« on: 12/06/2021 15:35:41 »
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Don't you think that modern "Physics" has been almost entirely captured by "Mathematicians"No.
Just like they did in earlier centuries, when they told astronomers that the Moon must revolve around the Earth in a mathematically perfect circle.So, you also don't understand what the church did- as well as thinking that mathematicians gathered the evidence of red-shifts.
The mathematicians prevailed over the astronomers, and for 1500 years astronomers had to believe that all celestial movements are circular.To a pretty good approximation, they are.
You really should find out how science works before you try to overturn it.
In deriving the rocket equation, we go through this step:Which is not true and isn't mathematically correct.
mv = (m-Δm)(v+Δv)
Good idea, but let’s up the ante somewhat and include Higgs Boson. Let’s also say that @charles1948 is limited to only posting in this thread until he’s has convinced us.But I don't believe some of them are true.
And the recurring theme on your part for that disbelief is the argument from incredulity.........
.........That tells me you don't understand the theories as well as you think you do. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and give you a chance to prove yourself. Can you explain ito us what the Big Bang theory is, why it was proposed in the first place and why it is currently the most accepted theory for the origin of the Universe?
Specifically, the theory that the entire Universe originated from a single tiny particle seems absurd, and unscientific.. Where's the evidence for it?What is absurd is you saying there is no evidence. Have you not simply googled "evidence for the big bang"?
Until practical scientists like GalileoOne of Galileo's most famous works was a thought-experiment.
No, the scientists on the ground, in their now suppressed report, suggested the barrels were most likley placed at the location.Like most conspiracy theories, this only puts forward one side of the story, which as we will see is not as presented.
I've Noticed this in different cultures, traditions, regions, religions...Apparently it is from Hinduism to ward off evil spirits or evil eye.
A Black String tied around the Wrist.
What is the Significance or Meaning of it?
Most people seem to have one nowadays, hence Curious.Most people???
Hi all.As with most apparent "paradoxes" in Relativity, this one is likely due to only focusing on one aspect of the theory and ignoring the rest.
Does anyone have some knowledge or insight about this "paradox" in the theory of Relativity?
Imagine a submarine underwater.
The submarine is at rest relative to the fluid and has adjusted it's tanks so that it has equal density with the fluid and remains at a depth of 100 metres. (No thrust required from the engines, it just has neutral buoyancy).
The submarine accelerates rapidly to reach relativistic speeds (let's say 0.9 c) relative to the fluid and then sustains a constant velocity. This is intended to be a horizontal motion, the fins, bow planes etc. were not set to drive the submarine up or down.
As is usual for these sorts of paradoxes, we have two observers in two different frames of reference.
The submarine commander is at rest inside the submarine. She should observe length contraction for the fluid in her rest frame and a corresponding increase in density of the fluid. The submarine retains it's rest characteristics, including density in her frame.
A mermaid is at rest on the ocean floor. In her rest frame, the density of the fluid has not changed, however the submarine has undergone length contraction in her frame and it's density has increased.
Will the submarine rise or sink due to buoyancy?
Background info: You may like to read the Wikipedia article about Supplee's paradox.
There is also a similar discussion about a Helium balloon moving through air on another forum. (I'm not sure I should put links to another forum).
I do not know the answer. I can see references to articles in that Wikipedia entry but they seem to demand some application of General Relativity and a complete re-write of the Archimedian principle. I was wondering if there is a resolution based only on Special Relativity - but I'll take any insight or discussion I can get.