SergUpstart

On 2/17/2022 at 2:40 PM, iNow said:

Shocker. This was false. Since making this assertion, Russia has actually brought in 7,000 MORE troops near Ukraine bringing the total well over 150,000, added armored vehicles, helicopters, and field hospitals. 

Satellite imagery also confirms Russia has established a new military pontoon bridge over the Pripyat River in Belarus, less than 4 miles from the Ukraine border.

The head of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic Denis Pushilin, in an address to the residents of the DPR, said that due to the dangerous situation in the Donbass, the departure of the population to Russia has been organized since February 18. He stressed that places of reception and accommodation of citizens are already ready in the Rostov region.

There will be no war. It is cheaper to take the population of Donetsk and Lugansk to Russia than to arrange a big war.

China "expressed support for Argentina's demands for full sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands" (the Argentine name of the archipelago). This statement was made public on Sunday, February 6, after the meeting of the heads of China and Argentina Xi Jinping and Alberto Fernandez during the Olympics in Beijing. In response, Argentina supported China's right to join Taiwan. This is reported by the Associated Press.

Russian troops began to return to their permanent locations after the maneuvers.

Maria Zakharova: February 15 will go down in history as the day of the failure of Western propaganda of the war

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

I do not follow the physics of your argument, can you please explain? As far as I know gamma* is calculated using an invariant speed of light c. It looks lite you have an observer dependent speed of light, how does that affect gamma?

On the contrary, G should be a constant, the speed of light is variable, and if the speed of light is constant, then G should be variable, as a payment for the constant speed of light.

10 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

This is not the case though, as in reality the two polarisation states are offset by 45 degrees, meaning such radiation fields can only couple to rank-2 tensors as source.

Are these 45 degrees visible in the experiment or is it just a theory?

If any vector is in a plane oriented at an angle of 45 degrees to the direction of wave propagation, then it can be decomposed into longitudinal and transverse (at 90 degrees) components that are modulo equal to each other, is that so?

5 hours ago, beecee said:

"The index of refraction, n, is the ratio of the speed of light in a vacuum, c, to the speed of light in a medium, c':

In fact, the relative refractive index is not the ratio of the speeds of light, but the ratio of wavelengths. Just at a constant frequency, it is equal to the ratio of the speeds of light, but more generally, if the frequency changes, then this is not the case.

4 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

I could give more examples where the gravitational potential approach doesn’t work, but I think you can see my point - ‘gravitational potential’ can only be meaningfully defined under certain conditions, it is not a general concept.

What about the 4-potential? It is included in S. Fedosin's theory of gravity

http://sergf.ru/ktgen.htm

20 minutes ago, SergUpstart said:

you can replace citric acid with orthophosphoric acid

By the way, an interesting idea, if you add a spoonful of soda to a glass of Coca-Cola, will it become more effervescent and delicious?? I'll have to try😀

2 minutes ago, not.from.science said:

any other option than this  sir...?

you can replace citric acid with orthophosphoric acid

10 minutes ago, not.from.science said:

Two chemicals in powder form can also combine

Well then C6H8O7 + NaHCO3

CaC2+ 2H2O → Ca (OH) 2+ C2H2

45 minutes ago, Genady said:

And, in the 115+ years since then, the physics has proceeded very carefully and has found a clear and efficient way to deal with these concepts. The "mass" is generally a term for the invariant mass, an inherent property of a particle (or, a specific coefficient in a QFT Lagrangian), i.e. "the rest mass". The "other numbers [] obtained for the mass" are not in use, nor are the "other definitions [] of the force and the acceleration".

Then it is necessary to change the definition of momentum, since it contradicts the fact that mass is a rest mass. So what is momentum if not p=mv?

21 minutes ago, swansont said:

How about not ignoring relativity? We know that massless particles move at c and have momentum E/c

Where am I ignoring special relativity?

For massless particles, the rest mass is 0 and the total mass M = E/c^2, respectively, the momentum p =E/c = Mc. Everything is in accordance with both SRT and the definition of momentum.(quoted from wikipedia)

Einstein even distinguished between longitudinal and transverse masses

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Electrodynamics_of_Moving_Bodies_(1920_edition)

4 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Given all that has been said, in what way is it meaningful or consistent to talk about the ‘mass of an EM field’? Such a concept creates far more problems than solutions. It’s simply not helpful.

The momentum of a particle is conventionally represented by the letter p. It is the product of two quantities, the particle's mass (represented by the letter m) and its velocity (v):[1]

p=mv.

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

According to this definition of momentum, a particle with zero mass can have a momentum other than zero only when moving at an infinite greater speed. Naturally, here we are talking about the total mass M, and not about the rest mass m0.

7 hours ago, Prometheus said:

the only one to have shot down a Russian jet in the last 6 years

Only some time later, the commander of the Turkish Air Force, who gave the order to shoot down the Russian Su-24, was among the conspirators who tried to overthrow Erdogan. And then, among other things, Putin's support helped Erdogan stay in power.

And we must not forget that China plays the first role in this alliance, and not Russia, respectively, economic power.

And Tom Clancy naively believed that in a future war with China, Russia and the United States would be allies.

Xi Jinping, Putin, Erdogan, Lukashenko, Aliyev, Kim Jong-un, Maduro... alliance of authoritarian regimes

And this equation can be rewritten in the following beautiful form

E = |P4|c

|P4| - four-vector momentum module

Accordingly, m0c is the projection of the four-vector momentum on the ct axis

18 minutes ago, Genady said:

But in SR the correct equation is not E=mc² but rather E²-p²c²=m²c⁴, isn't it? Not even mentioning its different meaning.

Yes, of course

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

7 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

For these reasons, even 30 years before the creation of the SRT, physicists Heinrich Schramm and Umov obtained the formula E=kmc^2

I did not know of these physicists, can you provide a reference?
(A quick search gave me nothing of value.)

Unfortunately I can only give a link to the Russian Wikipedia https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Умов,_Николай_Алексеевич#cite_note-7

here is a quote from there in translation

Long before A. Einstein, he discussed in his works[6] the formula {\displaystyle E=kmc^{2}}E=kmc^{2}, derived earlier by Heinrich Schramm[7], which, according to his assumption, connected the mass density and energy of a hypothetical luminiferous ether. Subsequently, this dependence was strictly deduced, without any coefficient k and for all types of matter, by Einstein in the special theory of relativity (SRT). One of the first Russian scientists estimated the value of SRT.

Addition. In the USSR, the Poynting vector was called the Umov-Poynting vector

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Coulomb's law does not include c or mention time, though I grant you that r/c has the dimensions of a time.

You have not answered my more important question as to which particle is which ie is the electron you mentioned the first or second particle.

Without this vital information your two statements are just quotations from gobbledegook.

The electron is the first particle, and the particle in which it accelerates in the electrostatic field is the second particle.

6 minutes ago, studiot said:

Which is the r I was asking about tending to infinity.

Since c is finite but nonzero there is no division by zero and the ratio tends to infinity of time.

I was referring to Coulomb's law, according to which the electric field strength decreases inversely proportional to the square of the distance r

3 hours ago, studiot said:

What happens in this model as r tends to infinity since c is still finite ?

With r tending to infinity, the force of the static field that the second particle creates tends to zero. So the particle interaction just disappears

On 12/6/2021 at 3:03 PM, Kevin_Hall said:

I'm about to create my first rocket, therefore I would like to know if someone has already made ones. 
Please, share your experience of creating rocket models here. 

I remember playing around as a child. Strips of celluloid were cut, then wrapped in foil in the shape of a cylinder. A nozzle was formed from foil at one end of the cylinder. Then this structure was heated in a flame, the celluloid burning reaction began and the rocket flew away.

🤩

The electrostatic field must have mass. If an electron moves in a field created by another charged particle, then it experiences acceleration due to the action of this field, therefore its momentum changes. In accordance with the Law of Conservation of Momentum, the momentum of the particle creating the field must also change. But the momentum of this particle will not begin to change immediately, but only after a time r / c (r is the distance between the particles). Therefore, it turns out that the first particle should take the momentum from the field and then the field should transmit the momentum to the second particle. But for a field to have momentum, it must have mass.

For these reasons, even 30 years before the creation of the SRT, physicists Heinrich Schramm and Umov obtained the formula E=kmc^2

You think it will start tomorrow??? Because in 2008, Russia's war against Georgia began on the opening day of the Olympics in China.

The yield of 10-year US treasuries jumped 3.8 percent to 1.83 today. All this military hysteria is needed in order for money to be transferred to the United States.