swansont

Feel free to discuss that in another thread It's from point A to point B. Where the photon started to where it ends up. It doesn't matter. If both of them move the same amount, the interval remains the same. It's only motion relative to each other that would change anything. And none of that matters, as these motions are, to a very good approximation, inertial. No way to tell. There's a good argument that it's a different photon, because a photon ceases to exist when it's absorbed. Why does this matter? Because it's not. You can choose to use it for convenience, but there isn't any physics that tells you the earth is at rest (considering only inertial motion) and all other objects are moving. Your stance isn't even consistent. You acknowledge that the earth is moving, so how can its location be unique? And, to ask yet again, what experiment would show that the earth is at absolute rest?

You don't get to do this in a discussion of relativity. You have to establish this as true before you can do anything else, if you are arguing from some other model to work. You are claiming there is no choice in terms of a reference frame. An absolute frame requires you can measure your motion with respect to it. How do you tell if you are the one that's moving? It depends on the experiment. They are from relative motion, as you admit, so how are they evidence of an absolute frame?

You can have a box with a mass inside and if you shift the mass, the box will move. The center of mass will remain fixed, so momentum is conserved. The box will never move more than its length, though, because the CoM is located inside. Which is why I asked about details of these thrust measurements, and which I've noticed have not been answered.

No, that's not quite right. The number is a measure of how isotropic you can say the universe is, limited by experimental error. The universe could be even more isotropic than that, but we can't tell, because of limitations of the experiment. It is different from claiming that the universe is anisotropic at that level. That is the best-case scenario (or worst case, depending on how you look at it), but nobody is claiming that this is the actual anisotropy IOW, the error bars include zero. It's entirely different, and erroneous, to argue that they exclude zero.

No, the ether was abandoned when it failed to predict the behavior observed in the Michelson-Morley experiment. It was disproved.

Is this your question, or do you have a question about physics? I don't see one. I'm not sure what the point of posting code is.

That's quite the space heater you've got. How hot does your device get? What kind of temperature gradient is there? My guess that you could just be heating the air is still in play. You admit the mass and power input has changed, so this is not entirely accurate. I agree. If the OP is looking for validation, they aren't going to get it, and not enough information is provided to find out what is actually going on. Add to that the fact that they are ignoring certain questions. I'm not sure what the point of discussion is. If the OP is looking for pointers on how to better test this device, one step would be to test it in a vacuum.

How do you know this? Surely there are sightings that are a “trick of the light” All UFO sightings show up on radar? There’s not enough evidence, but that cuts both ways. There’s also not enough evidence to draw other conclusions as well, and yet some are willing to do so. But as the label indicates, these are unidentified objects/unexplained phenomena That’s flawed reasoning. There will always be unexplained phenomena. That doesn’t mean they violate the laws of physics. You seem to be equating UAPs with aliens, and that’s not what UAP means. It means the phenomenon is unexplained. I agree there are issues with the video, but I’m curious as to what you think he got wrong.

The shots carry momentum, so for this analogy to be applied, one must account for the thrust imparted by the gun recoil. Which will account for the momentum of the turkeys that got blasted out of the air.

This is pathetic, to be honest. Northern lights come from charged particles accelerating - that's where the matter is: the particles. The magnetic field is there even when the northern lights aren't. Similarly, whatever is levitating is where the matter is. Not the magnetic field.

I agree, but we also know it doesn't work as advertised. And there's the issue of someone who is not well-versed in physics who is also simultaneously insisting on what the important physics concepts are. For all we know, the device works by heating the air around it, and it's able to direct the heated air in one direction, causing the box to recoil.

It may be that you haven't studied the concept of center of mass yet. But that's not necessary in order to solve the problem

In terms of thrust, and in terms of it being a transient at best, momentum is the key. Energy is a red herring. Unless the OP is more forthcoming about the device, I fear we are at an impasse. It will not work as described, and since we know the physics involved, it means the description is lacking - if it works. But we don't actually know this. We don't have a picture, or a video of a working device. Inclusion of these would not preclude chicanery, of course.

Both masses will accelerate There is no applied acceleration This is not part of the problem. No, it's not. My advice to the OP is to ignore your post entirely. (if you want to discuss your misconceptions it should be done in a different thread) It's usually better to choose one coordinate system for the entire problem. In this case the motion of the two blocks are related, and you've introduced an easy way to make a sign error when you relate the two sets of equations. Extra care must be taken to keep track of the information

! Moderator Note Attempts to get you to follow the rules do not fall into this category. ! Moderator Note You don’t get to dictate the conditions under which you will follow those rules.

A polarity reversal is what is meant by a flip. The N and S poles trade places. I don’t know what “flow” you are referring to. There is no “matter of the field” - it’s a field, which is not matter.

https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/it-true-earths-magnetic-field-occasionally-reverses-its-polarity?qt-news_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products We can see evidence of magnetic polarity reversals by examining the geologic record. When lavas or sediments solidify, they often preserve a signature of the ambient magnetic field at the time of deposition. You should stop digging

The earth’s magnetic field is not light. ! Moderator Note Please review rule 2.7 regarding using videos ti]onsupport your arguments You’re bringing up Cavendish out of the blue. Nobody should be required to have to figure out your tortured logic. If you can’t be bothered to explain, then we’re done here. Don’t bring this topic up again.

You have to meet us partway. It’s one thing to explain why a model is wrong, but it’s too much of a burden to teach basic science on top of that. Which is the bulk of the work. The poles have flipped several times over the history of the earth.

! Moderator Note This is a place for discussing science. Either mainstream science, or some model you are proposing and can support with evidence. Not your opinion. Not untestable WAGs

No

n is the index of refraction. We know that c is invariant and that it’s about 3 x 10^8 m/s, and depends on the permittivity and permeability of free space, by why those constants have those values is not known.

If it’s enclosed it does not create thrust. All you’ve done is claim that it does. Work and momentum continue to be different things. Energy is not a vector. Force is. They are not the same thing. Instead of answering my question, all you’ve done is made a box in a diagram. What happens to the momentum? I am not asking about the kinetic energy. Also, please answer the other questions that you’ve skipped.

Photons travel at c. Light travels at c/n One is a quantum explanation, the other is classical.

The work is path independent, but the accumulated phase of the clock depends on the frequency and the duration of the trip. The dilation only tells you what happens to the frequency.