So decreasing the carbs (=carbohydrates) is a good strategy, to start with? That would mean fermenting more (CO2) gas than alcohol, & toasting (or burning) your bread to burn off energy. But what can we do with butter (fat)? I thought the trend nowadays was good vs bad bacteria. The bad 1's make people thick or fat because they are so efficient using the food molecules. (Yes) ok, so what sort of (grain?) molecule is responsible for that: (stupidity)? alcohol?; but fat? Malt sugar?, or is there some other specific chemical compound? Or should I be asking, what molecules are missing to prevent that process? PS I've also noticed 2 different distilled (liquer) alcohols. 1 caused a mental collapse, (e.g. 1 particular gin (others not), so a sugar was probably involved); while most rums allow maintaining consciousness to the same percentage intake. What could be responsible for the 2 different affects? Chemical tampering?; Surely not age, because many (old) scotches are reknown for their quality. What determines the alcohol's efficiency?
-
Please, explain (a bit). I mean not as well as others. Don't some starches or sugars go straight to fat (production). What is in beer that makes people thick (=fat)?