Jump to content

Ghideon

Senior Members
  • Posts

    2348
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    20

Everything posted by Ghideon

  1. Sorry @joao c h barcellos, the explanations does not make any sense. You seem to be mixing "shrinking" and relativistic length contraction? You also seem to mix "absolute" and "relative". Note that the force of gravity falls of with r2, the gravity differs quite a lot depending on location. For instance the gravity is much stronger at the surface on earth than on the surface of an astroid. The gravity from the rest of the galaxy is negligible in comparison to the gravity on the surface of celestial bodies. Hence, according to your logic, properties of old material on the surface of celestial bodies of various size should differ greatly. Ok, then it is many order of magnitudes less in interstellar space? And the sun, according to its higher gravity, shrinks much faster that earth? Easy check:tThere should be obvious density deviations in meteorites?
  2. Yes, I know. That's why it is in my calculation above. That does not make sense. Can you express it mathematically? I've already provided you with a general calculation, see the lover (0.25) and upper limits (1)). You can get the expression arbitrarily close to zero by using any sufficiently large numbers where x<<y. That means that the closer you get to zero in your expressions the more wrong you are if finding RSA related primes is you goal. That insight should be trivial if you are familiar with RSA?
  3. I still do not see any practical or useful connection to RSA. Assuming realistic RSA keys* and your definition** [math](pnp=x*y, x<y)[/math] then [math]0.25 < \frac{ x^{4} }{ pnp^{2}+x } < 1[/math]. That gives no new information about the prime factors x and y, in RSA only x*y is known. *) Using two large prime numbers of similar length. **) It's hard to understand the picture, some guesswork required.
  4. Clarification/Correction: should be "younger", not "your" (too late to edit post)
  5. Thanks, but it does not my question. What physical process happens when gravity shrinks particles? Ok. Earth (and other celestial bodies) is full of old particles that have spent long time in different gravitation so you comment implies that now there is a mix of particles with various size? Protons for instance should, as a result of your explanation, vary in size depending on their history of exposure to gravity. To the best of my knowledge no such differences are observed. Why? Accelerated particles does not shrink*. Ok. But: There should be great differences since gravity differs within the galaxy and in the solar system? For instance Jupiter should shrink faster than mercury or astroids do, over billions of year, due to the different strength of gravity. Note that rocks on the moon have been in lower gravity for long time vs old rock on earth. Why do samples of moon rock not deviate physically? Then old stars should emit light in shorter wavelength than your ones. And stars evolving in weaker gravitational fields should have different spectrum than ones evolving in stronger gravitational fields. It should be easy to see when observing a massive vs. a less massive galaxy; the star light should differ? Are there any supporting observations? *) Note: Length contraction (and time dilation) in special relativity is not particles shrinking
  6. How does this happen according to your ideas? What physical process takes place, allowing this to happen? What happens on atomic and subatomic scales? What happens to (small) objects in free fall vs objects on the surface of a planet such as the earth? Do composition of meteorites or moon rocks support your ideas? I'm thinking over a time of billions of years; how has the size of planets, the sun, small space debris and the orbits been affected?
  7. @joao c h barcellos were your answers mixed with my questions? please don't quote me with things I did not say.
  8. Some quick questions to start a discussion. Per your ideas: What happens to mass and density as a result of local space shrinking? How has this shrinking affected the solar system and planetary orbits? What happens in strong vs weak gravitation? Does observations and comparison of sizes of relatively nearby vs distant galaxies support your idea?
  9. Extract from your picture: It says x is semiprime.
  10. Triggers my curiosity. Reading first line, "where pnp..." it is a contradiction. (Note: can't quote a picture) Ok, nothing new since early 2021:
  11. I have interpreted your diagram and correlated to the predictive power of your claims, seems there is some parts missing. But a simple logical extension to the right would clarify the meaning of "future position":
  12. I've found that the following seems to work pretty well for me: - Read, understand and apply the forum rules when contributing to discussions. - Try to understand and act according to the spirit of the forum.
  13. If you reorder the letters of "Eigenvalue Matrix" you get "Laxative Meringue", a suitable label for the level of science in a recent discussion I took part in.
  14. Why aske me? This thread is about your ideas; you provide answers. (If this was in mainstream sections of the forums I could provide an opinion based established theories)
  15. The "diagrams" posted made me curious about geocentric models and reference systems. Found this that I may have time to read later: From: The IAU Resolutions on Astronomical Reference Systems, Time Scales, and Earth Rotation Models, George H. Kaplan (U.S. Naval Observatory) https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0602086.pdf
  16. Ok. Why are we in the middle? Why not for instance Andromeda, or observer "X"?
  17. Ok. And what will the observer located at "X" see when turning around, looking away from earth?
  18. You are not answering the question. What does the observer at "X" observe when looking at earth? Your personal interpretation is obviously incorrect. I can't draw "the feeling of amusement when reading word sallad". But I can understand it pretty well.
  19. Analog computers are as far as I know obsolete in the digital age. But there are ongoing research in neuromorphic engineering that may be of interest. Example from a recent paper: source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8794842/
  20. @Ned Please answer my question about your diagram above. That is what your diagram looks like, with earth in the centrum. The present established cosmological models does not match your description. In my case not completely wasted, I'm learning new things by arguing from the mainstream perspective and checking my views against established theories. But thanks for the heads up!
  21. Today I learned that the high voltage lab on my old campus have been decommissioned and the building is used for indoor climbing. The lab was used when developing high voltage parts of Sweden's electrical grid and for instance short circuit tests were performed. The building is covered completely in copper not disturb surrounding activities. (Copper plates are also covering the ground under the building) (Image link: Wikipedia commons) Side note: I got curious about large copper plates, high voltage, faraday cages and the old lab due to some activities in another thread. (Non serious) side notes in relation to that other thread: Yes, the copper measures more than 16x16 m. No, black holes or worm holes were never created here
  22. Isn't it the other way around? Objects that are dropped from a height moves towards the ground in free fall. Objects prevented from falling are accelerating. Some thought experiments as a starting point for discussion: If you stand on a scale on the earth it shows your weight. If you stand on a scale in an accelerating spaceship, far from any source of gravity, the scale will show your weight if the acceleration of the spaceship is (approx) 9,8m/s2 If you try using a scale while falling towards the ground the scale shows zero. If you try using a scale in a spaceship far from any source of gravity the scale shows zero.
  23. Title says "What is the Casimir effect used for ?". Possible answer: repulsive Casimir forces may have applications in nano-devices: (Bold by me. Source: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.07994.pdf) Paper on repulsive Casimir forces: https://arxiv.org/abs/1202.6415
  24. You are correct, this does not look like science fiction, just fiction. I guess you are not serious about your ideas but anyway lets give a computer what you have: result print(1/2) 0.5 No aether, case closed.
  25. I'm interested* in running a computer simulation of your experiment, can you provide the mathematics that allows for a simulation to be made? (The softwares I have available is based on established physics and does not work for science fiction stuff.) Which seems to imply that if you can draw it you may still not understand it.... *) Well, Not very interested actually, just for the sake of discussing
×
×
  • 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.