Jump to content

Edgard Neuman

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    212
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-15 Bad

1 Follower

About Edgard Neuman

  • Rank
    Atom

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://oneeyejack2.wordpress.com/

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Physics

Recent Profile Visitors

4366 profile views
  1. and what about this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza–Klein_theory
  2. I realize maybe we would have to define them each as a unique "set" of integer powers of a specific irrational number between ]0;1[ but the idea remains the same
  3. Hi, Here is a math question : First I'm going to define some things (some names may already exists that I don't know of, so please take my definition into consideration) - let's call p[n] the nth-rank prime number p[0]=1, p[1]=2, p[2]=3, p[3]=5 etc - as you know, each integer >0 can be written as a product of integer powers of prime numbers.. let's call it the "prime writing" of a number... i'll write u[n] so for any integer X we have X = product( p[n] ^ u[n] ) - we can extend this to rational numbers, simply by allowing u[n] <0 My question is : can we define a set of irrational numbers in ]0 ; 1[ that extends p[n] when n<0 and are the building blocks for irrational numbers ? Let's call them subprimes.. Those numbers would have the properties following : - they are not power/products of primes and other sub-primes and of course integer powers of some other real number (other than themselves) Are they already known ? Do they exist ? How to construct them ? I have some (very faint) clue : When you elevate these numbers to positive powers , you get closer and closer to 0.. so the more you go close to 0, the more likely to find a power of a bigger subprime.. so the density must decrease closer to 0.. you get some sort of sieve, but closer and closer to 0.
  4. First : thanks for taking the time to actually think. Allow me to answer and disagree (because I can) : No but, when I wrote this, I supposed the bridge had some internal length.. (and half of the loop would be in it). I admit I don't exactly know the topology of a einstein rosen bridge. But it's not necessary. The rope (or the particle loop) can just be straight, go from left to right.. (it would be a loop but straight).. I don't know either if you can make some ER Brigde with entries face to face.. (if you can't that would ruin everything.. that why I supposed you would have to make a topological inversion of one end).. It's a very simple and stupid idea really.. If you played portal , you'll understand instantly the topology of the room. (Somebody probably had it before, but i've never heard of it) (sorry for the poor quality of the schematic, i don't have photoshop)
  5. I'm sick and tired of all your peremptive general answers : - "math or it's nothing" - "you're not a genius" - "it's not math." - "you know nothing" bla bla I've heard it all. I won't waste another full day talking about "my/your legitimity" "the importance of math", "the rules of the forum". I have a life. I'll make a list of people who are not objective, try to waste my time and discourage me of having ideas (what a absurd thing to do really) and who I will answer only once. Who care "who I am" ? You do, because you don't know what "science" is about (obviously) This idea is very simple. So spare me the b*llshit, and criticize the idea or leave me alone. Your next answer can only be one of those : a) "It wouldn't work because .... XXX (math if you want)" b) "that's a good idea, I don't see why it won't work" c) "I don't know, but it's worth thinking about it" The rest is absurdity, misplaced ego and noise.
  6. ... now that's just absurd sadism. (of course I know we can't make a einstein rosen bridge).. From now on, I won't even answer to you, and only to people who have a brain. I wonder how many good ideas you throw to the bin because of your abusive self-importance. Learn about objectivity, it will do good to you. And the idea that i can't submit some idea without doing the math. That's absurd. A idea is a idea. Math is math. I'm not here for a medal in math. I don't do math, I hate math. I submit a idea. You need the math ? YOU DO the math, you seem to like it. I just submit the idea. The idea isn't wrong because I didn't do the math. You need math, I don't. It's just a very simple idea rightfully written in the "speculation part" of the forum. Contrary to you, I'm here to "share", not to make myself believe i'm important. The math here is as simple as the idea ER-brigde math + linear particle accelerator math, so you can figure it out.
  7. and what about the idea it inspired me ? somebody please tell me it's a good idea ! ? You put two ends of a einstein-rosen-bridge face to face in a ship (Portal style), and you put a very simple (linear) particle accelerator between the two.. (you could also just put a rope, and pull it, but I figured a particle sized ER bridge would be easier).. I don't see any flaw in this idea.. Relative to space the mass going flowing the bridge would have some momentum/kinetic energy in a direction and the ship would have the opposite (so the laws won't be broken).. it's really a linear inertia wheel (a straight wheel)..
  8. but how to explain curvated trajectory of particles that are not charged and not photons like the Z boson..
  9. In your gif, it kind of moves a little... if the thing was a distant disk, it seems still plausible But, in the case of a insect what we need to know is the orientation of the camera relative to the plane.. if the insect is inside the glass thing, the camera wouldn't have to move at all. Maybe some of the numbers on the screen are the angles of the camera.
  10. I've a better idea about it : if you played the game "portal".. (it all depends of the laws of bridge orientation if they exist, you would probably have to flip one entry of the bridge to make it face the other one).. you can imagine a ship having two ends of the bridge, facing each other (like in the game). In the middle, you put a particle accelerator. When you accelerate the particle in one direction, the local reaction push the accelerator and the ship in the other direction, and when you decelerate the particles, the opposite happens. You would have some sort of inertia wheel, but linear thanks the topological inversion of the bridge. (I even suppose the parity of the particle would alternate each time they pass the bridge, the whole being the equivalent of a mobius strip)
  11. I don't think the insect theory works... the object is in the center of the view because the camera has a pursuit system that detects objects and centers it.. (the two lines right next to the object are indicator of that system state) .. At the beginning the lines are bigger because the object is not in it, so the detection area is big. Once the system catch the object, it puts it in the center. In other videos you see the pilots trying to "catch" the object, meaning they orient the camera to it until the pursuit system takes control and start to automatically orient the view to maintain the object right in the center of the image. Personally, I thought these object could simply be light plastic objects carried by the wind.. a simple plastic bag could fly as fast as the wind.. and we don't know the distance and the scale of the objects. I also suppose in some specific conditions a very steady wind could carry and sustain a light object flying straight near the surface for a relatively long period.
  12. Ooh ! that gave me some other idea : Instead of this, what we could use some einstein-rosen-bridge.. picture this : We create a loop of particles (that we accelerate) except the loop goes into the bridge, from one end to the other.. so in our universe, we would have only one half of the loop.. Can we then just use the particle speed to accelerate the ship ? Imagine we could here on earth accelerate the particles, and then somehow release the ship that would use the particles to accelerate. I suppose that it wouldn't work either but the reason would be weirder : when we accelerate the particles into the loop, the two bridge would accelerate in the opposite direction and transfer a force to the thing that keep it open.
  13. I believed it for ten minutes I found a more accurate description : https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/10/nasa-inertial-drive-with-a-helical-engine-using-a-particle-accelerator.html
  14. Hi, Here is a article that explain how the engine would work : https://www.newscientist.com/article/2218685-nasa-engineers-helical-engine-may-violate-the-laws-of-physics/ It relies on a component whose mass is alternatively changing between two values(by changing the energy of the system) This topic is not about the question of the engine working or not (I suppose there could be some relativistic effects associated with the mass changes that could cancel the whole thing : what is the derivative of acceleration ? and the derivative of curvature ? In fact when I think about it : - It wouldn't work maybe because a device whose mass would be decreasing would accelerate, and decelerate when the mass increase (with the whole conservation of momentum) - and ...can we change the mass/energy of the system.. as it says in the article ?). I'm just wondering : what would be the most effective mass alternating device ? What we would need is a thing that could change mass the most while using the smallest space.. we would need to optimize the mass difference by unit of space (kg / m^3).. I suppose we could make a very small atomic component with a rotating thing or charge, and vary the rotation.. or maybe some atom with two energetic state the furthest apart.
  15. I wasn't sure exactly what the symbole mean, i copied pasted it from the article.. the article was indeed talking about the set of subsets, so I supposed that was what the symbol meant.. So I wrote that "I understand that" the power set is the set of subsets... (I just didn't think about infinite subsets) thanks
×
×
  • 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.