Ghideon

Let's try something else. What objects can replace the word "human" in your definition and still give exactly the same results as you claim? Can "human" be replaced by "dog", "humanoid robot" or something else?

It seems like I do not share that view. I was curious about the posted idea and how someone would draw such conclusions about electromagnetism and as expected this thread contains no support for new scientific progress. But it was a good excuse to return to some books I have not touched for a while. (edit: I just found out that Bill Hayt and John Buck's Engineering Electromagnetics is updated and still in print)

You are wrong and you have stopped to say anything about physics so its just the relocation left. Which island have you selected? I asked for something supporting your claims or clarifying possible misunderstandings. The formulas and laws of physics in my books on electromechanical engineering seems to disagree with your statements and pictures.

What theoretical model and experimental results would you like me to present as motivation? It seems reasonable to assume some motivation is required (those invited to propose nominees are sent confidential nomination forms* so full insight is not available to me at this point). Also note that the rules for the Nobel Prize in Physics require that the significance of achievements being recognised has been "tested by time"; "deserving a Nobel prize" means my trip will take place approximately 2041 or later. *)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_in_Physics#Nomination_and_selection

Your claims and explanations seems to be in disagreement with current mainstream physics, so a supporting reference would have been helpful. That would require (a lot) more evidence than presented so far.

I would like to see a rigorous definition of "alternative weight" "alternative mass".

Can you provide a reference?

Let's try another point: "effortless" walking is a psychological effect, not physics, in this case. An experience of "effortless" walking is not an indicator that mass magically is reduced. An example of your flawed logic: Assume a well trained human A runs "effortlessly" at the same speed as a not so well trained human B. A and B has the same mass. The fact that B struggles to keep up with A does not mean that B have some unspecified "alternative mass", A and B have the same mass. B's struggle is more likely due to being less fit than A. Another example: After 10km of running I do not run effortless anymore. How much "alternative weight" have I gained according to your idea? Have you investigated the possibility that human experience "less effort" because human benefits from not having to feel like walking requires a lot of effort?

Today I learned about "tall poppy syndrome". According to Wikipedia*: Thanks @beecee Maybe related to (but not the same as) Law of Jante** ? I need to do some reading. *) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome **) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante

That got me thinking; maybe this helps OP: In the video below the lecturer finds the force exerted on the Achilles tendon when a person is standing on tip-toes. The video will guide you through a simple model of the foot and lower leg and apply basic mathematics and physics. Talking of archimedes; maybe OP can try standing on toe partially submerged in water and report back....

My main problem with this specific debate is the incoherent questions, unsupported claims and undefined concepts... ... add conspiracy tales to the list of issues.

I am curious about ideas about physics, that's why I entered this discussion. And a discussion requires some common ground for instance a common set of definitions or some current knowledge as a staring point. That seems to be out of reach in this case. (Don't try to tell me how I will argue regarding current ideas. Of course current mainstream is not "final", there will be progress. I'm currently working in computer science; progress, evaluating new good ideas and adaption to scientific progress is unavoidable.)

That seems like an attempt at describing something*. It is not a definition. *) It looks like a description of a phenomenon that simply does not exist.

How is “alternative mass” defined?

"Radiant matter" as described above is not connected to the magnetic monopoles in the 2009 experiment* and will not be part of an explanation of the possible violation of LU mentioned in this thread. Does that answer your "what if" question? Nothing moves faster that the speed of light in vacuum so I guess Tesla was wrong in this case. Or maybe the book is not drawing correct conclusions from Tesla's work. Or it is a work of fiction, it does not describe something that can be reproduced. *)https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-09/haog-mmd090209.php

If I understand your claim correctly: 1: A person with a mass of 57kg could stand on their toes on a surface that would collapse under a force grater that 80N. 2: It follows that when I carry a person with mass 57kg and the person is standing on toe on my shoulders then I would be using 80N of force to support that persons weight and not 570N*. As the above is obviously not how physics works, can you provide a picture showing what you mean so misunderstandings can be sorted out? *) Approximating g=10 in this discussion

Ok, thanks for the reply! I'll read through the rest of the posts to see where my understanding is wrong. Hovering is not what I meant, but watching the feet continuously, including the brief moment while feet has passed event horizon and eyes have not.

None of your sources seems to define "radiant energy" or "wave of some fringe energy".

Ok. Please define " wave of some fringe energy". A toy knife will be useful within its area of applicability, as a toy or to spread mayo, even when better knifes are available. The toy knife does not suddenly stop working when new and better knives are created or discovered. Just as Standard Model will be useful when future progress with new theories adds to our knowledge.

It answers the what-if. SM will remain and extended. Or if you will, SM will be a low energy approximation of a new theory. A good analogy is the comparison with Newton->Relativity, also posted several times. If you are not happy with the answers, can you post the question in a clear and concise way without making claims? Just the question? I'll try again: A "true"* magnetic monopole would be a new elementary particle, and would violate Gauss's law for magnetism ∇⋅B = 0. A monopole of this kind has never been observed in experiments. If such a monopole was ever observed in an experiment, how would that affect the Gauss's law and the state of the standard model?** Is the above what you intended to ask? As for your comments regarding dogmas, elitism etc that is not by experience from scientific community. Any hint at new science beyond the current models or theories means an opportunity to get the Nobel prize and/or to be in the history books.

Sorry, no. Please provide a picture with the forces and their point of application. It sounds like you claim that the laws of physics as we know them are unable to predict the mechanical forces for a human standing on toes. More clarity is required to locate issues with measurements or possible misunderstanding. Newtonian physics have known limitations but in the context of this thread the laws of Newton are applicable.

I have read the post again and it is not clear which force you refer to. Please clarify your proposal, a picture with the forces may be helpful? Here is a quick example (my anatomy knowledge is limited; use picture as inspiration and not science facts) Maybe you mean the maximum force calves' muscles can exert as a force "A" in the picture but you seem to measure and discuss force "B? edit: Disclaimer; length of arrows A and B are not an indictor of magnitude of forces, the example picture is not intended to correctly display how force A relates to force B, it's just an illustration to help the discussion.

I think we have had this discussion already*. The forces are as predicted by physics. Please draw a simple diagram with the forces you are uncertain about so that we can clarify the situation and correct misunderstandings. I have assumed you mean the action/reaction forces floor<->person.If you wish to discuss forces in the foot we can probably do that using a simple model. *) https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/121169-massive-human-body-can-stand-on-its-weak-feet-toes/?tab=comments#comment-1130639

Your are affecting the ground with the force of your weight* and ground will push back with an equal and opposite force. Stating on your toes does not change that. Basic physics and something you can verify with a bathroom scale or a seesaw. *) m*g

If you enter a black hole feet first being able to see your feet would imply that photons move against gravity from beyond the event horizon to reach the eyes of the individual falling in. Unless I misunderstand the thought experiment that does not sound correct. Photons beyond event horizon can't travel in the direction away from the black hole's centre.