Roger Dynamic Motion

Senior Members

318

Posts posted by Roger Dynamic Motion

Imagination is more important than knowledge

Well, I think there's truth in those words, but caution is in order. On the one hand, you have people like Einstein, whose imagination leads them to things that turn out to be right. Then on the other hand you have people who uncork the most ridiculous things. I don't think Einstein's words should be taken to defend anything that someone coughs up, because some people's imagination leads them thoroughly out into the weeds.

I have no doubt that Einstein's imagination tended to stay "in bounds" because he also had knowledge. So I absolutely do not think he was saying "imagination is all that matters." Knowledge is very important too.

To say that a different way, imagination without knowledge doesn't get you there. Knowledge is a necessary pre-requisite, but then having imagination as well makes all the difference in the world to how much you can contribute to new understanding.

One investigates is knowledge thought (imagination) ; then fallow experimentation to incise is Knowledge :

In the angular momentum equation, L = r x p, when the magnitude of the radius changes, which one of the remaining variables is correctly conserved ?

This is why looking over the mathematical proofs for conservation of energy is important. Part of the proof is defining a closed system. The other part shows the torque aspects. The proof also identifies which vectors are involved.

doesn't the hub, in a closed system ,rotates with the rotation of the radius at the same time ,,because the hub is the career of the torque to acceleration.

Computer science is not a science!

Which dictionary, and how does it fit?

Studying computer science makes you a scientist in the same way being a custodial engineer makes you an engineer.

_ Just a Question here,, Is it needed to know how to program ,before one can become a ''Computer engineer''?

gravity

Nobody appreciates guesswork here, since you can waste your time virtually anywhere else on the web with that. We prefer evidential support for our explanations. If you can provide that, it means we might learn something by discussing it with you. It's really pretty simple, and I really don't understand all the pushback. Why are you HERE, on THIS science discussion forum, if not for a more rigorous approach to science?

_ We may change the name of that particle responsible to push vertically on a body on the scale never the less.

<< I definitely have to believe they are a component of the Gravitational force(s) an s for more than one graviton.

For matter to be moved or displaced there must be inter action, meaning, matter does not let itself through by the same .

For every action there is a reaction.To read the weight of a body on the scale demonstrate to me, a force must includes matter in the equation. I Think the third law of motion is valid in this case and self evident.

I think logic is a term that people in physics are afraid to face evidence, when affected by it Gf, constantly throughout their life, _

If a PARTICLE is too small to be seen but self evidence of it’s action as a fact from the reaction of the other bigger particle, than logic should not be influenced by the size of its opponent._

Gravity is forces from gravitons in motion and when constrained by bigger particle in their path they will be felt as a whole on that surface:

Thanks for reading. (Roger Dynamic Motion)

Computer science is not a science!

Well i believe computer science is. I am writing an essay on why it is considered a science. I have found great peered reviewed articles on why it is but I cannot find a single article on why computer science is not a science. I need help in finding these articles. if anyone would be so kind in just point me in the right direction.

Because !~ Computer science is not (Universal scientific knowledge)

possibility to send a message to Future?

This message post can only be read in the future.

But it will be the present time for the reader..not the future at that specific time

But it will be the present time for the reader..not the future at that specific time

[/quo

possibility to send a message to Future?

A message can be send from present to pass and pass to present > but !~ never from future to pas _ or pass to future ; the future do not belong to ''time frame'' it's a mere vision of the mind ''only'' _.it does not possess any entity of motion....cause !~matter, is not present .

Electric Generator in space .

Oh, good points. I was assuming we were stating from a spinning generator.

It is a spinning generator ._assuming it is spinning Neglecting the power source to make it spin/

will it generate the same amount of electricity ? versus earth/

Electric Generator in space .

Of course. If you haul out relativity and all that stuff there might be some tiny Nth order effect that changes it slightly, but to first order the electricity produced by a generator has nothing to do with air or gravity.

How do you know ? has the experience ever been done?

Electric Generator in space .

We know an electric generator on earth generate electricity . What if the same one is placed in space where there is no air and no gravitational force. will it generate the same amount of electricity ?

What created energy if energy cannot be created?

You haven't separated the weight (a property) from the material.

Some of it goes in to the kinetic energy of the fission products. Some of it is released as photons (gamma or X rays). None of it is released "pure energy" separate from anything else.

and the mass is conserved ?

What created energy if energy cannot be created?

You can't separate energy from matter, it's a property of matter, like color or shape or mass. You can change the properties, but you can't separate them from the matter they're a property of. Can you separate the density of a piece of iron from the iron itself?

Not more that I can separate the weight of one pound of dusted lead to a pound of a solid block of lead .

You can't separate energy from matter, it's a property of matter, like color or shape or mass. You can change the properties, but you can't separate them from the matter they're a property of. Can you separate the density of a piece of iron from the iron itself?

You can't separate energy from matter,

Quote}Not more that I can separate the weight of one pound of dusted lead to a pound of a solid block of lead .

quote / what happen in a fission reaction to the energy lost ?

What is the difference ? a photon & z particle ?

Photons are the quanta of the electromagnetic interaction. Z particles (along with W particles) are quanta of the weak interaction. All three (photons, Z, and W) are bosons, but Z and W have rest mass, whereas photons are "rest massless." Because of this the electromagnetic interaction is long-range, whereas the weak interaction is not. W has charge, but Z doesn't, and is its own anti-particle.

That's the extent of my woefully limited knowledge - I'm sure others will add more. But basically they (photons and Z) are both chargeless bosons, but they mediate different forces and W has mass.

do I understand that Z is an anti photon.

What created energy if energy cannot be created?

You can't separate energy from matter, it's a property of matter, like color or shape or mass. You can change the properties, but you can't separate them from the matter they're a property of. Can you separate the density of a piece of iron from the iron itself?

Not more that I can separate the weight of one pound of dusted lead to a pound of a solid block of lead .

You can't separate energy from matter, it's a property of matter, like color or shape or mass. You can change the properties, but you can't separate them from the matter they're a property of. Can you separate the density of a piece of iron from the iron itself?

You can't separate energy from matter,

quote / what happen in a fission reaction to the energy lost ?

What is the difference ? a photon & z particle ?

Are they from different energy family?

What created energy if energy cannot be created?

According to the law of conservation of energy, energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it transforms from one form to another. If that is so, then how is it the case that there is energy in the universe?

Is the reason because the big bang led to the creation of an imbalanced amount matter and anti-matter that annihilated until there was only matter left in the universe? According to Einstein, anything with mass curves space creating a force we describe as gravity. Gravitational force creates potential energy that transforms into kinetic energy until equilibrium is reached. Therefore, the curvature of space caused by the mass of particles is fuelling the universe with energy.

Can anyone tell me what I am missing or misunderstanding? I only have a college level physics and mathematics background.

Well, what I have always understood, that is; energy cannot detected its own presence and one cannot verified the presence of energy if separated from matter So, what created Energy? if it is not the presence of ''particles Matter'' in space

Is the Universe in Motion

Actually it's everywhere

So, if it is every where than we're all parts of it and therefore ; it is not possible to tell if the Universe is rotating on its own axis.

In motion with respect to what?

In respect to nothing. If we assume the universe is the only big body, witch is rotating on its own axis and we are a part of it as human on earth, and contains all existing bodies as a old.

So ! is it possible to know if the universe is in motion?

Is the Universe in Motion

The Universe is not a big round body...The Universe is all of spacetime and all that spacetime contains.

The planets, Moons, Stars, and Galaxies are all in motion as dictated by gravity.

Over larger scales, the Universe is expanding.

The BB happened everywhere at the same time, because everywhere was contained within the singularity from whence the BB arose..... no center, no edge/s

From what I understand at this time, we have no way to indicate that the Universe is rotating or not, unless with reference to the CMBR.

What is the CMBR ?

Is light energy ? transferable to a ''target solar panel'' let say at 15 degrees to the reflection of a mirror at the same distance to the source .

The light source doesn't have to be aligned with the solar panel.

After reflection, the mirror becomes the light source. So, for example, the solar panel could be facing away from the sun and towards a mirror that reflects the light to it.

After all, your eyes contain photoreceptors that receive the energy from the light source. And you can see things in a mirror, so obviously the energy is received after reflection.

What? Why?

let say there is many impact with 10 mirrors at different angles leading the light wave to target ..would the momentum at the impact remain the same ?

Is light energy ? transferable to a ''target solar panel'' let say at 15 degrees to the reflection of a mirror at the same distance to the source .

I can't really understand what you are asking.

But if the mirror is arranged so that the light is reflected from the source on to the solar panel, then yes the energy will still be transferred. Why wouldn't it be?

because the light source is not lineded 180 degrees with the source and for that ; the momentum of the light wave vanish to a single reflection wave

Below you describe a ball. How can a ball be perpendicular to a target?

A small ball electrified in fusion?

the target was my eyes.

Is light energy ? transferable to a ''target solar panel'' let say at 15 degrees to the reflection of a mirror at the same distance to the source .

Below you describe a ball. How can a ball be perpendicular to a target?

A small ball electrified in fusion?

well, the sun is know to take room in space a (big ball yes) still a small piece of matter have the same effect while shining and expanded

Place a piece of metal painted black at 45 degrees to the Sun. It will still get hot.

What expansion of space?

You haven't observed any of that.

are you calling me a L>>>you have not understand the question Is light energy ? transferable to a ''target solar panel'' let say at 15 degrees to the reflection of a mirror at the same distance to the source

it is not the target thet is tilted the target is perpenticular to the light wave and away trom the mirror at 15 degrees but at the same distance to the target

Gravity is a force .. not Energy

How do photons slow atoms down if this is true?

possibly with the help of fermions in the pat .

Is light energy ? transferable to a ''target solar panel'' let say at 15 degrees to the reflection of a mirror at the same distance to the source .

Do you have a model for this expansion of space "coming from the source"?

How can the source be perpendicular to itself?

sorry . Corection,,,My guest is that the source must be perpendicular to the target to transfer its energy because of the axpantion of space comming from the source

sorry . Corection,,,My guest is that the source must be perpendicular to the target to transfer its energy because of the axpantion of space comming from the source

/quote Well, do have a model and that is ; a metal, small ball electrified (chromium) in fusion hitting the flor has 1/8 of an inch in diameter while in fusion i have observed the spin of it and has it spin drops the light diminish, also its sise deminish to a half an finaly all comes to rest

Is light energy ? transferable to a ''target solar panel'' let say at 15 degrees to the reflection of a mirror at the same distance to the source .

Solar panels work at any angle (up to 90°). The only difference is that less light falls on it as the angle change from perpendicular (because a smaller area is available).

even light reflected from a mirror ? comming from the opposit direction of the source .
×
×
• Create New...