Ghideon

10 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

In short, the scientific endeavor will never be more than us trusting what is published in a scientific journal.

In short, is your opinion then, that we* have the same knowledge about how nature works now, as we had before we started to use scientific methods? 

*) we=the group of all human

21 hours ago, Strange said:

It goes back to Galileo

Thanks for noting that what I stated was unclear. I'll try to clarify: 
Newton introduced absolute space (and time) and discussed absolute velocity. 
Anyway, In the context of this topic and the diagrams posted, I got interested and found https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-theories/#4.2.1*. I haven't read all, but chapter 4 "Newton" and, more specific, chapter 4.2.1 "Absolute Space vs. Galilean Relativity" compares Galileo's, Newton's (and other's) views. 

*) I haven't searched for a second source yet. I can't make statements about the reliability of the source.

Hello, 

It is not rekommenderas to post only a link, please post details here on the forum.  

I was curious and clicked the link and found:

Quote

The law of conservation of angular momentum is fallacy

Maybe this was intended for the speculations section?

On 2018-11-03 at 10:19 PM, vanholten said:

If the photons move along with their light source

I've tried to read and understand the things addressed in this thread. To contribute I have to ask about movement* in this context; does moving light sources perform some kind of absolute** movement? By what mechanism do you distinguish a moving light source form a stationary one? The statement above seems to make sense only if a light source can move relative to some "absolute rest".

*) inertial motion; motion at uniform speed in a straight line, no acceleration.
**) I think Newton introduced the concept. Einsteins theories don't contain absolute movement.

(I've had limited time to respond for a couple of days and try to catch up, sorry if these points have been addressed already.)

36 minutes ago, vanholten said:

When I point a laser pen straight up, why should a photon at a light second away keep track of me?

The photon does not keep track. You have to keep moving at a constant speed to "stay under" the photon you did shoot straight up. Which is just another way of saying what @swansont said above. If you turn or brake the photons does not track you and obviously the apple does not track you either. 

An attempt to use an analogy with your equipment from above. Do not attempt this IRL, you may crash
-Ride the bicycle.
-With one hand, throw an apple straight up. and catch it again. (no wind or wobbling)
-With the other hand, point a laser pen straight up at the apple.  (no wobbling)

1: Why should photons miss the apple?

The above analogy does have limits; for instance that gravity affect light.

I think I now understand most parameters of the rhombus. The circles seem to be insignificant*.

On 2018-10-28 at 5:49 PM, vanholten said:

This diagram results from a theory concerning the universe.

Ok! The diagram seems to be based on basic concepts in SR, given the explanations so far. And I believe SR is indeed related to some aspects of the universe. So the above statement seems correct. 

Just to clarify, other posts imply that SR is not valid:

On 2018-10-28 at 12:13 PM, vanholten said:

For those reasons I think Special Relativity is no valid theory.

and

On 2018-10-28 at 3:41 PM, vanholten said:

To free our minds first we have to be aware that that SR is no valid theory.

The above statements seems to imply that the theory behind the diagram in this context is not SR. If so please describe, preferably in detail, what the theory is*.

1 hour ago, vanholten said:

https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/the-universe-is-not-infinite-and-it-is-shaped-like-a-soccer-ball/

I would prefer some more details to be able to comment. I haven't read enough about the topic to comment on that article. But while searching for more facts:

Quote

An apparent periodicity in the cosmic microwave background led to the suggestion, by Jean-Pierre Luminet of the Observatoire de Paris and colleagues, that the shape of the universe is a finite dodecahedron, attached to itself by each pair of opposite faces to form a Poincaré homology sphere.[2] During the following year, astronomers searched for more evidence to support this hypothesis but found none.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Pierre_Luminet#Timeline

*) I believe it had been quicker to figure this out if initial questions from @Strange had been answered.

2 hours ago, vanholten said:

Didn’t find the right page right away, but this side explains it.

The following page seems to have same formulas but less Sci-Fi:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy#Relativistic_kinetic_energy_of_rigid_bodies
 

I think I'm too slow to keep up with all the different aspects of this topic ...

22 hours ago, vanholten said:

Yes exactly

Ok! So we have:
-Formulas that are algebraic re-arrangement of the usual Lorentz transformation
-A picture with an alternative geometric representation of variables used in Lorentz transformation.

I tried to google this one:

On 2018-10-28 at 5:49 PM, vanholten said:

The kinetic energy supplement

No results found for "kinetic energy supplement".  Can you explain what kinetic energy supplement is? 

I'm trying to get this; first three statements from earlier posts.

3 hours ago, vanholten said:

The lorentz-transformation γ= c/f  

The kinetic energy supplement is (γ-1)=  a/f

calculations regarding e=mc²( γ-1 ) should not result in (∞ -1)

Combine with:

1 hour ago, vanholten said:

Indeed, "γ" is the Lorentz factor

Is this what you are trying to describe regarding "f"? Multiply Lorentz Factor by c? I'm not saying this makes sense in SR but it seems compatible with your picture. I have limited time but hopefully this is correct:

And if the above interpretation of your idea is correct; for speeds "v" close to "c" the result is that the value "f" in your image gets close to zero. How is this compatible with the attempt at avoiding "(∞ -1)" for (γ-1)?

x-posted with @vanholten 

2 hours ago, vanholten said:

Sorry about that unclear c, it expands to the dashed line.  

Hello! I am trying to understand your idea in comparison to SR so I can give some comments. There are two "c" in the picture, which one extends to the dashed line? Maybe you can post an improved image?

Maybe some text is lost in translation? I think "γ" is usually used for Lorentz factor?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor

7 hours ago, swansont said:

What you have not done is what Strange has pointed out: compare your result to what is observed.

When comparing your result to what is observed, please also address the issues already raised: 

On 2018-10-14 at 9:06 AM, Markus Hanke said:

The model’s basic assumptions are fatally flawed

and

On 2013-02-11 at 11:21 AM, Spyman said:

If the program "Sagitarius BR" has different results than mainstream science, then it must either use different methods or other estimates than what mainstream science does when they reach the consensus that the dark matter phenomen is real.

IMHO, I don't think random simulations made by strangers on the internet that uses conflicting methods and estimates to end up with contradicting results against conclusions made by mainstream science to be very convincing at all.

So in addition to comparison against observations, please provide evidence that the program has a valid model.

4 hours ago, DrP said:

the laser is only there to raise the Nitinol above it's activation temperature for molecular rearrangement

Cool! Thanks, I did not know Nitinol worked like that. I need to do some studying, or phrase my concerns better

I believed the pistons had to compress the springs again once the springs were cooled. And since the only source of energy I can see in the image is the 1W laser* I believed that 1W is the maximum amount of power the engine could theoretically generate. 

Maybe OP will return to clarify?

*) or maybe there are two 1W lasers if the left one is identical. 

22 minutes ago, Exidor said:

Check the news, they may have detected a tachyon at CERN

Can you provide a reference? The only thing I found was about tau neutrinos that were supposed to have traveled faster than the speed of light. But it was not confirmed, instead it was dismissed as a faulty element in the equipment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon

How much torque is expected from a 1W laser? Anyway; the setup heats all the springs at the same time, so the engine stalls, what's the purpose?

9 minutes ago, Exidor said:

I would venture that at some point Einstein's may of thinking will be replaced just like Newton's was.

Remeber that Einstein's ideas was accepted because of observations and experimetal results. What experiments do you suggest that will make Einstein's formulas invalid? 
Also note that Newton is still good enough for many situations, his thinking has not been completely replaced. I believe scientific progress will find additions to Einstain's thinking rather than a replacement. 

18 hours ago, Strange said:

I wouldn't wait for the OP to come back and explain anything.

Ok! I also note that the proposal relies on a mysterous Si2HSb2 crystal. In another thread Si2HSb2 is claimed to have magical, or at least, non-mainstream properties. So I think a lot of explaining is required by the OP.

I haven't tried on this type of tool but I speculate that the the shank is not too hard otherwise it would crack* easily. I would give the 6mm die a careful try. Then you could use a file to remove the treads if you wish, it is much easier to keep it centered when using the treads as a guide.

*) I once bought cheap drills where shaft was too hard, most of the drills cracked right off close to the end where they fit in the rotary tool.

12 hours ago, Strange said:

Why should they talk about it? 

Good question. Out of curiosity I tried to read the linked article and found this: 

Quote

The speed of light is no longer limited and it conforms to the new equation E=Mc^X. The value of X in the crystal approaches 3x10^20 meters per second. The crystal has a unique property of allowing radiant energy to be directed at it and the speed of the energy is increased as it passes through the crystal.

I'm by no means an expert in semi conductor physics but I believe the above makes it very clear why scientists are not interested.

35 minutes ago, Strange said:

Which doesn't really make it any clearer.

I agree.

And thanks for the help! I now see there's no need to blame the unclarity on the OCR translation app I just tested. 

Back to the topic:
I wonder how big the machine is supposed to be. If the rectangle on the "car" is human sized door then the grey "nozzle" is approximately one foot above ground and seems to be leaking a lot.

47 minutes ago, franco malgarini said:

why is nobody talking about this crystal?

Which crystal?

What are you proposing? I do not know the language in the picture. 

51 minutes ago, beecee said:

we observe

Thanks! Since OP seems not too fond of math but prefer observations and experiments you just gave me an idea. I think it might be possible to do some very basic observations to get evidence against "draft" in space, would that help?

Lets say the idea about "draft" for a moving body in space is true. (Hint: it is not) 
Then a comet moving through solar system would have a tail of gas and dust behind it? Just like a semi would on earth
It may be tricky to spot a comet the size of a semi using easily available equipment, but the effect would be same but stronger for a larger one? If you use binoculars* you could see for your self that a comet can have the tail pointing at an angle forward in the direction of travel. When you do that observation @Theredbarron, are you still convinced that your idea holds? Or do you need to research the mainstream science explanation? 
 

*) I haven't checked when the next time for such an event takes place, aerith.net/comet/weekly/current.html might be a place to start

21 hours ago, Theredbarron said:

I never said I have all the details worked out.

That is ok. In this case however there are problems on a more general level than a few details.

21 hours ago, Theredbarron said:

When the earth is moving in the direction of obit it could also cause a draft behind it as well.

If a planet creates “draft” behind it along the orbital path then it sounds like the planet must be moving relative to some substance? Theories of such a substance are not supported by scientific evidence as far as I know, see for instance wikipedia/Aether_theories. 

I fail to see how the analogy with the semi can be applied to a planet in space; a few issues:

-The draft near a semi occurs since the semi is moving relative to earth’s atmosphere. The semi is small compared to earth and atmosphere, the semi has no significant gravitational impact of the movement of air.
-A planet moves through the vacuum of space. The gravitation of the planet holds the atmosphere in place, it is not “draft” that holds the atmosphere in place.

21 hours ago, Theredbarron said:

Smooth planets can have an atmosphere. I never said I have all the details worked out. So a smooth planet with moving water or even ice would have to be very smooth not just from the outside point of view. I mean millions of waves at 2 feet tall could collect air. It may not be dense or a lot but it can be there.

So if oceans on earth freezes so that the earth's surface is smoother than it is now, how much of the atmosphere is lost? Where does it go?
An also, from my previous post: A planet that does not rotate cannot have an atmosphere?

5 hours ago, Theredbarron said:

Yes moving in relationship to whatever its near. When a semi passes you at a light or intersection you can feel it move you or the vehicle your in. The draft is as it passes it attract in the same direction as its traveling. Like the total direction of travel of the surface of the planet is moving and everything on it. The imperfections of the surface of earth like mountains and canyons and everything thats not smooth is moving in relation to space at around 1000. If your moving with it you wont feel the difference. 

First; I've been close enough to passing semis to know about the draft you talk about. Riding a motorbike behind a semi and then turning the throttle to drive past the semi can be a shaky experience .
The description above seems to contradict a few things in mainstream physics. I'll try to make a few statements* about physics to see some consequences of your idea. I have seen in other threads that you prefer limited use of math so I'll try without math (for now).

-When "movement" is used in your idea only rotation counts. The fact that earth moves at a great speed through space relative to the sun, or at a great speed relative to other planets does not count.
-The rotation, "moving in relation to space at around 1000", somehow creates a "draft". The movement of 19 miles per second along the orbit around the sun fails to generate a "draft".
-Imperfections on the surface of a rotating planet drags the atmosphere along and hold it in place. This means that a smooth planet such as one with a global ocean or ice surface cannot have an atmosphere?
-A planet that does not rotate cannot have an atmosphere?

I deliberately left magnetism and gravity out for now, there are enough issues already. 

*) The statements are not intended to be correct in the context of mainstream physics, they are intended to display issues with the ideas about draft/mountains/movement posted by OP.

It was not possible for me to immediately respond, this may already be covered by other members.

21 hours ago, Theredbarron said:

The drafting thing that I was mentioning. It creates a low spot behind whatever is moving. Now take the surface of earth and all its imperfections and move it at 1000 mph. Mountains moving at that speed. The draft behind a semi is lower pressure and density because the matter thats following it is not moving fast enough to occupy the space behind it. This makes it less dense. 

There seems to be many problems with the explanation. For instance, the semi is moving relative to something. Is relative movement your explanation for gravity? The following does not clarify anything:

20 hours ago, Theredbarron said:

If nothing in our existence is sitting still then it cant be just matter because it is in motion. How can anyone on earth confirm that is just matter thats creating gravity if all if it is moving. No mention of motion on how gravity works but everything that is producing gravity has we can observe is moving. Where did that get eliminated throughout history?  

A question intended to move the discussion forward. How do you define moving in this context? Maybe you only intend to talk about rotation? Not that it makes the statements correct but it explains why it is hard to understand the semi and draft analogy.