1

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How can the star be in motion?

« on: 23/05/2019 23:42:49 »

 Chilean astronomers discovered a planet orbiting the star Proxima Centauri using the La Silla land based telescope (Escude, p. 408)  based on the dimming that occurs when a 4.22 ly planet propagates in front of the star Proxima Centauri but the Hubble proves the intensity variation of a 4.22 ly star is caused by the earth's atmosphere.

2

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How can parallax be used to determine the distance to a 4.22 ly star.

« on: 23/05/2019 23:41:31 »

Modern astronomers use parallax to determine the distance to a star where the change in the angular position of a star, after an observer on the earth propagates the distance of the earth's orbital diameter (fig 19) is used in the calculation of the distance to a 4.22 ly star but the distance of a 4.22 ly star is more than one million times greater than the earth's orbital diameter.

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How can an electromagnetic field form an em photon?

« on: 23/05/2019 23:40:21 »

Quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, string theory, quantum field theory, quantum chromodynamics, plasma physics, condense matter physics, and particle physics use the gauge but representing Maxwell's equations with a potential does not change the fact that Maxwell's equations are derived using Faraday's induction effect that is not luminous nor can the potential of a mass-less and expanding electromagnetic induction field be used to represent the particle structure of a molecule, atom, ion, nuclei, neutron, proton, electron or subatomic particles that have a mass.

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Does Lenard's particle structure of light negate the coherency of a light wave.

« on: 07/05/2019 07:02:08 »

Does Lenard's particle structure of light negate the continuity of Maxwell's electromagnetic field that forms the coherency of Maxwell's EM light wave, and, can an expanding em field represent Lenard's particle structure of light.

5

That CAN'T be true! / Does Stokes' theorem equality produces the right results?

« on: 05/05/2019 23:45:55 »

Stokes' theorem is equating a line integral with a surface integral. The result of the line integral is a length which is not equivalent to the the surface area of the surface integral; units do not seem to match


m =/ m^2.............................................................equ 1

6

That CAN'T be true! / Does the Apollo 11 space craft contain the fuel required for the moon mission.

« on: 03/05/2019 18:22:28 »

I was talk to a friend at Harvard and I came up with this small calculation. If you find fault or know the exact efficiency of a rocket engine that would be nice. I had to scientifically theorize (guess) based on the numerous different values.



It is not physically possible for the Apollo 11 mission to land on the moon and install the lunar reflector on the surface of the moon. The amount of fuel required to decelerate the Apollo 11 Command/Service Module (CSM) and Lander (L) after reaching the moon is calculated. The kinetic energy of Apollo 11 command-service module and lander (CSML) that is propagating to the moon is calculated using the distance to the moon (363,104,000 m) and the time that the Apollo 11 space craft (CSML) propagated to the moon (4 days 6 hours and 45 minutes [364,900 seconds]),


v = (distance)/(time) = (363,104,000 m)/(364,900 s) = 983 m/s.......................................................85


The total mass of the command, service modules and lander (CSML) is,


(CM) + (SM) + (L) = 5,560 kg + 24,520 kg + 16,400 kg = 49,480 kg................................................86


Using equations 85 an 86, the kinetic energy of the Apollo 11 CSML is calculated,


1/2 mv2 = (.5)(49,480 kg)(983 m/s)2 = 2.39 x 1010 J.........................................................................87


Using the kinetic energy of the CSML (equ 87) and the energy of a kilogram of rocket fuel (4.2 x 107 J/kg), the minimum amount of fuel required to decelerate the CSML is calculated,


Fuel mass = (KE)/(fuel energy) =  (2.39 x 1010 J)/(4.2 x 107 J/kg) = 569 kg...................................88


Using the rocket engine efficiency of 1% and the result of equation 88,


(569 kg)/X = .01 -------------> X = 56,900 kg......................................................................................89


It would require approximately 50,000 kg of fuel (equ 89) to decelerate the 49,480 kg CSML after reaching the moon to allow the CSML to orbit the moon. On the return trip back to the earth using the velocity of 983 m/s and CSM weight of 30,000 kg, less the lander weight, it would require an additional 19,500 kg of fuel to accelerate the CSM for the return trip back to the earth and an additional 15,000 kg of fuel to decelerate the CSM at the earth which represents a total fuel load of approximately 100,000 kg yet according to NASA the CSM contains a total fuel load of 18,410 kg.

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

7

Just Chat! / Is Mueller report a slaughter

« on: 21/04/2019 02:05:20 »

Trump is burn like a witch and crying like a hit dog.

8

That CAN'T be true! / Is Cavendish's displacement of 2ug measurable?

« on: 20/04/2019 23:16:37 »

 Cavendish's experimental apparatus uses two lead spheres m1  = 158 kg and m2  = .73 kg separated by the distance of .21 m that detects a force of 1.74 x 10−7 N (≃ 2μg ) which is too small to measure in 1797 which nullifies Cavendish's experiment.

9

That CAN'T be true! / LIGO represents an mirror displacement of what?

« on: 20/04/2019 00:30:30 »

The LIGO detected celestial gravitational waves that originate from a 21,000 binary pulsar (PSR 1913+16) that produces a ΔL = 10-18 m disturbance of the interferometer mirror but Creswell-Jackson (2017) discredited the LIGO experimental results as background noise (Creswell-Jackson, Abstract) since the mirror displacement of ΔL = 10-18 m is less than the diameter of an electrons which is to small of a displacement to experimentally measure. The formation of a wave requires a medium, composed of matter yet gravitational waves propagate in vacuum of celestial space that is void of matter. Einstein uses a space-time curvature to justify the formation gravitational waves using the varying relativistic (time-space) translational velocity v that is formed by the earth's daily and yearly motions but gravitational waves that are propagating in stellar space are not effected by the earth's daily and yearly motions.

10

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How much fuel was used to decelerate the Apollo 11 CMSL at the moon?

« on: 15/04/2019 22:58:39 »

How much fuel was used to decelerate the Apollo 11 CMSL at the moon?

11

That CAN'T be true! / Do protons of the Fermilab proton beam exist?

« on: 11/04/2019 23:42:11 »

The particle physics Fermilab (1967) accelerator used an radio frequency (RF) cavity and magnets to accelerate protons that make over 1,000 passes through a 6 km circumference beam pipe and RF cavity. The accelerated proton beam collides with a beryllium target forming subatomic particles that propagate through the steel enclosure of the 15 ft  bubble chamber to produce spiral liquid hydrogen bubble tracks that are used to determine the masses of the subatomic particles. Originally, the existence a proton is justified using an alcohol track formed within a Wilson cloud chamber yet alcohol molecules of the cloud chamber have a mass 50 times larger than the mass of a proton. A single proton propagating through the cloud chamber is interacting with over 2,000 alcohol molecules that have a mass 50 times larger than a proton to form a single cloud chamber alcohol track that is used to justify the existence of a proton yet a proton that originates from a hydrogen atom's nucleus is extremely unstable and cannot interact with the alcohol molecules to form an alcohol track within Wilson's cloud chamber which contests the existence of a nuclear proton. In addition, it is questionable how a proton that forms the alcohol track is formed since Rutherford use the interaction of alpha particles with nitrogen gas to form protons but alpha particles originate from the decay of a radioactive isotope which result in numerous mode of decay such as alpha decay, proton emission, neutron emission, spontaneous fission and cluster decay; therefore, it would not be possible to isolate the alpha particles that are used to interact with the nitrogen gas molecules to from the protons that are used to form the proton that is use to form the alcohol track that is used to justify the existence of a proton. In the Fermilab particle accelerator, a carbon filter is used to separate the components of a hydrogen ions to form a homologous Fermilab proton beam. The Fermilab describe a carbon filter (foil) that filters out the protons from the components of the hydrogen ions to form a proton beam but the carbon foil separation and isolation mechanism appears extremely dubious since physicists cannot separate tritium from water.  Furthermore, the Fermilab proton beam is propagating through a 6 km beam pipe but the propagation of positive charged protons would require a cathode in front the the protons yet the protons are propagating through the beam pipe without a cathode in front the the proton beam. The cyclotron is used to justify the existence of a proton beam but the Lawrence cyclotron's proton beam is a blue light beam (fig 19).