Ghideon

This just raises further questions. Can you add sufficient details how anti-quantum relates to mainstream physics? What are the properties of anti-quantum?

Can you define anti-quantum? (I'm vaguely familiar with the the term from cryptography but that is not applicable to this discussion.)

@shivajikobardan just a word of caution, bipolar may mean different things in different contexts and not necessarily be identical to "binary": (bold by me)

Do you handle similarities in spelling and structure in the grouping and comparison? Without further research I think the Swedish words would be 'kopp', 'mugg', 'bägare'. None of the words are identical in the two languages but share some kind of similarity? (Side note: I'll curiously follow this; it may be related to some machine learning stuff I've seen for other purposes, word embedding; the representation of words for text analysis, typically in the form of a real-valued vector that encodes the meaning of the word such that the words that are closer in the vector space are expected to be similar in meaning. It seems related to the above idea and is used to model similarities within a language AFAIK rather than between different languages. I'll need to read some more to provide comments about translation / language similarities & word embedding)

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?

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.

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).

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

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? "

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

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.

Quick try at a different approach:

There seems to be contradictions in your reasoning. Per your argument "the Singularity" does not exist, only some approximation of it.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

If the walls have enough thickness or suitable material so that there is absolutely no interaction with the outside, is the drive still working? Also please have a look at my post regarding Newton above, feel free to ask questions if if is unclear.

No problem, we can do a simple analysis without those details! Here is a simple illustration. The white box contains the thruster and it's power source*. For further simplification the box is put into space far from any gravitational forces; no external force acts on the box. We can then neglect friction, gravitation, strain due to cables etc. According to Newton the box motion is described by the equation F=ma where F is an external force acting on the box, m is the mass and a is acceleration. If I understand your claim correctly the thruster inside the box will, in this scenario, accelerate the box? According to Newton if the external force is F=0 it follows that a=0 and the center of mass of the box will not move, no matter how the internals of the box and the internal forces are organised. This simplified picture assumes that the box is ideally sealed; there is no exhaust**, radiation or any other interaction. The description implies new physics beyond what is currently known. *) Assuming the thruster requires electricity the box contains a large enough battery fo a short test. We do not need to go into any engineering issues for that at this time. **) An exhaust implies it works as a rocket

Ok! Thanks for clarifying. Can you write the basic equations of motion for the system? If I understan it correctly there is a device (trolley + thruster) that accelerates (acceleration a>0) without external force (Force F=0). If the device has mass m that means that equation F=ma does not hold. Please clarify if I've misinterpreted the setup. A picture may help, no need to expose the internals of the device, just a box showing it in isolation and what force (if any) that ar involved.

As far as I can tell your description also applies to an electric car or an electric train. If that is true then there is (1) an error in the measurement, (2) some external force not accounted for or, far less likely, (3) new physics on a very fundamental level. There needs to be a lot of evidence to consider the 3rd alternative. That explanation seem incompatible with the laws of physics; Newton's laws does not allow that to happen.

The article I quoted was a clarification of a common misconception Your opening post is about missing baryon problem. Because solving missing baryon problem means finding the baryons in standard Lambda-CDM model of cosmology, where the total mass–energy of the universe contains 5% ordinary matter and energy. Thus, dark energy plus dark matter constitute the other 95% of total mass–energy content. As far as I can tell your article speaks of missing pieces of the 5%. That means your speculation/discussion about dark matter does not apply to the results in the article.

I used Gravity Simulator available at testtubegames .com*, it did not require me to download anything or do a registration. Google for "gravitation simulation online" or "Gravity simulator sandbox online" for various alternatives. That is not possible in these kind of simulations as far as I know since celestial bodies will always mutually attract one another. It sounds like you wish to try something else than gravity; if so you may require a custom model. *) Disclaimer: I have not done any check of the quality of this site or used any other content than the simulator.

Not sure I understand but here is a quick simulation I created using an online tool, It's purpose is to briefly illustrate the dynamics mentioned by other members. There are three stars of identical mass; the top one having two planets to illustrate a "solar system" and the bottom two stars are acting as "gravity wells". Initially the planets are moving while the three stars are at rest relative to one another. Note that the system is not stable. Also note that this is not an attempt at presenting a realistic or existing configuration of celestial bodies. clip3.mp4 In this specific case one planet is ejected from the system while the other is beginning to orbit around one of the gravity wells. A small change in initial setting would have impact on the system's development.