Ghideon

What is it that begins? The same cat* put in the same box multiple times? Multiple cats put in the same box at the same time? The same cat affected by multiple events at different times? Other? Your description lacks detail. *) I have some basic knowledge of Schrödinger and the cat but not about multiple beginnings.

Just trying to catch up; need some help. To me it looks like: [math]F = ma = v_{e} \frac{dm}{dt}[/math] means "force F on the rocket comes from the thrust given by the mass of the fuel exiting the rocket each second". OK I get that*. But what is [math]ma[/math] in the middle actually physically describing in this case? Mass m and acceleration a is not input to the equation, free to have any value, but a result? To me [math]ma[/math] in [math]F = ma = v_{e} \frac{dm}{dt}[/math] looks like they say: given an exhaust velocity [math]v_{e}[/math] and the time derivate of mass exiting the rocket [math]\frac{dm}{dt}[/math] we can calculate what acceleration [math]a[/math] that thrust would give to a rocket with a fixed mass m. OR we could calculate the mass m that a rocket has to have, to be able to accelerate at acceleration=a given the thrust [math]v_{e} \frac{dm}{dt}[/math]. I'm fully aware of Newton's equations and a few basic formulas for rockets but I try to find what you are stating in this specific case, to be able to understand the claimed issue with relativity and take part in the discussion. *) I hope, otherwise my question is invalid.

Missing a "t" after [math]ma \Delta[/math]? [math]\Delta p=m \Delta v=ma \Delta t=Fnet \Delta t [/math]

That does not explain what multiple beginnings are? What is it that begins? When does it begin? How far apart in time are these beginnings? Discussing this could be interesting but more details are required.

What are multiple beginnings?

I see no multiple time dimensions in your last post, did you abandon that idea?

Ernest Rutherford did not say "it should be possible for a barmaid to understand the laws of physics regardless of how invalid the explanation is". Ernest Rutherford would probably have said that laws of physics does not work the way your explanation claims.

Enthusiasm for science is good! But there are some issues with your current approach. Just an advice, the statements above is not the best way to be successful within science. It may still of course be possible, but it will be so much harder than it has to be. I can't say, don't have sufficient knowledge of this subject Second advice; I think that trying to make progress within relativity without a good understanding of, and rigorous treatment of frames of reference actually is impossible. You could start learning about these topics by asking questions here on the forum.

In what valid frame of reference is that time measured?

2x3=6 6/4=1.5 Idea: If doses can be stored, mix contents of three capsules and split the content in four parts; gives you four doses.

I think you missed my post regarding multiple time dimensions. Here is a shorter version for you: As you introduce new time dimensions you need to start from scratch. You need to redefine photons, atoms, electrons and all other particles. General and special relativity needs to be replaced. You cannot use additional time dimensions to explain concepts that requires exactly one time dimension. With multiple time dimensions there exists no photons*. And no atoms exists to create double slits from. Redefining physics is a huge task, but new models have emerged in the past so it is possible that future discoveries will change our current theories. You could begin by reading my analysis above; focus more on science than on other members diplomas Your style of discussion does not add credibility to your ideas. My earlier statements applies to atomic nuclei as well. *) As defined in current models. There are speculations about other possibilities in other possible universes and/or at very early times. I do not know of mainstream evidence supporting such ideas.

A dynamo is a good start and would probably be my first choice for a cheap setup. I guess it is a dynamo intended for bikes? Those usually works well even in rain which makes it easier since water is involved in your experiment. A good start is to split the task in subtasks if you have not done so already. Like 1: Running water through some piping 2: Some device that will rotate in water and turn the dynamo 3: Dynamo connected to something showing that electricity is produced. 1: Do you have access to some pipe where you can pour water? 2: This will be some kind of simple wheel that can be attached to the dynamo. 3: Do you have the equipment to make the dynamo produce electricity if you power it by hand? You could use a few cables and a bike light or the lightbulb for a bike. The above points hopefully triggers some ideas. In case you get stuck on the function or connection of the dynamo, a picture or reference would be useful.

What have you tried so far? Do you have a sketch of an idea? (Homework help = I don't give all details)

No. (Check the mod note of those threads) Discussing these aspects of our universe is interesting but your analogies are not useful. You need to provide arguments and evidence; where and how are the currently used and verified models incorrect? Analogies are not useful. Out of curiosity I did some more reading about how multiple time dimension causes trouble in physics. This picture from wikipedia is interesting, let's investigate further: It can be found in https://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.pdf, a paper discussing both temporal and spatial dimensions. From there we can move on to one of the references; https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1119/1.1976386 that focuses on some evidence against the possibility of multiple time dimensions. Conclusion in that article is that particles would be unstable: There are several arguments, one is from particle decay. Particle decay is the spontaneous process of one unstable subatomic particle transforming into multiple other particles. The particles created in this process (the final state) must each be less massive than the original, although the total invariant mass of the system must be conserved*. If multiple time dimensions exists the article states that particles would not be restricted to decay into less massive particles. Particles could decay in ways not possible in our universe: I'm posting this just to show one aspect of how deep and fundamental changes an idea of multiple time dimensions requires. (Explaining all aspects of the articles argumentation about geodesics and Minkowski spacetime here is out of scope and not necessary I think) *) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_decay

What are these three time dimensions you mention? What is your definition of frequency when there are multiple time dimensions? What does the two extra time dimensions explain?

I cleared out some junk and stumbled upon an early attempt at doing “science” with math and observations to get some result. I used a cheap monocular to project a partial eclipse on a paper, the goal was to measure how much of the sun that was covered. I remember getting help with the math for intersecting circles, we had not done such geometry (yet) in school. Do you have any early memories from attempting something scientific? A fun aspect of this little experiment is that I think one can get decent precision even with cheap equipment. In the age of internet I might try to locate data* from this event and see what the real value was. But my skills at observational data administration seems to have been inadequate at that time . I have found no trace of when in the 90's the observation was made. *) I think time and date .com could be used for this.

I’m just trying to guess what the core of your idea is. My experience from encryption and communication is insufficient to dechipher your descriptions. Are you trying to store all possible combinations of data that can be transfered, one copy at each computer taking part in the communication? And then transfer a reference to pre-stored data rather than transfering the data? I’ll comment more once the idea is explained.

Most likely they will not be interested, but post the details here on the forum and I will have a look.

I think you are using different links, small letter "l" vs large letter "I": Top one works.

Interesting suggestions, but I can’t see how to make it work with the geometry. Big Bang was ”everywhere”, an earlier Big bang would not surround us. How would a second Big bang produce the same result at every location? (short answer, lack of time right now)

Why do you think the magnetic field is constant along the cable B if the pulse is so short that it is causally disconnected from the wire A? Please provide evidence that F = I x L x B is relevant for such short pulses and that the force can occur at cable B without having a counter force on cable A as you seem to suggest.

Does that mean that new physical formulas are required? Or that you believe there are no experiments done that resembles your idea? No. You have an idea requiring ultra short EMPs between wires. The pulses described are so short that the time for current running along the length of the wire might need to be addressed*. Please provide some evidence that F = I x L x B is applicable for such a short pulse. *) I think @swansont pointed this out already

That is what you are saying, not what the references are saying. You have not yet posted a reference supporting your usage of force formula for EMP.

The part above is not part of the reference you posted. It is something you added. Provide references for your claim of a ”detached force”, measured in newtons.

No. I talk about the momentum of particles and radiation. You have disregarded the only thing that could possibly create a tiny inefficient thrust; the momentum of particles and radiation. You seem to replace that with an invalid application of F = I x L x B, based on some concept of a "detected force" without reference. You try to find a way to get more thrust from magnetics than from the momentum of the asymmetrically escaping radiation, resulting in unsupported speculations about concepts that seems not to exist. Show a reference where force (measured in newtons) is detached.