censorship

[imagine]

" Equation of motion" is really cool puzzle.

Gotta run; be back to look at that.

 

Thought: E.R. in same world as Q.M. would require 2 observations.

 

A continuous feedback loop between two observer posts? Is that grip?

 

Also:

 

a weighted bowl: is like in two places at once as it leaves the bowler's hand.

 

So when it hits another bowl along the surface it rolls on; since it is "already" in 2 places at once; it creates more of an impact and stops early but sends the other bowl "flying"...?

 

What if drop a block that is traveling left to right; and has had impacts on each side that balance, except that the impacts that occurred on say the right side are exactly more than the left side so as to exactly brake the object equal to causing the object to take exactly twice as long to travel left to right than it would have?

 

looks like "drifting" i.e. the object has another kind of mass? It starts to hold its own boundary i.e. to differentiate itself as an object from the surrounding environment (space) .... ?????

 

The climber effect may have involved same gravity but some of it pulling me more towards the climbing surface than down to the ground.

 

With seconds to respond; initially;

 

"equation" as "swap";

"motion" as "a" to "b" ; passing point c (non-directional at this stage)

looks like its going to need a form like "(x,y) z" at right angles to w

(Objectively defined direction?) ...

[iNow]

imagine, I'm not sure what you posted above is equivalent to the derivative. But rather than throw a bunch of words at each other, a simple test will convince me that you know what you are talking about. Here goes:

 

What is the derivative of the following?:

[math]x^7[/math]

 

[math](x+3)^5[/math]

 

[math]\frac{1}{x^4}[/math]

 

These are simple enough to do in your head if you studied derivative...

 

Are you convinced?

[Klaynos]

I appologise but it seems I left something out of my post above it should have read:

 

"equation of motion for a simple pendulum"

 

I meant to give a specific physical example that can be solved in many different mathematical ways (newtonia, legrangian, conservation of energy/momentum, hamiltoian etc...)...

 

Enjoy

 

Oh yeah, and work out the derivatives above given your maths...

[Sayonara]

This thread, it has to be said, is a hotbed of optimism if nothing else.

[Klaynos]

This thread, it has to be said, is a hotbed of optimism if nothing else.

 

We all need some hope in our lives...

[CharonY]

Naaah. Hope is overrated.

[imagine]

If equation of motion = 2 observations = grip = centrifugal force;

math i.e. categorised version is 2 observations balanced by a third so simple harmonic motion.

 

If a "pendulum" is already present; then you get a time differential-

it comes down to the structure of the pendulum string...? No time as coin-opeerated computer while travelling

[I_Pwn_Crackpots]

If equation of motion = 2 observations = grip = centrifugal force;

math i.e. categorised version is 2 observations balanced by a third so simple harmonic motion.

 

If a "pendulum" is already present; then you get a time differential-

it comes down to the structure of the pendulum string...? No time as coin-opeerated computer while travelling

 

I think they were asking for equations, not word salad.

[Klaynos]

If equation of motion = 2 observations = grip = centrifugal force;

math i.e. categorised version is 2 observations balanced by a third so simple harmonic motion.

 

If a "pendulum" is already present; then you get a time differential-

it comes down to the structure of the pendulum string...? No time as coin-opeerated computer while travelling

 

I'm sorry you fail... if you have a look at my blog you can see that for any time t I can predict the location of the pendulum, therefore classical mechanics is a better theory than yours and yours is dead in the water.

 

End of discussion.

[Mr Skeptic]

Maybe he didn't know what simple harmonic motion is. imagine, simple harmonic motion is the type of motion you get when the force on an object is proportional to the displacement and in the opposite direction of the displacement. Feel free to use an object with your choice of mass, maximum displacement, force, and starting position, then predict where it will be after a certain time.

[I_Pwn_Crackpots]

Maybe he didn't know what simple harmonic motion is.

 

That's a logical conclusion, given that he also doesn't seem to know basic calculus.

[CaptainPanic]

I have no clue what this thread is about (our thread starter is not making a lot of sense to me), but I'd like to say 1 thing about posts that I fail to understand: they're not necessarily wrong.

 

I am certain that if you just follow school, you do get brainwashed on the level of problem-solving and basic concepts. I have the feeling that kids have such overwhelming creativity that they would be able (some of them) to find a different way of describing many problems, and possibly would arrive with a different solution. Some kids will just fool around, but some might derive a new description of old things. And we cannot say that this (eventually) cannot arrive at a solution which combines classical physics and quantum mechanics.

 

This does not remove the fact that main stream science is an almost perfect description of the observations that we make every day, and there seems no reason to re-invent it. But once someone claims to have done it we should try to see if it makes any sense, rather than flame it on the basis that we don't understand it.

 

You can only say someone is wrong when you can point out the mistake. If you don't understand a concept doesn't mean it's wrong. There is merely a (large) communication problem.

[DrP]

I have no clue what this thread is about (our thread starter is not making a lot of sense to me), but I'd like to say 1 thing about posts that I fail to understand: they're not necessarily wrong.

 

........

 

You can only say someone is wrong when you can point out the mistake. If you don't understand a concept doesn't mean it's wrong. There is merely a (large) communication problem.

 

 

 

I think it stems from this thread here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=35019&highlight=hover- have a look.... can you see anything wrong with his theory?

[I_Pwn_Crackpots]

I have no clue what this thread is about (our thread starter is not making a lot of sense to me), but I'd like to say 1 thing about posts that I fail to understand: they're not necessarily wrong.

 

..............

 

 

You can only say someone is wrong when you can point out the mistake. If you don't understand a concept doesn't mean it's wrong. There is merely a (large) communication problem.

 

But since he is claiming to have found an entirely new branch of physics, he therefore should show math, and that he understands the rest of established physics.

[Klaynos]

But since he is claiming to have found an entirely new branch of physics, he therefore should show math, and that he understands the rest of established physics.

 

You'd think wouldn't you...

 

but oh no!

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34859

 

Enjoy

[swansont]

I have no clue what this thread is about (our thread starter is not making a lot of sense to me), but I'd like to say 1 thing about posts that I fail to understand: they're not necessarily wrong.

 

This particular thread was supposed to be about alleged censorship, and not about any speculative science. After the original thread was closed, it appears the discussion was continued here. However, that defeats the purpose of closing a thread.

 

So, I'm closing this thread, too.