Ghideon

Hello. can you show a calculation of the energy required to run the machine compared to the energy it generates? Intuition says there will be no net power generated. (But I may have misinterpreted the principle behind the devices)

Good point. I guess the author of the article meant one moment from a cosmological perspective. From the paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.05068.pdf

"there one minute gone the next". Since the observations that were compared could be performed decades apart the vanishing objects could have dimmed over several years or moved to another location. Not necessarily disappeared from one minute to the next as a fick of a switch.

That is not how I interpret the article. It says the stars are missing from data that dates back to the 1950s. https://ednews.net/en/news/sience/408284-researchers-have-identified-100-mysteriously-disappeared-stars-in-night-sky I found the following passage interesting, it's from the abstract for the paper that the above article is based upon. The missing stars seems to have certain properties. I do not know what this implies (yet). Source https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/ab570f I might get time to read the paper, think it's this one: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.05068.pdf

Relying on traditional mail to gain more information about infections could work. Maybe you wish to compare your ideas against current scientific initiatives? Here is an example, an article about a test running this week. Some short extracts: Source: https://www.kth.se/en/aktuellt/nyheter/1-000-stockholmare-testas-for-corona-i-pask-1.973722. Note that in this case the goal is not to have the result delivered immediately to the individual. Here is a link to a 2016 article about the research that the above test is based on. I did not find an english version, hopefully google translate can help if required. https://www.kth.se/aktuellt/nyheter/snabbare-blodprov-ger-effektivare-och-billigare-sjukvard-1.668762

Posting code as a screenshot so that the code have be retyped manually into an editor by all members interested in the code's behaviours is not the best way to communicate. Even with those fluent in the code. (I guess OP identified issues with the post and removed it, this is fine, but forgot to remove the picture.)

Cost. Most auxiliary equipment in cars are (still) designed for 12V. And an additional 12V lead-acid is cheaper than alernatives. Alternatives are for instance custom components or a system to route electricity from the Li-ion batteries to accessories that needs power when car is not (actively) used.

No. So you may sort the following comment in a category of your liking. Lead acid batteries have better performance in cold weather. I have not found enough sources for CCA or low temperature performance to provide automotive specific references. How is the performance of Schumacher SL 1315 if the device is left in -20 degrees Celsius for a day or two? Side note: The 2010 Porsche 911 had an option for lithium-ion but that car doesn't seem to be intended for regular use in winter conditions. https://jalopnik.com/2010-porsche-911-gt3-rs-track-ready-street-legal-and-5340633

There seems to be periods when these kind of spammers increase*. Do you mods wish us to report suspicious nonsense posts that looks like spammers trying to get a credible start, or should we wait until actual spam is posted? *) Thats of course a guess, I don't know how much crap that's auto-removed or deleted by moderators.

The "implicit factoring" is incorrect. I cannot help you repair your equations; there nothing working to build upon. The equations are incorrect beyond repair and needs to be replaced, preferably with mainstream equations available for this kind of physics. If you wish to learn about physics and the proper equations to be used you can start a thread in the mainstream sections, questions posted there usually gets good responses from members with knowledge. By the way, Markus' had compact way of telling you how you proposal is utterly wrong. I do not see any response from you.

The velocity* of an object is the rate of change of its position with respect to a frame of reference and is a function of time. You do not have one frame of reference. You put the label "speed" on something that is not a "speed". Enthusiasm about physics is a good thing! 👍 I wonder what your posts would look like if you spent some energy on learning instead of repeating? *) speed in this case is fine since there is no change in direction.

Ok. I've got plenty of explanations by reading the posts by other members. And their arguments hold when checked against, for instance, physics text books. This: And your descriptions and analogies implies you do not agree with light (of any frequency) to be propagating at c. And your name of the thread.

Your proposal is not working, for many reasons already stated. Here is an attempt at posting some hints regarding "definition" in case you are open for learning. Note: bold by me What is your new definition of speed? How does your new definition affect the measurement in first equation in the quote above? Are you trying to use two different definitions of speed at the same time, the standard definition and your own new definition? Your math is not just incompatible with physics of light and speed of light, it is incompatible with the concept of speed as stated by you. You need to tell the new definition of speed before incorporating it into an explanation of speed of light.

If the universe's expected lifetime is now 10% shorter than previous estimates it's still pretty far into the future. At least compared to my expected lifetime.

What supporting arguments would you like to provide? Repeating a flawed analogy is not enough. I guess some people thought that Special Relativity was "strange" when first presented . But more seriously; Einstein did not just wave his hands when he introduced his postulates and models, his mathematics are supported by observations.

Short answer: No. Nothing can travel faster than light* in vacuum. Trying to model the outcome of the chain of events above leads to paradoxes that I guess are not possible to resolve in the context of currently known physics. That have of course not prevented many writers from exploring such though experiments in fiction books and movies. I guess in the hypothetical/fiction case described above you could choose an outcome that suits you. He will watch the entire journey and since you get further and further away the light takes longer and longer to travel the distance from you to him. The light from you will be red-shifted. The person at earth will measure the time from your start to your death to be longer than it takes for you to do the journey. I think the following analogy** holds: An ambulance passes you and you hear the siren at a slightly lower pitch when the ambulance travels away from you. Let's assume you can hear the siren over a long distance. At the time the ambulance is 1 km away it shuts off the siren. You will hear the siren for another (approx) 3 seconds. *) according to all available mainstream data **) At large speeds and when incorporating light this analogy is not true, it is just an attempt to illustrate a delay

No. It raises the doubt why the change in measurement was not included in the rulebook in the first place. In a scientific approach in the analogy I guess the rules would be investigated, definitions tightened, equipment tuned or changed to incorporate the changing chest ot back measurements. Then there will be a re-run incorporating the new knowledge. But I don't think the scientists would redefine the concept of speed or velocity.

Bold by me: How is it more meaningful? A detailed answer may bring this discussion forward. I claim that it is not meaningful to characterize the speed of light as something that is invalid, as other members have already stated.

I have read your proposal a few times in this thread. Do you mind trying to really answer the questions and to address the objections stated? Your answers so far do not explain how your proposal could be correct.

Without investigating the internals of the engine, can we be sure that the engine applies the exact same force in exact opposite direction? (Floating point calculations, rounding of numbers, limited precision etc that adds up as the simulation runs) No. Math would also be ok. You could post questions in the mainstream sections, for instance computer help? I was thinking of bringing the discussion to a more abstract level, without the internal details about the 3D engine as a collaborative effort. Within the forum rules of course. Question; How would the phenomenon be described outside the physics engine, in reality? That allows us to check an implementation against the predictions from mainstream physics.

If the resulting model behaves in a way that is agains the laws of physics that could be a mistake or it could be a bug in the software. The claim that a Unity3D model can shift it's center of gravity? Yes I did read that. To elaborate we might need to discuss the setup on a more abstract level so that properties of the software does not get in the way. Ok? From what I understand of the engine, yes it can. But it does not have to. And correct setup does not guarantee a model that is true to a real situation. Not necessarily. It is hard to tell how the script behaves when the engine runs it. Example: Are the two AddRelativeForce calls below intended to be equal and opposite?

I don't think anyone intended suggested that perpetual motion was your purpose. It is just that it is possible to build a working* perpetual motion machine in Unity3d. And it is possible to build a reaction-less drive or some other nonsense by mistake since the software is intended to allow it. What does that mean? Should it be "shifts it's center of gravity"? (Downvote for critical questions in speculations section, that's a first ) *) Displaying perpetual motion inside software. Not

Hint 1: The shark moves parallel to the straight beach. Compare distance from lifeguard at time t=-0.5s and time t=0.5s. Does that validate or invalidate your proposal? Hint 2: Draw a picture of the situation and see if you proposal applies.

True. Let's name your object "O". True. In my opinion both are right. An object O pushed by a force in Unity3D seems to behave as Swansont states, it will gain momentum and behave pretty realistic within the limits of the physical model. There is zero total momentum when simulation starts and a non-zero total momentum at some time later; total momentum in the "universe" in the Unity3D model is not, and not designed to be, conserved. OP seems to argue that this lack of momentum conservation tells us something about physics outside the 3D software. Dagl1's suggestion is to model a complete little "universe" where there is zero momentum at time=0 and zero total momentum at any later time due to correctly modelled forces and counter forces. Sorry if this confuses the discussion further. But the question seems to directly address possible misunderstandings of OP regarding the modelling in the physics engine.

Did an external force move the center of mass? Did the little machine eject mass to propel itself?