Ghideon

Why did you introduce subquarks in this thread? Can we safely assume that subquarks are an irrelevant addition you made?

Why did you introduce subquarks in the thread? How is it relevant and connected to your speculation in this thread?

Can you define standing wave and wavelength in this context? What coordinates are you using? Universe is expanding, galaxy clusters are moving when time scales are hundreds of million years.

Then please answer my question, so I may have something worth analyzing: why did you introduce subquarks in the thread? How was it relevant?

Sorry, that is not how this forum works. Indeed I do homework from time to time, in much less speculative and more productive areas of science.

Then why did you introduce subquarks in the thread? How was it relevant? It does not improve the credibility of the speculations you provide regarding light.

I don't think your style of discussion works well on this forum. It may be successful in other contexts. bold by me: I don't think the concept of quarks was introduced until much later.

This one? http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/~teviet/Waves/empulse.html

But that is already known? Here is an attempt at a short comment using math*: Newton: [math] \lim_{r \rightarrow \infty } G\frac{ m_{1} m_{2} }{ r^{2} }=0[/math] At infinitely large distance the gravitational force is infinitely small. Any change will happen in an infinitely short time. GR: It takes an infinite time for a gravitational wave to reach infinite distance and the wave will be infinitely weak. I do not possess the knowledge to write down the correct math for GR. What new discovery are you proposing? How does your mathematical explanation look? *) Not necessarily mathematically formally correct, hopefully correct enough to make a point.

I tried to look into the math of this, starting with references to the Coriolis formula [math] \frac{4A \Omega}{c^{2} } [/math]. I didn't find it connected to Coriolis but rather Sagnac, exception was for instance some references with content of questionable scientific quality. Example: www.theflatearthsociety.org It doesn't look like the Global/Generalized Sagnac Effect Formula is backed up by scientific evidence.

Thanks for the clarification. As I said, I misinterpreted the idea, I thought I should look for something new. Bold by me: I failed to see that speed of propagation of gravity was part of or required in the above descriptions. Result is, as others have already said, that nothing new has been presented. Can you please show what is new and not already included in existing mainstream physics?

Thanks! But I think I know how mainstream physics work in this regard. But I see that my question was very unclear! My question was not regarding the speed of propagation but what is happening at a later time, according the idea in OP. I interpreted OP as if the propagation would stop at some distance;”suddenly drop to zero”. So when measuring the field later, there would, according to OP, be a distance where Fields would go from some small value to zero in a sudden step. Sorry for the confusion.

I suppose the above comment is in addition to the initial one statement below; it applies to coulomb's law? Which means per your idea that beyond a certain range magnetic fields and electrical fields suddenly must drop to zero? Can you provide references or evidence?

What is this trying to prove? Some kind of luminiferous ether theory?

Mass per unit volume is known as density, often denoted by letter [math]\rho[/math]. Mass, density and volume is related: [math]\rho=\frac{m}{V}[/math]. Since copper has [math]\rho=8930 kg/m^{3}[/math] that equals [math]\rho=8.930 kg/dm^{3}[/math]. Note that [math]1dm^{3}=1Liter[/math]. So, given the mass of copper you should be able to calculate the volume of copper which equals the volume of water that is displaced. Note that Solid or liquid does not matter, the concept of volume is the same. Here is a picture of measurement of volume by displacement. The amount by which the liquid rises in the cylinder is equal to the volume of the solid rock. (wikipedia/Displacement_(fluid) )

Good point. Then, I suppose, that industry also included Radiocarbon dating equipment, to be able to supply organic material of correct age to support the modified prehistory.

That number doesn't seem quite right. Compare a volume of 45.48 liters of solid copper with the mass you calculated, what does that show? You might need to show the calculations you have done so far, that would allow for better hints about how to proceed.

Next hint: what volume of a piece of copper would have that specific mass? Could that volume help you find out how much water that is displaced? Note; I'm assuming a solid piece of copper, not a hollow sphere or similar. (You might want to check the rounding of the intermediate steps depending on the precision required in the final answer)

Let's try this hint, in the form of a question: What mass would make the scale show 380 N?

Yes, calculating the volume of the piece of copper is a good start!

As far as I know it is ok to post an answer ones own question in homework section, but it might be best to consult the rules first.

Ok! If you try to use the numbers in the task in the buoyant force formula, what does it look like? It might help to take a look at the units.

I think you would have to show evidence that the device actually have the effects you claim before presenting further ideas based on that device.

Not necessarily, but at least enough to understand what the idea is. Initial question: and Why are distances of galactic cluster walls connected to geological cycles? What evidence exists for that claim?

Initial questions to start a discussion: -Have you solved similar problems where solids are (partially) submerged in water? -Are you familiar with Archimedes' principle? It might also help to draw a picture.