Ghideon

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    723
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by Ghideon

  1. Your posts contains mainstream concepts but incorrect applications of those concepts. That is evidence that further studies of currently accepted theories is required before trying to introduce new physical theories.
  2. Where in the article is your model referenced?
  3. Could you try answer my initial question "what complex spaces are we discussing", possibly without posting huge amounts of source code? [math] \sqrt{-i}=-(-1)^{ \frac{3}{4} }[/math] Or approximately 0.707-0.707i ? (This was the only question and opening for discussion I could find) The above seems to imply that an imaginary number is a real number? But as far as I know an imaginary number is not a real number since it is a real number multiplied by the imaginary unit. Is the text machine translated, causing the post to look like it has errors?
  4. Ok, then I think it was a random video with not so reliable content if it implies velocities greater than speed of light in vacuum. Or did you draw the conclusion about velocities greater than speed of light? I think velocities and spin is included in detail in current models. Can you be more specific?
  5. No. Why does size matter? yes. They do? Do you have a reference for that or is it part of a new idea we can investigate? Electrons are not made of quarks in current models as far as I know. Electrons are fundamental particles. Photons are not made of quarks. Do you have a reference for that or is it part of a new idea we can investigate?
  6. And What kind of "force" has kg*s as unit? Compare definition of Newton: [math] kg*m*s^{-2} [/math] If object is motionless then there is no force acting on it so q=0 and therefore t = q/m = 0. Do you mean that time stands still for objects at rest?
  7. That does not match earlier statements. What units does t, q and m have? Earlier posts: and So what is q?
  8. I have limited knowledge of this but was ”complex spaces” not possible before? I think have come across the term earlier, maybe more definitions are needed? What complex spaces are we discussing? what is GeneroiKantaolioidenTulot? Generates Constants Revenue? Lack of comments combined with usage of non-english definitions makes the program hard to read.
  9. I would want to participate in discussing of your findings, initially to see if your ideas and arguments are supported by mainstream science. This is a discussion forum, so your discovery will be discussed. The outcome of such a discussion will partly depend on what and how you choose to contribute. (Side note: My first language is not english, but on this forum language is seldom a problem. General attitude of most members is helpful; language issues are identified and overcome)
  10. I briefly did before moderators removed parts that are not needed to start a discussion. I dont think Phi’s question was answered. can you post (a less detailed) answer how evolution is fundamentaly different for humans?
  11. I'll try a more general question in this context; How would a group of scientists, working according to scientific methods, come to such different conclusions because of the order of discoveries? How does it logically follow that the timing of a discovery would support very different views in the long run? I can see that various short lived conjectures and hypothesis could emerge and disappear. But fundamentally different worldviews? Or is duality something so special that my general question above is not applicable?
  12. I'll try to apply your logic to see if I understand: Let's say around year 1900 someone comes up with a test to see if university have a creator. Computers are not invented yet so "creator" means god/designer/machine/other external party able to control reality. The proposed test is that if time is not running at the same speed for all observers in all frames of reference then that is evidence that someone else is running or controlling reality. In the scenario above evidence for special relativity must be interpreted as evidence for "god". Is this the same kind of scenario as yours?
  13. Sorry, I don't follow. How would scientists be convinced that if particles are reacting to observation then that would be evidence for reality running in a Turing machine?
  14. Ghideon

    VARIPEND

    It seems like I'm asking the wrong questions since the answers are still not very clear. So I'll try another approach. I am not yet asking how your device is working. I am asking what you think the device is able to do*. Your descriptions contains both very basic mechanics but also seems to claim existence of physics far beyond what is currently described by mechanical laws. Laws that have been used and tested for many years. To be able to address your statements it would be good to know if you claim to have evidence that currently known physics is wrong, or you have failed to understand how current physics works. Let's put a varipend in vacuum in space. No forces are pushing the varipend, it is at rest in our frame of reference, and it is not yet running**. Are you of the opinion that the varipend will be able to propel itself through space once the varipend is started***? Does the varipend move at constant speed or stop after one cycle? If the varipend are run through multiple cycles (your animations shows only one cycle) does it speed up for each cycle? *) It does not yet matter if I agree or not. It is as always possible that I misunderstand the proposed device, hence I need to ask more about it. **) That is, the internal parts of the varipend is not yet in movement. Started means that the cycle, displayed in your animations, begins. ***) Math and animations may not be important at this time since it is not clear what kind of movement you are trying to describe.
  15. Ghideon

    VARIPEND

    Ok! I will simplify for you. Here is a brick, at rest. Nothing is pushing the brick, sum of external forces are zero. The brick is hollow. Hidden inside is a varipend, the device described by you. Will the brick accelerate due to the variepend that is active inside? You seem to claim, but avoid to answer, that you think that F=ma does not apply to your device* *) This is not the only physical laws that the description seems to break but one law at a time is enough.
  16. Ghideon

    VARIPEND

    Try answering questions instead of posting new questions. What will happen according to you? Will there be acceleration a>0 even if F=0?
  17. Ghideon

    VARIPEND

    I did. I’m trying to understand what you are proposing. So I try to use words commonly used in scientific discussions. Put your rig inside a hollow sphere and call the complete assembly ”body” if that helps define an answer.
  18. Ghideon

    VARIPEND

    Ok. Let’s make sure we discuss the same thing. A body with mass=m is at rest in our frame of reference, in vacuum in free space. There are no external forces acting on the body; the sum of forces acting is = 0. According to Newton the equation F=ma describes the situation; how the object will accelerate. Since force F=0 then acceleration a=0. Are you claiming that you have found a way to make a body accelerate even when F=0?
  19. Ghideon

    VARIPEND

    Such things= mechanical devices claiming to produce propulsion without external force. Also known as reactionless drive.
  20. I have misinterpreted the intention of the headline "Time definition". You are trying to calculate a time t? I thought you were posting a definition of time; so my comments probably don't apply.
  21. How did green traveler define time to be able to create a clock? I maybe do not understand what you mean when you use the Word ”definition” in your math.
  22. In addition to what @Strange wrote; your definition looks circular. As far as I know motion, in physics*, is the change in position of an object with respect to its surroundings in a given interval of time. How do you define motion to be able to define time to be dependent on motion? *) paraphrase of wikipedia/Motion
  23. I do not see a line or how to define the parameters for such a line. Some thoughts about this, illustrated by a constructed scenario: Let's say humans are able to create artificial intelligence. Not software/hardware currently labeled AI but something that by our standards would be labeled as "intelligent". Next, put this intelligence in a context where the intelligence does not know that it was created by humans. Now if the intelligence, since it is intelligent, manages to come up with a scientific method to investigate and find evidence that it (the intelligence) was created by a designer (the human), how would that count? Is that a scientific approach at investigating intelligent design? The intelligence, created by humans, is just a consequence of human evolution and natural processes. Where does natural end and not natural begin? The existence of human and it's creations do not seem very significant when looking at the universe as a whole. How does our definition of intelligence matter in the greater scale of things, such as how universe came into existence?
  24. Why? I said the internals (beyond event horizon) of a black hole is not observable, and will not ever be observable as long as current models are considered. But the outside? See https://eventhorizontelescope.org. I do not see how your statement about black holes, dark matter, dark energy and "unobservable" matches what we currently know.