studiot

6 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

I think 2 new laws are necessary

     or  F/m =        

Motion Resistance force / deceleration when moving towards any absolute motion direction

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    or  F/m =     

Reduced absolutte motion resistance force, -  when moving oppesite any absolute motion direction

F = RR-Force

v = the speed by the travelling observer

m = mass of the traveling observer

c = the speed og light

This is progress.  +1

😀

The plus 1 is because this is the first time you have laid things out in proper fashion.

You see that immediately, even whilst I was writing this, folks have been able to see what you are doing and offer sensible and useful comment.

However listing your symbols and stating what they stand for is really good practice and what I mean by progress.

So many waste so much time and effort just writing algebra down.

(did you know that although our word, algebra was,  was named after early arabic 'al-jabr', which meant completion ?)

I am sorry but yes your algebra is flawed.

So let us look at your algebra. (I will only work the first equation)

You claim this expression for your RR Force.

[math]F = 1 - \sqrt {\frac{1}{{1 + \frac{{m{v^2}}}{{{c^2}}}}}} [/math]

To show that this does not lead to the expression for the force per unit mass as you then stae, proceed as follows.

[math]F - 1 = \sqrt {\frac{1}{{1 + \frac{{m{v^2}}}{{{c^2}}}}}} [/math]

[math]{\left( {1 - F} \right)^2} = \frac{1}{{1 + \frac{{m{v^2}}}{{{c^2}}}}}[/math]

[math]\frac{1}{{{{\left( {1 - F} \right)}^2}}} = 1 + \frac{{m{v^2}}}{{{c^2}}}[/math]

[math]\frac{1}{{{{\left( {1 - F} \right)}^2}}} - 1 = \frac{{m{v^2}}}{{{c^2}}}[/math]

[math]\frac{{1 - {{(1 - F)}^2}}}{{{{(1 - F)}^2}}} = \frac{{m{v^2}}}{{{c^2}}}[/math]

[math]\frac{{1 - {F^2} + 2F - 1}}{{{F^2} - 2F + 1}} = \frac{{m{v^2}}}{{{c^2}}}[/math]

[math]\frac{{{c^2}F\left( {F + 2} \right)}}{{m{v^2}{{(F - 1)}^2}}} = 1[/math]

We have now reached the stage where we can isolate F/m, your force per unit mass.

[math]\frac{F}{m} = \frac{{{v^2}{{(F - 1)}^2}}}{{{c^2}\left( {F + 2} \right)}}[/math]

And we some that not only is the expression much more complicated than yours, but it still contains F.

This is because the original expression is what is known as implicit.
 

That is it is not possible to separate the variables F and m to obtain an explicit expression between them.

An explicit equation would contain only an expression in F on one side and an expression in m on the other, which is what you are trying to do.

36 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

Yes 1m/s^2 is an acceleration, - and since the measurement not takes place in vacuum the answers must be that s a is a relativistic variable and off course not a local variable.

So you had a good idea that turned out to be wrong.

So move on.

The good news is that nobody was killed by your idea.

Unfortunately that does happen with 'good ideas' from time to time, especially if someone clings to them in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.

On 7/29/2022 at 11:45 PM, kba said:

I have such prediction.

On 7/29/2022 at 11:57 PM, studiot said:

Fine so let us compare two examples.

You supply one example and I will  supply the other.

We can then work both examples in accordance with your laws and Newton's laws and compare.

Here is my example.

On my table sits the book I am reading.

It does not move, it just sits there.

It is midnight here so good night, I will look for your example and analysis of mine tomorrow.

And I am still waiting for you to complete your side of the bargain.

😀

What is your variable that is measured in seconds ?

Seconds alone is not a variable.

42 minutes ago, Killtech said:

EDIT: shouldn't have bother to write it down myself. here you have it on wikipedia, the Galiean relativity . also latex \frac breaks on editing

Where do F and F' magically come from in mechanics ?

This has nothing to do with Group theory or Noether

This simply require properly substituting for every force acting in two frames and comparing the results

You need two particles to consider this properly.

Consider two particles acting through a force F (x1, x2) where x1 and x2 are the x coordinates of particles 1 and 2 respectively and m1 and m2 are their masses.

We have due to the force of interaction by Newton's third Law.

[math]F\left( {{x_1},{x_2}} \right) = {m_1}\frac{{{d^2}{x_1}}}{{d{t^2}}}[/math]

and

[math] - F\left( {{x_1},{x_2}} \right) = {m_2}\frac{{{d^2}{x_2}}}{{d{t^2}}}[/math]

now imagine a second frame (denoted by dashes or primes) translated so that its origin is at x₀ in the original frame

We have

[math]{x_1} = {x_1}' + {x_0}[/math]

and

[math]{x_2} = {x_2}' + {x_0}[/math]

Substituting the new parameters into out master equation we have

[math]F\left( {x{'_1} + {x_0},x{'_2} + {x_0}} \right) = {m_1}\frac{{{d^2}x{'_1}}}{{d{t^2}}}[/math]

and

[math]F\left( {x{'_1} + {x_0},x{'_2} + {x_0}} \right) = {m_2}\frac{{{d^2}x{'_2}}}{{d{t^2}}}[/math]

Now please explain why you think there is form invariance between the x and x' frames, when the form of the equations in the x' frame is so clearly different from that of the x frame ?

Further the equation depends upon the origin of the x' frame, which the original does not.

27 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

Where did you get that s ?   - Normally s means seconds, - you asked for a definition, - I have give you that, what more do you want ?

So please confirm that s stand for the variable 'time'

By which do you mean coordinate time, proper time, elapsed time, INR, viscoscity,  or what ?

They are all different but are all measured in seconds.

19 minutes ago, Killtech said:

i am not sure i understand what you are trying to imply here. there is absolutely no physical phenomenon which depends in any way on your choice of coordinates. there cannot be, coordinates only affect the calculus and are entirely independent of physical predictions. the only thing that depends on the choice of coordinates is the length of your calculation needed to make a prediction - the result does not.

This makes it very clear that you have not understood what I said,

since you have just stated very nearly the exact opposite.

So let's take it one step at a time.

16 hours ago, studiot said:

The are physical phenomena associated with both light and sound which depend upon relative velocity, but do not need to be associated with any coordinatem syste at all and can be detected wothout any coordinates.

The physics is there regardless of a the presence or absence of a coordinate system.

The physics is there regardless of the presence or absence of a coordinate system.

In what way does this contradict your statement ?

24 minutes ago, Killtech said:

there is absolutely no physical phenomenon which depends in any way on your choice of coordinates.

So we appear to be agreed on this.

However your statement differs from mine in that it seems to imply t5hat a coordinate system is necessary for all calculations in Physics.

Whereas my statement allows for the possibility that the is no coordinate system in use for some calculations.

Note this does not say that you cannot use coordinates, if you want, only that you do not need to.

Off the top of my head, examples are

Iin optics are the magnifying power of an optical instrument

In mechanics, the velocity ratio, the mechanical advantage, and the efficiency.

and of course the wave example I originally cited, which you don't seem interested in.

35 minutes ago, Killtech said:

Look up the Noether theorem. it's pretty standard. Specifically look up how (classical) energy conservation is derived in classical mechanics.

the translation symmetry is needed to deduct the momentum conservation, while rotation symmetry gives you conservation of angular momentum. i hope you do not question those in classical mechanics?

Show me what your textbooks says, so we can clear up the misunderstanding.

It is very easy to show that Newton's Second Law

[math]F = m\frac{{{d^2}x}}{{d{t^2}}}[/math]

does not satisfy the Principle of Relativity.

I look forward to your proof that it does.

@Bjarne-7

And, for the 6th time, the answer to my question is ....?

1 hour ago, Killtech said:

what you refer to is the geometric formulation using the metric. i covered that in the response above and saw no need to repeat.

I see no connection whatsoever with my statement that coordinate systems are sometimes unecessary in Physics.

1 hour ago, Killtech said:

Classical mechanics are invariant to translations, uniform motion and rotations, the Galilean group. Noether uses that to deduct the corresponding conservation these invariances imply. 

That is a bold claim, because my university textbok (and many others) say otherwise.

So can you prove it.

I can definitely prove otherwise.

6 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

What I mean yours  "s",  (as well as yours ruler and yours reality) is always true,  - regardless where you are.   Mass + relativistic mass is stretching your reality.   -  If you want to compare yours " s"  to a defined "s", - we used to imaging us a fantasy clock (without any influence of mass) infinity fare away,  in the same way with the definition of 1 meter, its the same "observer"

I asked you what you mean by s.

S is the 19th letter of the english alphabet.

Although there are one letter words in the english dictionary, s is not one of them.

s stands for a word, which we can discuss.

So for the 5th time of asking, what do you mean by s ?

Or do I need to ask a moderator to enforce the rules here?

1 hour ago, Killtech said:

That is the only claim i used. you do not need anything more that an equation in a single frame and its coordinates to evaluate the structure and invariances of it. all coordinates are defined relative to that one base frame/coordinates where the equation holds. if you change coordinates only, you do not automatically change the frame. energies and momentum stay as they were in the base frame (as in you have to rewrite energy in the base frame according to the new coordinates). I have made the mistake of taking that for granted, and probably made the mistake myself that i may have called a change of coordinates a change of frames, which are two different things. 

it takes a change of the metric (geometry) to do more - which requires the introduction of artificial acoustic clocks and rods. those new clocks and rods would then be needed for all measurements to ensure experiments still agree with the model. i realized that adding that step would confuse people even more so i tried to constrained the discussion to coordinates only after the initial posts.

One way or another, you do need nothing more then a quite weak physical postulate (wave equation in one frame) and the coordinate invariance follows. This is of course only half way to constructing something like a relativity principle analog for sound.

I see you totally ignored my second comment in the post you replied to.

Why was that ?

The equations of Physics are required by the Physics Principle of Relativity to be form invariant.

Do you understand form invariance ?

Do you realise that Newton's 'Laws' are not form invariant as commonly formulated ?

This was the big issue, that was well understood before SR, and that special relativity addressed.

We almost never see light of a single frequency. Such light is called monochromatic light.

Almost all our light sources generate a range of frequencies.

Most depend upon the temperature of the body, the whiter the light it generates.

When white light falls on anything some of that light is absorbed and some is reflected, but not all frequencies are either absorbed or reflected equally.

In fact some frequencies are removed all together.

So the incoming light is almost always a misture of a large numbr of frequencies.

We do not have receptors in our eyes for all these frequencies, in fact, we have three different receptors, each sensive to a small range of frequencies.

Some animals have only two receptor types and some only one.

The strength of the signal (to the brain) from each of these types of sensor depends upon the strength of the light in the mixture that fall within its particular range.

The brain then interprets this combination of signals as what we call a 'colour'.

This combination can be replicated artificially using light sources filtered to produce light corresponding to our receptor ranges.

The three are called the base coulours and the entire range of colours that can be distinguished or seen by out eyes.

The base colours are red, green and blue.

The entire range of colours is called the colour gamut or colour space

These links might help

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

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

13 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

You said that I conflate frequency and colour. But frequency IS the colour. Because we observe it. We can't detach these concepts. 

Frequency does not coorrelate directly with perceived colour because we have 3 separate and different colour receptors in our eyes and what we perceive is a mixture of the signals from each of these different receptors.

12 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

Could you please explain me what is a colour? 

Slow down and wait for others to amplify my answers.

It may help alot.

Aha

Colour (spelled) the English way refers to the our perception of light waves received by the human or animal eyes.

This has no connection to the property 'color charge' in particle physics which is a quantum property.

Please note that is has no connection to the property electric charge either.

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

25 minutes ago, Killtech said:

i only claim that in my particular scenario the exist one frame such that the well know acoustic wave equation holds.

This was not your original claim, you claimed the wave equation to be invariant.

A a person with a "background in maths" you should be aware that holding good in only one frame contravenes this big time.

Invariants appear in both maths and physics in many places and both employ the same meaning for this term, unlike some other common terms like field and vector.

30 minutes ago, Killtech said:

unlike relativity, i haven't deliberately made a alternative formulation of the relativity principle for sound. i only claim that in my particular scenario the exist one frame such that the well know acoustic wave equation holds. the invariances of that equation are implied by that singular postulate in that frame and math - but they do not really mean much. 

a coordinate can be anything weird like a angle. a coordinate transform like x→2x does not suddenly halve the length of rods. Europe doesn't become smaller then USA in area just because you transform from feet to meters - the difference is merely in numbers, not reality. so if there are just coordinates, that make the equation looks the same, it is at first a mathematical trickery that has no actual impact on physics whatsoever.

The are physical phenomena associated with both light and sound which depend upon relative velocity, but do not need to be associated with any coordinatem syste at all and can be detected wothout any coordinates.

The physics is there regardless of a the presence or absence of a coordinate system.

28 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

The equation is universal, - s , - wherever you are.

That is not a definition.

Nor does it direct me to where you have used it and defined it in this thread.

What is s please ?

12 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

@mistermack - linked in my first post -

"DOE launched the CCHP Technology Challenge in 2021to accelerate development and commercialization of next-generation heat pumps by supporting American innovation and manufacturing. Lennox International, headquartered in Richardson, Texas, developed the first prototype that achieved the Technology Challenge’s standards about a year ahead of schedule. The prototype delivers 100% heating at 5°F at double the efficiency, and 70% to 80% heating at -5°F and -10°F. DOE’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory validated the performance and efficiency of Lennox’s prototype."

The manufacturer has cold weather air source heat pumps in production - https://www.lennox.com/media-room/news/lennox-industries-introduces-new-cold-climate-heat-pump-focused-on-accelerating-environmental-sustainability

Alternatives to gas are necessary, for well known reasons;  gas is cheaper because the externalities are not counted but those costs don't go away, they are passed on. Disproportionately onto people in warmer climates who didn't burn that much gas.

A good response. +1

21 minutes ago, Chris Sawatsky said:

Anyone who can separate themselves from personal opinions about the world today and assume a perspective that is all inclusive can see that the world is controlled by the wealthy elite who belong to Zionist groups based in Israel. The USA has become a sword in the hands of the Zionists who hide behind the Jewish culture and exert their will by proxy and believe this keeps their hands clean from the blood that has been spilled in the name of an illegal state spliced on top of Palestine and called Israel. These people state that Israel is the only legal state ever founded because the founding members have law degrees. Most of these peoples degrees were awarded as "Honorary" and it is obvious that these people bent the laws and created new law to meet the needs of their Zionist bosses. They claim antisemitism when they are only one of several Semitic people. Palestinians and Arabs are Semitic and are suffering at the hands of the Zionist groups who are guilty of every charge they accuse others of. Over 2-3 hundred years these people have used resentments and embellished slights of the past to justify and motivate "Jews" all over the world to follow the Talmud, a book written not long ago and meant to be a means of directing Jews to come together in unity against the evil "Goyim", earn money and educate their children as Lawyers, Doctors and Bankers to prepare for the day when they will rule the world. Through manipulative means the wealthiest Zionists in the banking trade have created and implemented a new global economic system that is debt based and controlled by way of The Federal Reserve Banking System that exists in every country with a first world economy. The fed is not owned by the country it is in but is privately owned by the top teer Zionists such as the infamous Rothschilds who became ultra wealthy in the early 19th century. They convinced nations to end the "Gold Standard" banking system that considers a country's tangible wealth when giving loans. With the new system a country can borrow as much as it wants as long as it signs a contract of compound interest and other fees IN PERPETUITY, meaning they pay the debt off FOREVER. This is the motivation behind Feminism. To get as many people working and paying taxes, not to gain equal rights for women. Anyone with a brain can see that throughout the twentieth century things have been manipulated to gain as much power and sympathy as possible so illegal things like the invasion of Palestine would be tolerated. If anyone with a brain and knows basic math were to look at The Holocaust they would instantly notice that gassing and cremating 6 million people in 4-5 years is impossible, even today it takes approximately 40 minutes to cremate one body. Even if it took the same time in the 40's it would take decades to get to 6 million. Do the math yourself and realize that stacking bodies on yop of each other makes the process take longer than one at a time. The Matrix movie is a interpretation of our reality today. We are sources of energy and wealth, nothing more. 

I was going to write a sympathetic  and supportive response to your very recent post(s) in another thread.

But sorry I feel  significantly too insulted to post that response now by this blatantly false attack on others.

Several claims in your post 'stick in the craw' but the emboldened one is so laughably false it is the last straw.

2 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

You even dont know WHAT math or model you are asking for.  Same arrogance and intolerance everywhere.. This is all you need,  

I'm sorry, where does s come into it. ?

In other words where have you defined s before in this thread please ?

6 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Apparently air source heat pumps are available that can work down to minus 15^o C. If I read it right, 100% of the heating at double efficiency, that I take to mean heat delivered for electricity used. Down to about minus 20 (minus 5^o F) has been a stated goal of a joint US Canada R&D program; maybe not always and forever pretty crap.

If I understand correctly, some already commercially available -

https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-announces-breakthrough-residential-cold-climate-heat-pump-technology

5 hours ago, exchemist said:

Yes, the killer at present for heat pumps is their high cost and the cost of adapting existing heating systems to the lower temperature heat they put out. For new housing not such an issue, but in a country like the UK, with a lot of housing stock more than a century old, it is a big barrier to adoption.

The heat capacity of dry air only varies in the second or third decimal place over the range -20C to + 20C so with dry air the eficiency is sensiby the same if your operating range is -20 to zero or zero to +20 since cooling either air 10 degrees will yield the same amount of heat.

Obviously you need to chhose the refrigerant carefully to operate over the expected temperature range.

The difficulty arises because most air is moist.

Usually the range 0C to +6 is the worst because that is when the air mositure comes out of the air with avengance and condenses or freezes on the heat exchanger seriously impeding the heat  transfer (reducing the heat transfer coefficient) significantly.

Just the conditions we have in Southern England.

Once you operate below zero most of the mositure has left the air and it is very dry.

So near ideal conditions pertain.

You then have to contend with wind blown snow.

Maxwell was the kiddie. Sadly he died comparatively young. He would probably have had relativity if he had lived another 10 years to then average age.

20 minutes ago, DeckerdSmeckerd said:

Quantum physics doesn't conflict with proven math does it?

There are always suprises around the corner.

That is one of the strengths of Science.

It is malleable enough to absorb change and be better as a result.

The best reasoning in Science seems to often alternate between mathematical reasoning and physics reasoning, each one prompteing advances in the other.

The best derivations I have seen of the famous Schrodinger quantum equation work like this, as do mnay others.

It is now well past the witching hour here in England  so I will take my leave for now.

17 minutes ago, DeckerdSmeckerd said:

That space is not quantum fabric is the normal theory. Space as a quantum fabric of energies and/or substances is only an idea. I can't go so far as to say I have a real theory. I would just prefer to avoid thinking of this thread as a proposal of a Scientific Theory.

When lots of clever people have worked hard to tie down specific meaning for many technical terms it makes sense to use those meanings and not try to start out with new ones.

Unfortunately too often in my opinion even scientists fall down in this respect so when they start talking about some new subject, other people think they know what is meant and arguments ensue when they find out that they do not.

11 minutes ago, DeckerdSmeckerd said:

In short, you don't believe that quantum physics should be thought of as the fabric of space. 

Space has no fabric. It is not made of anything.

Space is a general term, best understood in context.

33 minutes ago, DeckerdSmeckerd said:

I will look into it.

From Google, if it is correct:

So to vibrate, an object has to have a force acting on it. This force always acts to push the object back towards its equilibrium position. This is called a restoring force.

(The highlighting of the second sentence of the quote was unintentional)

Is the idea that a force must act on an object pertaining to discreet objects like particles? If quantum were to be understood as a continuum of energies rather than particles, then the force could act from the ends of the continuum. 

Forces that act upon a continuum of quantum energies, the fabric of space, cause the vibrations from source to the limit of the range. The vibrations are quantum chain reactions.

Quantum physics exists simultaneously with Newtonian physics. It seems natural that things that happen on the larger scale also happen on the quantum level. If a star explodes, the quantum fabric is also changed.

Quantum theory doesn't in general involve forces and reference to  a 'fabric' is popsci.

I am suprised that you jumped to such conclusions when I suggested to find out about some basics.

I'm sorry but there is a lot of learning and work required between those basics and something as advanced as quantum theory.

And as yet, you don't seem to have the basics.

1 hour ago, DeckerdSmeckerd said:

If light photons are vibrations, then what is quantum physics?

Energy does not exist by itself. There is no such thing as pure energy.

Energy is, in fact, a property of things which do exist. One of its properties is that it may be transferred from one thing to another.

Quantum physics arose from the description given by Einstein to the discovery that energy can only be transferred in certain definite quantities.
This was only  a description and referred to only one sort of transfer originally.
It did not answer the questions of how or why this is so.

Einstein called these definite quantities quanta.

As joigus points out, it has later transpired that the restriction also applies to some other properties of things such as angular momentum.

Quantum Physics is the study of such phenomena and its implications.

Does this help ?

27 minutes ago, DeckerdSmeckerd said:

Everything is vibrating.

I suggest yoy look more closely into the nature of vibrations, oscillations, waves and other forms of motion.

We have many names beacause they are all different in the way they work.

Vibrations require what is called a 'restoring force', in addition to the original  'disturbing force'.
If no such force is present then free motion occurs which may be random and if impeded ( eg by collisions) may generate a variety of phenomena, one of which we call pressure, another we call heat, another we call pair production and so on.