Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by swansont

  1. !

    Moderator Note

    From rule 2.7

    Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos


  2. !

    Moderator Note

    This thread is not the place to discuss writing code, or anything related to that.

    3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

    Which was another attempt to say you're sorry for an even earlier account called CricStands, where you spammed us with fake titles to the same cricket advertisement. Why would we EVER want that again?

    Plus the transgressions of the original account, Achilles. And all of the subsequent sockpuppetry. 


  3. On 9/27/2020 at 12:36 PM, John2020 said:

    r_A and r_R are the position vectors of the action and reaction torques and the τ_A and τ_R are the corresponding action and reaction torques.

    Not helpful if they aren’t identified in a diagram.

    4 hours ago, John2020 said:


    May I share the link to my paper over a post and through my profile? It will help the readers of this thread to understand better the whole idea.

    That’s not in compliance with rule 2.7. Discussion needs to take place here, without requiring people to click on links.

    2 hours ago, John2020 said:

    Hi Ghideon!

    Maybe I was a little bit misunderstood. My work as also what I briefly stated above is that Newton's laws of motion always hold, however the construction above and the maths that backed it show that there is a particular case where Newton's 3rd law for isolated systems appears to be incomplete. In other words, according to my view Newton didn't actually consider the case of the induced internal forces that are direction of translation screw rotation depended (not collinear) that means whatever the induced forces (action and reaction) will evolve in the same direction (since the translation screw rotates only in one or the other direction and never both at the same moment).

    Internal forces don’t cause motion of the CoM.

    Action and reaction forces act on different objects

    What is an “induced” force?

    2 hours ago, John2020 said:

    In case the moderators of this forum allow me to share the link to my work there you may find more details (along with the implications of these findings in special relativity and Lorentz transformations) about the concept which is based on two basic findings:

    a) The induced internal reaction force is mathematically proven to have the same direction with the induced internal action force

    That’s what you should be deriving here


  4. 23 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

    I think this is probably how he'll get caught out.... singing different tunes to different people and those people getting together to compare notes.

    It's possible there are state-level sealed indictments, and folks are waiting until the moment he isn't president anymore, so they can arrest him.

  5. I have read an observation that what Trump reported to the IRS (losing money) may be markedly different than what he reported to banks (business is great, lots of assets) in order to get loans. If so, he could be in big trouble for fraud.

  6. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/27/us/donald-trump-taxes.html



    Donald J. Trump paid $750 in federal income taxes the year he won the presidency. In his first year in the White House, he paid another $750.

    He had paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years — largely because he reported losing much more money than he made.




    public filings offer a distorted picture of his financial state, since they simply report revenue, not profit. In 2018, for example, Mr. Trump announced in his disclosure that he had made at least $434.9 million. The tax records deliver a very different portrait of his bottom line: $47.4 million in losses.




  7. 18 hours ago, JacobP said:

    I am limited to 5 here so let me try and answer the questions above first.

    Q1.  WHERES DA MATH!???!??   

    A:  Math != Life.....and that is the problem. What math should I use to predict a living being?

    You presented hypotheses on Planetary Axial Tilt and Gas Giant Ring Formation and Orientation. Not living beings. 


    18 hours ago, JacobP said:

    With regards to the planetary tilt, which math would 100% predict it? Nastic Movement of Plants seems closest but there is no math for that because it is a living being. The best formula is Core Strength + Charging from Axial Tilt= Full Magnetic Field. 

    That’s not an equation with sufficient predictive or explanatory power. Partly because you haven’t defined core strength, or established that axial tilt can “charge” anything.

    18 hours ago, JacobP said:

    If you have better idea for math that can predict a living being, let me know. For Biology, only observation and educated predictions can be used...which is how it needs to be for AstroBiology. Asking me to predict movement of anything is impossible given a conscious being controls said movement.

    Neither hypothesis is biology. 

    18 hours ago, JacobP said:

     Q3. What Physics are you using?

    A:  If you mean how do the planets move, the same way the Sun and NASA moves stuff, Ion Drives. 

    Do your models depend on how the planets move? 
    (the sun does not move with an ion drive)

    18 hours ago, JacobP said:

    FYI- Earth uses her Volcanoes to move her tilt. 

    What’s your evidence for this claim?

    18 hours ago, JacobP said:

     Also I object to this being moved to Speculation since there is no Math that can be used on this idea (Living beings are immune to strict math!) and thus no journal would accept it either.

    Not living, and unless you can point to where this topic appears in mainstream physics, here is where it will stay.

    18 hours ago, JacobP said:

    I think this is very detrimental to an honest discussion, but your rules.

    Yes, our rules. Honest discussion includes you not tap-dancing about how you can’t provide a mathematical model

  8. 3 hours ago, michel123456 said:

    Thank you.

    I'll keep this answer in the drawer.


    Now take the return trip:

    A goes back to Earth.(the switch between A & B was made by another member, and i followed)

    When he arrives and look back at planet X, what does he observe?

    Hint, Planet X & A are both inertial.

    “When he arrives” is ambiguous 

    Is he moving, or has he come to a stop wrt earth?

    If moving, he measures the distance to X as contracted. If stopped, he measures what the earth observer measures

    The answers won’t change from asking the same thing over and over

  9. 1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

    Oh, please, you have a rubber chicken collection! Your pants have an attachment for a seltzer nozzle! And what about your Monday morning standups when the gang at the USNO gathers around the atomic fountain? I heard you offered to laminate a major general's pocket protector at the DARPA convention. And there are rumors about you in a red tie, some Cheese-Nip dust, and a spot-on impression of the C-in-C using a public toilet. 

    Sorry, typo. NoSenseOfHumor(R). It’s a brand of novelty rubber chicken. 

  10. 4 hours ago, michel123456 said:

    But A is also at rest.

    At rest with respect to what? Relativity duscussion makes no sense without this detail.


    He sees (observes, measures) the Earth length contracted & the distance to the Earth is also contracted. A & B must be considered on the same ground. The situation is symmetric, reversible, how to say. Motion is relative: there is no Earth at rest & A travelling.

    For A, the Earth is travelling.

    It might be better if you didn’t keep switching examples. Before, A was at rest wrt the earth. Now A is moving. And now you’re looking at a different part if the trip. (like someone has already noted, like you’re hoping to get a different answer)

    Yes, A’s distance to earth is length contracted. Before anyone changes frames, A and B will think the other’s clock is running slow.


  11. 10 hours ago, JacobP said:

    1. Planetary Axial Tilt-Hypothesis:  If a planet has a full magnetic field (Earth strength or larger based on size of planet) and sufficient substrate for calculation, it will orient its axis towards the Sun to maximize charging of its magnetic field by the Sun's solar wind based on the strength of the magnetic field generated by the core.

    What will cause this orientation? How does this“charge” the magnetic field? 

    You need to show the physics here. Equations, and solutions.

  12. Light in any medium travels at c/n; it's more apparent in something like water, which has a relatively large index (around 1.33) as compared to air (1.000273 at STP)

    Fizeau measured the effects of relative motion between source and the medium back when people thought there was an aether (in 1851). But the results were smaller than what he expected, and support relativity and its velocity addition formula


    So there is a small effect from the source and medium having relative motion, that changes the speed of light propagation

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.