Ghideon

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    550
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Ghideon last won the day on June 8

Ghideon had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

95 Excellent

About Ghideon

  • Rank
    Molecule

Profile Information

  • Location
    Sweden
  • College Major/Degree
    M.Sc. Computer Science and Engineering
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Physics

Recent Profile Visitors

2597 profile views
  1. Ghideon

    Topic 4: Special Relativity - Lorentz transformations

    No, it is not right. No, it is not right. That is not an excuse for using invalid statements about relativity. Lack of rigour regarding the frames of reference can and will lead to contradictions regarding the math of Special Relativity. Personally I am not moving on without addressing that properly: Some readers might interpret such contradictions as problems with the theory of relativity itself* rather than issues with the descriptions and examples in this thread. That would be unfortunate, especially in the mainstream section of the forum. If multiple frames of reference are used the only way I know of, that gives correct results within Special Relativity, is to use Lorentz Transform or derive Lorentz Transform to be able to move between the frames of reference. So let's try another approach: Even if we are not allowed to use Lorentz Transform for argumentation yet we still have Einstein's postulates, and simply adding distances in one frame of reference to get a distance in another frame of reference is not compatible with Einstein's postulates. Question: what postulates are we going to use? Can we for instance state that the speed of light is invariant? Are we starting from other postulates?
  2. Ghideon

    Topic 4: Special Relativity - Lorentz transformations

    And I’ll try to figure out what kind of answer you could be looking for that is compatible with the above statements.
  3. Ghideon

    Topic 4: Special Relativity - Lorentz transformations

    Ok. Then the answer is : no, it is not like that.
  4. Ghideon

    Topic 4: Special Relativity - Lorentz transformations

    Can you clarify and add a source? It is not obvious how this relates to the question in OP; "want to understand how Lorentz Transformations work". I do not posses the required knowledge regarding "negative time in higher dimensional analysis" and google dd not help within the limited amount of time I had available.
  5. Ghideon

    Idea for a rocket engine

    Even if the idea does not work I think the presentation deserves some credit; it allowed for a proper analysis to identify issues and opened for a fruitful discussion. And also credit to @Janus for the clarifying!
  6. Ghideon

    Topic 4: Special Relativity - Lorentz transformations

    Lack of feedback & responses on answers already given may cause members to spend their efforts elsewhere? (bold by me) 1: Stating that the S' moves with velocity v looks as if the S' frame is not considered stationary in the calculations. Then it is not clear if the calculations are done in S' with S' stationary or in S with S' moving with a relative velocity v. Having posted in other threads regarding SR I must stress that details regarding frame of reference is important, misunderstandings leads to issues and incorrect responses. 2: When talking about times t and t' in frames of reference S and S' in SR that often means the actual time of and event, as registered by clocks in each of the frame of reference. You can include the time the signal takes to reach some point in the frame of reference but some clarification might be good.
  7. Ghideon

    Idea for a rocket engine

    Thanks for the reply. I think I might need to clarify; the exhaust leaves the the engine in the y (vertical) direction. Unless the exhaust is slowed down in y direction, relative to the engine, the fuel will not be recovered. Since the exhaust has mass the change of velocity in y-direction (=acceleration) will require energy. If you check the setup for conservation of momentum for instance I think you could spot the issues that emerge?
  8. Ghideon

    Idea for a rocket engine

    Hello! I have not yet analysed all details but initially this looks like a variant of reactionless drive. It is not possible to recycle the fuel. Slowing down the exhaust to recycle fuel will halt the rocket.
  9. Please provide a reference, I have missed that part where it says that it only applies to theories. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/
  10. Please clarify; did I misread the forum rules? Are the rules wrong*? Does the rules apply to other members but not to you? Other? *) I didn't write them.
  11. Because you failed to read/understand/follow the rules? For instance: You have to back your statements up with evidence. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/22442-so-youve-got-a-new-theory/
  12. Ghideon

    “Now” (split from Topic 4: Special Relativity)

    Consequence of theory of relativity; better handled in a separate thread I think.
  13. Ghideon

    Im a bit concerned about 28 minus points

    Good example and probably a common issue? There are a number of cases where some random idea may generate a decent starting point; some examples: Movie plot Mobile gaming concept Sketching ideas for a painting (as mentioned above) But it is probably very rarely found in science, and especially fundamental things like relativity, standard model particle physics etc. But some members here, especially with neg rep, seems to fail to identify the difference between a scientific process and incorrect guesses. Of course there are elements of creativity in science but it is not an uneducated random stream of words. It starts with a lot of studying and researching before there is any chance of proposing something that has at least a remote chance of being a successful idea.
  14. Trying to guess what you mean, are you asking about causality* ? No, it is not possible as far as I know. Causality cannot occur between an effect and an event that is not in the back (past) light cone of said effect. Similarly, a cause cannot have an effect outside its front (future) light cone. Advice: If you what to ask something, try using words you understand instead of posting random "science-looking" phrases that no-one will be able to decrypt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)
  15. Ghideon

    Well, I emailed CERN

    So what is your solution then? Why is your result an improvement over for instance this result: Regarding thinking outside the box: I prefer to focus less on the box, and focus much more on the thinking. *) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/01/silver-bullet-to-suck-co2-from-air-and-halt-climate-change-ruled-out (note: This is the lounge; I'll not check my sources as rigorously as )