Ghideon

When measuring the speed of light in vacuum the speed is found to be invariant. You suggest that those measurements are incorrect?

? And where did the forces come from? AddRelativeForce?

Not sure what you are asking for. The physics engine does deliberately to allow you to model things that does not match the laws of physics. If a reaction-less drive is modeled in Unity3D it will not argue back with opinion, it will work flawlessly. Comparison: Lets say you have one single object in the engine, a ball with mass m Apply AddRelativeForce() to that ball in a script. Does the ball accelerate?

If you believe the above matches observations and relativity (SR and GR) and other laws of physics, can you please provide some evidence that can be investigated? (Your quotation sees off in the last post. I did not state all of those comments)

In the script? Or in reality?

What is it that generates F2? The red arrow is possible in Unity3D by using AddRelativeForce. It is not possible in reality for such a force appear out of nowhere.

Relatively stationary according to whom? Stationary in what frame of reference? I could say that I move and receive energy at some rate or that the emitter moves and transmits energy at some rate. What happens when you apply the relativity theories from the mainstream physics, that predicts effects and matches observations?

I will not try to answer this, just add some observation. The question seems to be more about the local conditions of the house than about the power board supply. Wiring standards will differ from country to country and there may be different local regulations.

I looked at the script and I ask you. Please explain where and how the equal and opposite forces are applied. Ok. a=a is false below, there are different a's?

Tha article in your opening post refer to data from 2019. That seems pretty recent.

Yes, you missed to read and understand my first post in this thread. A: 13.8 is the current number. B: 9.7 billion years or as old as 19.5 billion years a 30 years old estimate. The article describes a historical situation regarding consensus at the time they launched Hubble. Due to scientific progress age of the universe estimates have improved. The article can still correctly describe the consensus at the time Hubble was launched.

The article is correct*. *) It's a pop-sci article describing a historical situation regarding consensus at the time they launched Hubble. I've not crosschecked against peer review papers and I do not consider that necessary

The current measurement of the age of the universe is around 13.8 billion years*. *) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe lists various sources for the data and estimated errors

Bold by me The Hubble Space Telescope was launched into low Earth orbit in 1990 and remains in operation. Maybe progress have been made during the 30 years? I'll try to get some time to read the article and see what else you have misunderstood. edit I think you misinterpreted most of the article, I suggest you give it another try.

But what has that to do with a variable speed of light in vacuum? (I see that your post was post no 5 on first day, so I'll check for answers tomorrow.)

Hello. Ok. Does that mean that per your idea, that blue shifted light is traveling at a speed faster than c? How does your idea work for explaining observed wavelength of moving emitters and detectors of single photon?

Ok, so momentum is conserved. What is it that generates the forces? How does the complete system look like? You seem to make claims about some system, composed of some parts. But you never tell about the boundaries of the system or what external systems that interact with the system you try to model. Have you just misunderstood the physics engine? Maybe it does allow your script to apply a force to an object, without having to bother about where such a force would come from in reality? In the real wold there is no F1 or F2 just appearing and staring to push things. But in a simulation such forces are possible. edit: I looked at your script, it contains "addRelativeForce". I just checked the manual briefly, it seems like you can apply a force that does not have an equal an opposite counterforce. That is perfectly fine in a game and in a simulation but it does not match reality. Maybe that is the error you are looking for? Your math by the way seems wrong. You seem to claim that 1kg=2kg. Typo maybe?

OP is mixing content from another thread that have magnetics https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/121593-center-of-mass-translation/?tab=comments#comment-1136014 I'm confused as well. I feel the need for a craft beer. And then some sleep.

Does that imply conservation of momentum or not?

Here is an honest suggestion based on what I understand about the claims and the models: Option 1: 1a: Study basic physics and how the current laws works. You will find how and why your current attempts are doomed according to known physics. 1b: Continue to pursue enough skills and knowledge to make scientific progress in some area of physics. Option 2: 2a: Continue detailed attempts as the ones above. All attempts will fail, all ideas rejected and you will maybe not understand how and why. 2b: repeat 2a Personally I claim to be at step 1a. I will not pursue 1b.

That does not seem to have much to do with the other stuff in this thread.

If the behaviour in the physics engine deviates from what's observed in reality then yes, the model in the physics engine is flawed. The above hold generally as I tried to show you above. Messing with details (number of masses for instance) does not change anything.

Good Idea. But pointless in this case; any observed behaviour outside the mainstream will be claimed to be evidence of new physics just as in the flawed 3D model. Not measurement errors, unforeseen side effects, precision issues ... Shorter and more efficient statement than mine (as usual, I would say ... )

Let's not go into details then. We try address the basic premise that In my opinion is flawed. Here is an abstract way of (trying to) state the idea: 1: You have some set of physical laws that predicts a behaviour. The laws have been tested in lots of circumstances and observed to correctly describe physical systems. There is overwhelming evidence that the laws, within the area they apply in, correctly predicts a behaviour. (Conservation of momentum is an example of such a law.) 2: You have a mathematic model of some of the physical laws. The mathematic model, implemented in software, allow you to predict behaviour of some physical system. 3: A Physical system is implemented in the software and the systems' behaviour is observed in the model and in reality. 4: The behaviour does not match what is predicted by the set of laws in 1 and what is observed in reality. (Example: let's say momentum conservation is broken according to the observed behaviour in the software) Laws in step 1 are already supported by evidence. That support can never be removed by any results from a simulation, based on mathematical model of the laws. If the model in 2 is completely 100% correct then the software and any real experiment will have the same behaviour. If the laws in 1 is incorrect and the model is 100% correctly modelling the flawed laws the software would still be wrong. The reality does not change to follow the software's failed prediction that resulted from a failed law. You seem to make a logical error on an abstract level that software can change the outcome of "reality". That does not happen. If a model does not predict observers behaviour the model is wrong. Reality does not have to, and will not, adopt. (edit:) Ok. That seems to support my analysis above. You have an invalid model of physical reality. Claiming that reality will must change according to your flawed physics is not logic.

I have not downloaded the software (I'm not running the same OS so it would not be evidence of anything regarding errors) As a comparison, here is a screenshot of an object hovering in a way that is not possible in reality and not intended in the modelled situation (a game). It is based on same engine as used in OP. Question: A: Is that according, to you, possible evidence that levitation is possible in reality? B: support for @Strange's point that there are software issues?