Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Ghideon

  1. Please explain your logic behind the calculation. A solar eclipse means the moons shadow covers a small portion of the earth. And during a lunar eclipse the whole moon is completely in earth shadow. What is the division of the times (7.5 / 108) supposed to represent? The earth rotates during a solar eclipse.
  2. Better results than 885 km were already available more than 2000 years ago. Here is short presentation of Aristarchus and the Moon: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~thompson/1101/aristarchus_martini.pdf. Wikipedia has some facts and links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos Currently the precision is better since the distance to the moon is known with good precision, see for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_distance_(astronomy)#Radar What is the purpose of posting a calculation that gives an obviously incorrect value? Why not ask or learn how correct
  3. As far as I know proper time in relativity is denoted by tau (τ). Personally I find pi (π) more practical (or "elegant") with less room for confusion in this context. Maybe you are aiming at replacing the symbol of proper time as well?
  4. I may not fit your definition of a genius, I'll follow this thread and see if you post something worth my time. In the meantime: I agree! And I may add that new discoveries sometimes are triggered by thought experiments* about established theories, illustrating paradoxes or other issues that may be investigated. Einsteins "Pursuing a beam of light" is one example I think of. *) Whether this is an example of experiments in "reality" in the context OP discusses I do not know
  5. (This post may be off topic; I have no clue what OP tries to speculate about. ) I do not understand your post or your idea so I have no comment on that, but if you are interested in ultra strong magnetic fields and space maybe the behaviour of a magnetar* is interesting? Here is a paper describing current scientific knowledge: https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.00068. *) A magnetar is a type of neutron star believed to have an extremely powerful magnetic field, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetar
  6. Don't take my friendly advice too personal. New scientific ideas and conjectures have to earn their respect. Some ideas turns out to be great, other ideas not so great, some ideas are wrong and some ideas are not even wrong*. One can respect an individual even if they produce some incredibly bad ideas. You might want to check what belongs in S.R (special relativity) vs G.R (General relativity) before claiming: Then please go to that thread and reply to the questions and objections that you have neglected. *) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
  7. One more issue: the statement above is not consistent with the setup: (bold by me in the quotes above) A friendly reminder: You are posting on a forum where plenty of members are experts; scientists, teachers, engineers and more. Imagine what you would be able to learn if you posted questions instead of incorrect claims. You would get advanced answers, good references, reading advices, links to free online courses etc. You seem interested in physics and capable of attempting basic mathematics. The predictive power of the current models of mainstream physics is quite good,
  8. No. You have not addressed important issues: (color added by me) As pointed out by several members the plus marked with red is incorrect. Added below* is a link that may help, It shows the correct formula and also how it mathematically relates to the low velocity approximation known from Newtonian physics. (edit: @exchemist nicely shows the error in the full context) (Side note: If, for some reason, you believe your version of the equation is actually correct, then you need to provide some backing evidence) *) https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-physic
  9. If you use the equations to an unphysical situation, for instance a system that breaks conservation of momentum is not conserved*, the equations does not predict the behaviour of the system. The equations loose their predictive power; conclusions you draw from using the equations outside of their scope of applicability, will be incorrect. More detail regarding the above equation. The consequence is that you claim kinetic energy (K.E) to be 2m0c2 for an object at rest (v1=0). That is false, kinetic energy at rest is 0. Maybe you got wrong sign in the formula? Please clarify and adjust y
  10. What kinetic energy does the formulas give you for v1=0? Maybe you need to correct the calculation? Hint: at low speeds the relativistic kinetic energy should be approximately be the non-relativistic version mv2/2 (There are other issues with the reasoning; may have more time to read more carefully later)
  11. (bold by me) Yes, it is necessary for the trains to travel below the speed of light . I assume you mean the speed of sound?
  12. Here is what Lagrange* has to say about your setup in zero g. Some quick mathematics: [math]L=T-V [/math] where T and V are the kinetic and potential energy of the system [math]V=0 \rightarrow L=T[/math] [math]T=\frac{m v^{2} }{2} [/math] where v=velocity Or, in generalized coordinates [math] \frac{m\dot q^{2}}{2} [/math] Euler–Lagrange equations: [math] \frac{\partial L}{\partial q_{j} }= \frac{d}{dt} \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot q_{j} } [/math] In our specific case without gravity: [math]0= \frac{d}{dt} m \dot q =m \ddot q[/math] [math]\dot q=0 \
  13. Ok. So your setup will behave identically in zero g? Both mathematically and experimentally? A curious person or someone working scientifically would probably ask something like "What is the link? How does the it affect my idea and experiment?"
  14. Are you confusing a mathematical analysis of an ideal setup with an experimental setup?
  15. @John2020 I am still waiting for your inout regarding the more fundamental principles that Newton is based on; physics has continued ot evolve after Newton was active. If you believe space to be inhomogeneous or anisotropic at small scales please provide evidence. Regarding internal forces, an electric car has an engine where there are internal electromagnetic forces. Can an electrical car accelerate along the ground? Yes it can.
  16. May I ask for some kind of scientific evidence for this idea? The information available at the link does not support that the universe should have a size considerably deviating from what established mainstream models predicts.
  17. We know from established physics that "inertial drives" are not physically possible, hence any acceleration of the COM of the ferromagnetic ring is due to external forces; very simplified: F=ma. Note that Newton's laws exists in a framework of more fundamental theories and models developed later. Lagrange, Hamilton and Noether are specifically relevant in this case. If you believe space to be inhomogeneous or anisotropic at small scales please provide evidence.
  18. Any evidence supporting that interpretation? I had hoped for an explanation how you think your hypothesis is confirmed by my comments. Avoiding the discussion does not add support to the idea. Thanks for the offer, I prefer to get my knowledge about ancient Egypt from other sources. (Discussions are not censored as far as I know but posts may be moved to a suitable section as per forum rules. Spam or illegal content or similar may be hidden.)
  19. Was it the speculative device discussed by Miguel Alcubierre* you read about? (Known as Alcubierre drive) *) Alcubierre paper https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0009013
  20. Ok. The picture was an example. Here is another one, with arms, from the same reference* as above. The djed first appears in the Predynastic Period in Egypt**. Please explain how you draw that conclusion from my comments. *) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Egyptian_-_Pectoral_with_Scarab_-_Walters_4291_-_Reverse_(2).jpg **) https://www.worldhistory.org/Djed/
  21. Disproof already done by other members. Are these the "gongs"? What evidence supports your hypothesis? As far as I know mainstream science says the structure is a djed. Wikimedia has various pictures of Djed hieroglyph and amulets: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Djed_(hieroglyph) Example:
  22. Short answer: no. There will be losses in the described setup and no surplus power. As far as I can tell the proposed device is a typical attempt at constructing a perpetual motion device, something that is not possible. An engine that convert mechanical energy into electromagnetic energy cannot operate with 100% efficiency because it is impossible to design any system that is free of energy dissipation. For further reading the wikipedia article on perpetual motion may be a good start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
  23. Ok. A consequence of throwing out conservation of momentum is that Newton, Lagrange, Hamilton, Noether and others probably also goes out the window. Your claim seem to imply that empty space must be inhomogeneous or anisotropic at small scales*. When none of Newton and others are left to base your ideas upon, what new and alternative physics do you propose as a starting point? *) I learned this from @joigus, hope I got it right in the context of this topic.
  24. My intuitive answer is that your example is about shell theorem. If I remember correctly: Assume a sphere S with charge Q on the surface. Then the electric field outside the sphere of charge is like that of a point charge; the field outside the sphere does not rely on the radius R of the sphere S. Shell theorem implies that another sphere S2 with same charge Q but different radius R2 will have the same field outside as the first sphere S. I do not know if the shell theorem accounts for the dynamics if a single sphere is uniformly modified* to have a different radius but identical center.
  25. As far as I know a laser is a device that emits light. Maybe you are looking for electron emitter such as those used in cathode ray tubes?
  • 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.