Ghideon

Or Which one is it? I have read you material several times. First statement in chapter III is That seems to refer to chapter II, a chapter that you now say does not matter. Maybe you could edit the material so it makes sense instead of repeating the request that it should be read over and over?

I think that differs from country to country. AFAIK young individuals has the right by law to be able affect her government, before being old enough to vote. May these kind of differences may be one contributing factor to different age related reactions in this case?

No file is available. I'll comment on what is available at this time. The header seems to imply a perpetual motion device, seems confirmed by: Then no analysis is really needed. Applying currently available physical theories will result in confirmation that the device is not an over unity device or perpetual motion device. That is already known. But it could be interesting to analyse the device just to show what makes this specific device fail to run forever and what mistakes that may have caused such claims. So the question, in case the non existent file claims perpetual motion, is: What new physics beyond Newton, Einstein and others have been discovered, that allows construction of a perpetual motion / over unit device?

It sounds like @MPMin wants to have one complete model describing every aspect of magnetism from time t=0 when the power is turned on until some time later when a current have been steady for an extended amount of time and any transients, radiation, photons etc are no longer part of the equations. I have this feeling that the correct question may not have been asked (yet). I’ll try formulating something, in an attempt to bring the discussion forward: -Is there a model that describes the mass of a magnetic field, for both steady and transient situations? -What concepts do one need to study to understand such model(s) of magnetic fields and their physical implications? (Physical implications could for instance be radiation pressure, EMPs, Lorentz force.) -Are there related concepts one need to study? (For instance mass energy equivalence, wave particle duality, electrical fields, photons, electrons...) I have some basic knowledge of electrical calculations and transients and steady situations were mostly treated separately using different formulas. There was normally no need to care about transients in a simple DC circuit with a few resistors and batteries in steady state. And an antenna calculation did not normally need to account for the momentum of photons. There were different equations for different applications. Ohms law was for instance not so useful to predict radiation pressure on a solar sail but that did not prevent us from using ohms law to make predictions where it applied. I do not know what model that would answer the original question in this thread but the discussion seems to run in a loop going from steady unchanging concepts to dynamic and transients and then back. MPMin you seems to want one complete (and therefore maybe complicated) model rather than separate answers to each question about different concepts related to magnetism? Members try to give detailed and correct answer of each question and you seem to try to bring the answers over to situations where they do not apply.

Repeating it does not make it any clearar. I have tried various ways to get a clear picture what the idea is so it can be investigated with more rigor. If the images I posted are correct, say so. If they are not correctly showing your statments please provide some other description than a repetition. Maybe you can supply a picture?

Ok. But then the philosophical part you create must make sense and not contradict what is already modelled mathematically and experimentally confirmed. I'm trying to find out what you actually claim to be similarities between gravity and charge. Here are two pictures, one for each statement: (Two different masses and gravitation from a third, large body) Does the pictures show what you intend to say?

My bad, you are correct, I missed that for some reason. I tried to find a formula by the name OP stated: "gravitational binding energy".

I am unable to find the formula you posted. Your formula: Trying English references i find: Nuclear binding energy*: The mass defect of a nucleus represents the amount of mass equivalent to the binding energy of the nucleus (E=mc2), which is the difference between the mass of a nucleus and the sum of the individual masses of the nucleons of which it is composed. Gravitational binding energy**: is the minimum energy that must be added to a system for the system to cease being in a gravitationally bound state: The third term in your equation does not look like gravitational binding energy above. Is the formula you provided invented by you? Can you show some evidence or reference that Nuclear binding energy is applicable to the masses in a system where Gravitational binding energy dominates? *) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_binding_energy **) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_binding_energy

Can you provide a reference for the formula? What evidence is there that negative mass exists?

How many bodies does the description above include? Two different bodies under influence of the gravity of a third?

Thanks for posting material allowing for discussion of the idea. Here are some initial notes and questions: Where does that formula come from? What is the evidence that mass will become negative when distance, R, is small? It is not obvious that two negative masses will attract each other: Source wikipedia/Negative_mass. Paper from 1957: http://www.edition-open-sources.org/sources/5/24/index.html

Post the material required to discuss the topic here on the forum please.

You could start by providing the equation you use for each of the following two statements: I suppose equations from mainstream theories can be used here?

I got it from trying to understand your description. And since it is tricky to understand it I provided math to highlight possible misunderstandings. Can you provide an explanation that includes the math required to show how your idea works?

So the idea is that consumption of matter by black holes drives expansion of the universe. During the reverse process does the black holes, according to you, spit out the matter again? That does not sound like the black holes described by the current models. What model of black holes are you using?

Who makes that argument? Is that something scientists use as argument for, or against, a theory? Observations and experimental evidence supports the mainframe theory of relativity making the theory the best there is at this point in time, within its area of applicability. And we already know that the theory does not correctly describe some concepts. As for the rest, I'll try to comment when having had time to read it properly.

Again: You have changed from |p| to p. Why? Is it relevant? And isn't the equation above based on the derivation @swansont already found an error in? Today we have already lost momentum. Because no definitions are provided this discussion seems to be going nowhere.

Nothing of the above answer seem to relate the scientific definition of time. I'm not asking about various calculations of time. Given a speed and a distance i can calculate the time it took to travel the distance (in reality or virtual reality). It does not change the definition of time itself. That looks dimensionally correct. I think I misread the formatting above, the derivation in the follow-up post was easier to follow. You have changed from |p| to p. Why? Does the equation make sense physically? You have moved various terms around, what does the equation describe? You stated: For a motionless object (I guess that means a stationary object in our frame of reference) isn't p=0 and dx=0? So for a stationary object the equation doesn't apply?

Ok, so the right side of the equation seems to be (energy * distance)/(momentum * momentum * speed * speed). Standard dimensions:* How is that compatible with the left side of the equation that is time? *) Image from WolframAlpha

True! Your answer inspired me to read more and to slightly modify the original question into: Is evolution chaotic? Or, is there evidence that it prediction is impossible to model? Result: I found an interesting paper* discussing OPs questions. (bold by me) That seems to support prediction is not likely possible. But then: I wonder if the example provided by @Moontanman falls into the second category? Predictability is increased and possible due to the strong forces from fishing. *) More at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5958977/#__ffn_sectitle. Plenty of references are listed, and as far as I can see all of them are available online, but some may be behind paywall. I do not possess the knowledge to evaluate the rigidity or correctness of the paper but it contains lots of interesting aspects and discussion connected to OPs question. I recommend taking a look at it.

I agree. Examples just to illustrate: If temperatures drop there are several very different potential successful outcomes: -Adopt and stay; Thicker fur or stay underground in the winter for instance. -Migrate permanently to warmer areas -Move each season (migrating birds). It could be hard even to model/predict what possible pathways there are. And even harder to find what parameters of today affects the future pathway. Or know what mutation or (small) change that would favour a completely different pathway.

No. Getting to an earlier time is not possible. What is it that you derived? From your reference backtothefuture.fandom.com/wiki/Space-time_continuum: Since the DeLorean time machine is fiction, it's behaviour or consequences of operation does not, and is not required, to match what is observed in mainstream science. I would not use it as a starting point to derive things regarding changes to current physics. The Phillipp Frank quote states Is the quote part of an idea or an example of a bad or confusing idea? What is the actual idea in this topic? How do one fall through spacetime?

I posted [math] \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty } |h-t|\rightarrow \infty[/math] meaning the more times you toss a fair coin the larger the probability that there will be a large difference between number of heads and tails. You replied: Your statement is incorrect, I posted the output of a computer program output to highlight that. Do we need to defend mainstream math and science in the mainstream section? Anyway, here is another attempt. This time all combinations are used, not a random selection. As example, lets use a case with a fair coin thrown 32 times. I use 32 as an initial example since it gives a reasonably large number of possible outcomes but not more than could be analysed in full on a regular computer if required. The list below shows how many combinations there exists of the different outcomes. For instance there is only one way to get 32 heads in 32 throws, that is to throw 32 heads in a row. 31 heads and one tail could be thrown in 32 different ways; the single tail could be any one of the 32 throws. heads tails combinations 32 0 1 31 1 32 30 2 496 29 3 4960 28 4 35960 27 5 201376 26 6 906192 25 7 3365856 24 8 10518300 23 9 28048800 22 10 64512240 21 11 129024480 20 12 225792840 19 13 347373600 18 14 471435600 17 15 565722720 16 16 601080390 15 17 565722720 14 18 471435600 13 19 347373600 12 20 225792840 11 21 129024480 10 22 64512240 9 23 28048800 8 24 10518300 7 25 3365856 6 26 906192 5 27 201376 4 28 35960 3 29 4960 2 30 496 1 31 32 0 32 1 4294967296 We see that the most common possible outcome is 16 heads and 16 tails, that is 601080390 of 4294967296. As an example; let's take a closer look at the number of combinations surrounding 16 of each: 19 13 347373600 18 14 471435600 17 15 565722720 16 16 601080390 15 17 565722720 14 18 471435600 13 19 347373600 Each of the 4294967296 combinations have the same probability to be thrown. If we sum the possible outcome of for instance 18 heads, 17 heads, 15 heads and 14 heads we get 2074316640, that is more than the 601080390 possible outcomes that have exactly 16 heads and 16 tails. Checking one of them in more detail: 17 heads 15 tails and 15 heads 17 tails have the same number of possible combinations. So the probability of throwing 17 heads 15 tails or 15 heads 17 tails is the same. That means that on average, when one of the equally probable 17 heads 15 tails or 15 heads 17 tails is thrown, the number of heads will be 16. But |heads-tails| (absolute difference) will be |17-15|=2 or |15-17|=2. Questions: If throwing coin 32 times, counting all possible outcomes what is the probability of getting exactly 16 of each compared to not getting exactly 16 of each? If counting all the possible outcomes, what will it tell us about the probability of throwing heads? If throwing a coin 32 times over and over, what would be the average of |heads-tails| (absolute difference)? Hint: it will not be 0 as you keep claiming. If increasing number of throws how will it affect average of |heads-tails|? Hint: it will not approach zero as you keep claiming. Is the above a feasible approach according to your question regarding using "all combinations"? Should we do some calculations and compare with simulations? I'm not going to put time into a scenario if you are going to reject it anyway, so this post is the first in a possible sequence.

Is this car idea serious? A subcompact car* has an interior volume of 2,405–2,830 liters (engine compartment, tires etc excluded) A Passenger cars compact* (PC/C) weights 1100 kg–1360 kg. So a regular car will float if sealed. Your idea is to build a car that weighs about 2 to 3 times more than a standard car does? And then make it fly by using four small propellers? From a commercial point of view; how is the fuel economy for such a vehicle if it is even physically possible? Example as comparison: R44 Police Helicopter has a maximum gross weight 1134 kg**. You propose a vehicle that is 2-3 times heavier than that helicopter and make it fly by using four 17 inch propellers. Second example: A commercial drone fitted with 21-inch propellers weights approximately maximum 15 kg*** at takeoff. *) There are different classifications; examples used to illustrate taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_size_class **) https://robinsonheli.com/r44-police-helicopter-specifications/ ***) Example: https://www.dji.com/matrice600/info#faq

Ok. You have been given plenty of answers based on mainstream science. You keep rejecting these answers for some reason. I wanted to know what to base answers on, some kind of common base that would be acceptable. I'll read through the posts again and see if I find some alternate way of explaining.