studiot
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by studiot
-
-
12 minutes ago, nizar said: The centrifugal effect of rotation balances the inward pull of gravity.
Your original post mentioned centripetal force, which is correct.
Your second force refers to centrifugal effect, which is imaginary.
You misunderstand central forces.
The centrifugal force is a real force that must be supplied by a real agent of force.
In this case gravity.
In the case of a stone whirling on a string it is the tension in the string.
-
-
5 hours ago, Pathway Machine said: We were talking about opinions. Science and theology are fallible. Speaking absolute truths on most subjects isn't scientific it's doctrinal
Despite swansont giving the impression that science is only about analysis there is far far more to science than that.
1 hour ago, swansont said: Science is provisional; at any moment it’s the best explanation based on the data we have available
There are other classifications, but thought and physical processes can be classified into two camps (since you like binary so much).
Explanations come from the first camp - Analysis.
The second camp - Synthesis is very different and much more difficult than analysis - Synthesis.
Both religion and science practice synthesis but science is just so much more effective at it.
Analysis of questions like Why or How does the Sun shine ? or How fast did the apple fall ? are so much better handled by the scientific method.
This leads to much better synthesis in relation to providing our own light ( a light bulb rather than the blinding light of angels) or being able to create, fly and land an aircraft, rather than expect to be carried of by angels.
-
-
-
5 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said: Really? How so?
Into what categories do you fit into?
Because of the emotive language and binary terms you have classified others.
I am a don't care.
I do not need an emotional crutch to justify my actions or beliefs.
Here is an interesting Poem from Robert Service
My Father Christmas passed away When I was barely seven. At twenty-one, alack-a-day, I lost my hope of heaven. Yet not in either lies the curse: The hell of it's because I don't know which loss hurt the worse -- My God or Santa Claus. -
22 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said: I myself prefer the terms believer and unbeliever. I also prefer Hitchens' term antitheist. To me a theist is one with God(s) and an atheist is one without God(s) but there is no such thing as the latter because as Penn & Teller said, everyone's got a gri-gri. It isn't about faith because faith isn't just belief in the existence of but also trust. I'm irreligious and apolitical. I know politicians exist but I have no faith in them. Demons don't have faith, they know and yet shudder. Just because you have no faith in gods don't mean you think they don't exist. And just because you do have faith in gods don't mean you think they do exist. A god can be anyone or anything that is venerated. Natural, supernatural, human, spirit, mortal, etc.
To me this reply also shows a certain measure of contempt for the opinions of others.
I do not fit into any of the categories you describe.
-
-
13 hours ago, Nia20855 said: Representing and unifying Newton’s three laws of motion
Newton’s first law states: “An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion remains in motion at constant speed and in a straight line unless acted on by an unbalanced force.”[18]
In the Interrelationships Model, the left side illustrates various forces acting on objects. Curved lines represent these forces, with symmetry between upper and lower lines denoting opposing but balanced forces. On the right side, a horizontal straight line symbolizes the outcome of balanced forces.
To clarify, imagine a Cartesian coordinate system where the horizontal axis represents time (X-axis) and the vertical axis represents the speed (Y-axis). The horizontal straight line on the right side of the model signifies that, over time, the speed remains constant when balanced forces are at play. This mirrors Newton’s first law, as objects maintain their state of motion unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
By aligning the elements of the Interrelationships Model with Newton’s laws, we gain a visual representation of the fundamental interrelationships governing motion and force.
Newton's second law states: “In an inertial reference frame, the vector sum of the forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration a of the object: F=ma.” [19]
In the Interrelationships Model, the upper curved lines represent the driving force, while the lower curved lines symbolize resistance. When these forces are equal (symmetrical), denoted by A = E, the object maintains its current state – moving in a straight line. However, if the driving force exceeds the resistance, such as A > D, the symmetry is disrupted, and the horizontal straight line transforms into an ascending line, indicating acceleration. This transition aligns with the mathematical equation of the second law, F = ma.
As time progresses, a moving object will eventually reach its speed limit, represented by the line from point G to point A’ levelling off into a plateau in the Interrelationships Model. Eventually, the object will lose energy and return to its baseline. This entire process is depicted by the curved lines ascending from one critical point and then descending to the next critical point along the baseline.
By illustrating these dynamics within the Interrelationships Model, we can visualize the interplay between forces and motion, demonstrating how Newton’s laws emerge as specific expressions of the fundamental interrelationships.
Newton's third law states: “When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.” [20]
In the Interrelationships Model, the symmetrical lines above and below the straight horizontal line C represent forces and counterforces, respectively. For example, line A represents the force exerted by one body, while line E represents the counterforce exerted by the second body.
This representation aligns with Newton's third law, where every action is met with an equal and opposite reaction. When one body applies a force on another, the second body responds with a counterforce of equal magnitude but opposite direction. This symmetry in the model reflects the fundamental interrelationship of forces and counterforces in physical interactions.
By visualizing these dynamics within the Interrelationships Model, we can better understand how Newton's laws emerge as specific expressions of the fundamental interrelationships governing motion and force.
Wow you have been busy with your typing since we last spoke.
What a great pity you did not post the piece I have quoted at the very beginning as I think it explains what you are trying to achieve.
You may wish to know that the technique is called Relational Geometry and is a favourite of psychologists.
Here is some more information on the subject, including references
https://superdarn.thayer.dartmouth.edu/downloads/rgs1.pdf
Unfortunately your diagram fails to properly represent Newton's Laws.
In the first instance your words
13 hours ago, Nia20855 said: As time progresses, a moving object will eventually reach its speed limit, represented by the line from point G to point A’ levelling off into a plateau in the Interrelationships Model. Eventually, the object will lose energy and return to its baseline. This entire process is depicted by the curved lines ascending from one critical point and then descending to the next critical point along the baseline.
do not reflect N2.
Newton's Laws do not admit of a speed limit.
Further your representation fails to be able to represent the condition where there are no forces (as opposed to zero net force) acting on a body since there would be no curvy lines at all.
Equally with N3 there is a problem since it fails to bring out one of the most important conditions of N3 and the difference between N1 & nN2 as compared to N3.
All the forces in N1 and N2 act on a single (ie the same) body.
The two forces mentioned in N3 act on different bodies, but you diagram suggests they act on the same body.
Further there is the situation that so many forget with N3.
The statemetn with contact forces is clear enough, but the statement with non contact forces such as electrostatic, gravitational etc forces it is often forgotten that:
if the gravity of body B pulls body A towards it then Body A exerts an equal but opposite pull on B.
What is forgotton is the question what holds B in place in those circumstances ?
Nor do I see how you diagram leads to numerical solutions of the questions How much force? How much momentum? How much velocity ? and so on.
Quite unlike the conventional vector polygon diagrams to solves them directly.
Finally how would you analyse the so called 'Rocket Equation'
-
3 hours ago, Youmit said: I called these photons as Photonic Information, because they carry multiple frequencies
They do ? Multiple frequencies ?
On 10/16/2025 at 11:41 AM, Youmit said: In Quantum level every matter is formed due to energy bond
Really ? Helium atoms ?
3 hours ago, Youmit said: Sorry for my bad English I didn’t use any AI for making corrections in language.
I did say, don't ask AI, tell us what you know or can deduce.
AIs are notoriously unreliable.
Today in America armed police seized a pupil at high school because it mistook a packet of crisps for a gun
Armed police handcuff teen after AI mistakes crisp packet for gun in US
-
Edited by studiot
1 hour ago, Pathway Machine said: Unyielding faith, a belief so strong and unswerving that it provides comfort and guidance in the face of life's trials seems to be the cornerstone of many religions. But wouldn't that seem to suggest that faith taken to the extreme is the best faith of all? Where does faith cross the line into extremism?
You have acutually asked answerable question this time so big improvement there. +1
Consider this smart alec saying
If an expert is someone who knows a lot about a little.
A true expert is someone who knows everything about nothing.I suggest the question is of this sort since it assumes that the belief, whatever it might be, is the only point of consideration.
But observation tells us that we live in a complex world the requires consideration of the interplay of many points, which runs counter to the belief in one thing above all alse.
As to the second question there is no one single line, it depends upon circumstances so I would suggest the line has been crossed if one single consideration excludes all others.
So often questions like these are couched in terms expecting a binary answer when most of our world works in shades of grey.
-
-
-
39 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said: Wow. Really? I thought I simply posted a brief informative article on the subject of religion on a forum devoted to that subject.
The point is
This is not a blog site.
And this is not your blog.
Ask a specific question or state a proposal for discussion.
This is what everyone has been telling you.
-
-
-
Thank you for all that.
But I see no answer to this
23 hours ago, studiot said: 23 hours ago, Anton Rize said: There are two notational layers. In natural units (c = 1) the mass shell is
E² = p² + m², (c = 1)
and in SI (or any dimensional system) the same statement is
E² = (p·c)² + (m·c²)². (SI units)
If you want to substitute SI units, use the dimensional form above.
So the E p and m in the first equation have different units from the E, p and m in the second.
Instead the last post appears to contain more instances of the same symbol used to represent diferent actual variables.
As a mattter of interest since projective geometry has no distance function it cannot support a metric or function variables based on distance.
I have been rather busy with some domestic emergencies today so have not had time to progress further study of your circle, but realise that if you are referring to spacetime it must be a hypercircle.
That sais J L Synge introduced a further analysis method for GR in 1957 in his book
Other interesting approaches are to be found in
Needham Visual Differential Geometry and Forms
Deans The Radon Transformation and some of its Applications.
-
1 hour ago, KJW said: I am amazed at pretty much everything to do with rotational dynamics. I recently discovered the Dzhanibekov effect, which has shaken to the core my understanding of spinning objects.
There is a really interesting derivation of how this leads to chaotic motion in this book (which is fascinating in itself)
Oxford University Press 1997
-
5 hours ago, haroonkhan87 said: I am fully aware of standard atmospheric physics, including thinning air with altitude. My work does not reject pressure or temperature effects — it explores whether these alone explain observed wind anomalies, like regional inconsistencies and altitude behavior. These are phenomena that standard models describe statistically, but not mechanistically, which my hypothesis addresses.
Don't be silly, of course they alone don't explain it.
If you are fully aware you would know both that they don't and also know what other factors are involved.
Let us start with a definite example of a regional inconsistency or a wind anomaly and try to look for an explanation.
If you are genuinely interested this book is a very good start.
Can we return to actually discussing the subject now please ?
-
-
-
6 minutes ago, Anton Rize said: But this is really just the tip of the iceberg. The same geometric logic extends beautifully to gravity through the S² projection - that’s where the equivalence principle and curvature emerge directly from the same closure rules.
If you’d like, I can show that next - it’s quite elegant and completes the SR/GR connection without introducing tensors.7 minutes ago, Anton Rize said: There are two notational layers. In natural units (c = 1) the mass shell is
E² = p² + m², (c = 1)
and in SI (or any dimensional system) the same statement is
E² = (p·c)² + (m·c²)². (SI units)
If you want to substitute SI units, use the dimensional form above.
So the E p and m in the first equation have different units from the E, p and m in the second.
Yes please I am always open to other routes to a common answer.
I am still studying on your circle idea and the (geometric) effect that must occur on the circle when expressed in 'natural units'
I do not know if you are aware of the different other routes eg Hilberts variational method or the Ludyk's matrix only method ?
Posting this is often posted as a postulate to start off GR, both the above methods lead to a derivation of it instead.
22 hours ago, Anton Rize said: Gμν = (8πG / c⁴) Tμν
I prefer matrix methods to tensors because tensors hide things.
Whenever you actually want to put numbers in order to get numbers out you have to expand them because they are a compact form of many simultaneous equations, especially via a computer.
-
23 minutes ago, Anton Rize said: The interesting thing is that in RG, all primary quantities (β, κ, τ, Q etc.) are dimensionless by construction.
It operates entirely through normalized relational ratios, not dimensional measures.That means the equations remain valid under any consistent unit system - SI, Planck, geometrized, or even a hypothetical alien metric.
As long as their constants are internally consistent, the relational structure behaves identically.This scale-independence is deliberate: it reflects the idea that physics should describe relations rather than magnitudes.
Units are a linguistic layer - the grammar of measurement, not the content of reality.
For numerical predictions or comparison with empirical data, it’s always practical to restore SI units for bookkeeping:
• [c] = m·s⁻¹
• [m] = kg
• [E] = J = kg·m²·s⁻²
• [p] = kg·m·s⁻¹
• [v] = m·s⁻¹Nothing unconventional here - all formulas reduce to standard dimensional identities once SI is restored.
I must admit I didn’t expect the discussion to turn to unit conventions - I was hoping for comments on the derivation I posted earlier.
The structure itself is what matters; units are just the language we use to read it.Thank you.
So what version of your equation should I substitute these into into since they make the one you quoted dimensionally incorrect. ?
-
The Helicopter Analogy: A New Perspective on Cosmic Balance
in Classical Physics
·
Edited by studiot
@nizar
You and your wanting to learn attitude are welcome.
but you now have only one more post in your first 24 hours (your are allowed 5 for security purposes), so do not waste it answering me.
I do not know what resources you have access to but Jones and Lambourne are a fabulous resource for cosmology.
here is the relevant newtonian maths extract.
there is so much more in the book.
Click on the image to get full size