Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Ghideon last won the day on March 28 2021

Ghideon had the most liked content!


Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

8117 profile views

Ghideon's Achievements


Primate (9/13)



  1. I noted today that the report function may have changed. Previously a post was locked for report once a report was made. Now it seems possible for a member to report a post multiple times. Don't know if this is an intentional change or if reports are not working, resulting in possibility to retry (there is no error message though). Or something else; hard to tell without insight.
  2. Going through external sources to sort out the issues would require more time than I'm willing to invest. Maybe you can post some more concrete question to get a discussion going?
  3. Top hits on google may help you with lots of code samples, library suggestions or explanations. https://www.google.com/search?q=How+to+read%2Fwrite+a+number+from%2Fto+a+txt+file+from+a+Javascript+program%3F&oq=How+to+read%2Fwrite+a+number+from%2Fto+a+txt+file+from+a+Javascript+program If you provide some details a more specific answer may be provided.
  4. I had a second look; a salamander body is a good guess. It seems like the front legs are positioned further back from the head than on a real one. The head of the creature could be modelled from a combination of a catfish (front tentacles and mouth) and a ceratopsid / Centrosaurus (back section of head).
  5. They say it's a "wyrm": Wyrm (plural wyrms): (mythology, fantasy) A huge limbless and wingless dragon or dragon-like creature, or sea serpent.* But it seems like a good example of British humour? Using camping equipment as a helmet looks like something from Monty Python; see the original video from "Erwin Saunders" (not sure that is his real name) https://youtu.be/3JiFw9g0duE?t=601 Here is the link to the "Wyrm", 13:48 into the video: https://youtu.be/3JiFw9g0duE?t=828 *) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyrm, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wyrm
  6. That seems to be an incorrect application or interpretation of the formula. Maybe you could try asking a question instead? For instance something like "Does Newtonian physics predict any behaviour, for instance acceleration, for massless objects?" or "Does the formula F=ma work for massless objects such as photons? "
  7. How does your model explain the observed behaviour of gravitational waves? For instance the observation of a cosmic event* in both gravitational waves and light. Such observations are predicted by general relativity and as far as I know adds observational evidence in support of the theory. *) Example: https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/press-release-gw170817
  8. As far as I know this forum is focused on mainstream science; forum members may provide arguments backed up by established mainstream theories without providing all the underlaying supporting evidence, observations and mathematics of the mainstream theory. Note that rules does not prevent a member from presenting material that goes against the mainstream and in this case the member has to provide supportive evidence. Example: Conservation of momentum may be used in an argument about mechanics without detailed explanation and evidence how and why momentum is conserved in physics. If a member argues in favour for a reactionless drive that breaks the conservation of momentum then the member is free to do so as long as a model and supportive evidence is presented. Example: Material that was speculative at one time may not be so at a later time. Had I posted an idea about a database structure that allows full trust in the decentralized and distributed public transaction ledger it would probably have been suitable for the speculations section if I posted it in 2001. Today, when blockchain is an established technique, it may be discussed in the mainstream sections. Note: I assume discussion is done good faith in the above examples.
  9. Quick try at a different approach:
  10. Ghideon


    There seems to be contradictions in your reasoning. Per your argument "the Singularity" does not exist, only some approximation of it.
  11. I was hoping for some reference to a scientific paper or text book. That could help finding where any misconceptions or misinterpretations come from. The context = your topic, the whole thread. You only mention length contraction. At high relative velocities, where length contraction is not negligible, relativistic effects has to be taken into account also when calculating kinetic energy (or momentum). If you have a setting where length contraction large enough to have an impact then you should not use newtonian physics for kinetic energy and momentum, it will result in wrong predictions.
  12. Why do you speak of only length contraction and never mentioning time dilation in this context? Can you support that claim with a reference to relativity? From the point of view of the passengers on the train they, and the train, are not moving. And from the same point of view (the passengers on the train) an object in the trains path will appear to be moving towards the train and strike the train.
  13. Doubt is part of science as far as I know; how do you falsify your idea? Just curious; what does "lost orbit" in your idea mean and how would it happen?
  14. Ok: The above text then becomes: "There is no physical speed or movement of any sort in General Relativity. Frame of reference has no physical meaning; it can not change anything." That can't possibly be correct?
  15. Then there is also an equal and opposite force inside the box. The forces cancel each other and there is no thrust. A rocket accelerates ejected mass by some force F and the equal and opposite force from the ejected mass on the rocket accelerates the rocket. The system consisting of ejected mass + the rocket conserves momentum. In your case there is nothing ejected and no interaction with anything outside of the box; conservation of momentum means the center of mass of the box can't accelerate no matter how it is internally composed. Quick note on the initial question: The problem is finding a scientific theory that allows a reactionless drive and explains how it operates; it is impossible according to currently known physics. But scientifically performed tests that verifies the drive and a theory would probably be worth a Nobel prize, that would solve issues with money I guess.
  • 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.