1

Technology / Re: What is the best spaceship design?

« on: Yesterday at 05:42:15 »

Woops , habit .  Kind of obvious I meant in all directions  ( omni ) .
D.

If you did mean omni-directional, then why are you bothering to complain about the lack of molecular momentum calculations? If you propose that the heat is omni-directional, then it will have no effect on the net momentum and won't change Bored Chemist's calculations.

2

New Theories / Re: Why gravity of earth is all attraction, no repulsion (expanded 2018)

« on: Yesterday at 05:29:07 »

It is unfortunate,  modern science  belittles, takes for granted the  enormous indispensable role played by the unwritten, unexplainable NATURAL law of opposite, re- positive  and negative,  such natural law of opposite is innate, which cannot be lost nor destroyed,  That natural law of opposite  is responsible for the construction/ emanation of the universe.

This reads more like philosophy than science.

Why does magnet self-divides into equal positive and negative is a mystery.

It's not a mystery. It's well understood why that happens.

Why does earth orbit the sun  naturally regardless of varying reversals of poles of both earth and sun?

Magnetism plays practically no role in the orbit of the Earth around the Sun. The strength of magnetic fields falls off much more rapidly than the strength of gravitational fields. Magnetic fields obey the inverse cube law, whereas gravity obeys the inverse square law. So any magnetic attraction between the Earth and Sun is very, very weak.

There is no equality in that concept of proton positive and electron negative. The  experiment with bar magnet debunks such concept.

You're comparing apples with oranges.

Is electron all negative? Not right. A bulb will not light unless it has connected  two electrical wires positive and negative.

The electron does have a net negative charge. Even the most basic of equipment like cloud chambers demonstrate this. The terms "positive" and "negative" are better thought of as indicating the direction of the current in a circuit.

The point is this: the 18 miles tunnel of Large Hadron Collider was set-up with electro-magnetism  to  speed up protons in the Collier, a proof  that protons have positive and negative because it  interacts with the set-up magnets.

If you study electrodynamics, you'll see that electric monopoles can indeed interact with both north and south poles. There is no need for both charges to be present in a single entity. The proton is known to have a net positive charge with a highly-precise magnitude as determined by experiment.

It is conceived that the interior center of atom is nucleus composed of bundles of  protons and  neutrons, protons are huddled together, including neutrons, but strong repulsive nuclear force hold together  the cluster of  protons all positive  as mediated  by gluon,   Such concept  is not right.

You're right, it isn't right. It's actually an attractive nuclear force holding it all together. Go study the evidence for it.

That gluon is gravitational attraction.

The nuclear force caused by gluons has many properties that are very different from the gravitational force.

3

Technology / Re: What is the best spaceship design?

« on: Yesterday at 04:53:03 »

Think of heat as dispersed , uni-directional momentum .

You were calling it omni-directional earlier...

Any  waste heat produced is omni-directional

4

Question of the Week / Re: QotW - 18.11.11 - Why are propeller-drive planes popular in hurricanes?

« on: 12/11/2018 19:03:49 »

Jet aircraft have been used to fly into hurricanes in the past. The Lockheed U-2 and Boeing WB-47 are two examples. Even today, the Gulfstream IV-SP (G-IV) is used. My best guess for the seeming preference for propeller-driven aircraft is because of their superior fuel efficiency.

5

New Theories / Re: LIGO -- is a gravity wave a bending of spacetime or a compression?

« on: 12/11/2018 07:20:57 »

(4) Do EGWs affect the size of a solid object (Einsteinians say no)

a solid object does change size but that change is very small

Groan...

6

Technology / Re: What is the best spaceship design?

« on: 12/11/2018 04:44:51 »

Here is something that I don't think you considered: with the ball hitting the sand-filled wall, 45% of the kinetic energy is changed into heat. That means that the ball only has 55% of its original kinetic energy after impact. With the ball hitting the hard wall, only 2% of the kinetic energy is changed into heat, meaning that the ball has 98% of its original kinetic energy after impact. Since the one hitting the hard wall has more kinetic energy than the one hitting the soft wall, the hard wall is actually pushed harder than the soft wall (against your implications).  So the box drifts in the direction of the hard wall, while the ball that hit the hard wall bounces back faster than the one that hit the soft wall. The faster moving ball carries more kinetic energy than the slower moving ball. This means that the total momentum of the balls is in the direction away from the hard wall while the momentum of the box is in the direction of the hard wall. Since the motions are in opposite directions, they cancel out and the momentum is still zero.

7

New Theories / Re: LIGO -- is a gravity wave a bending of spacetime or a compression?

« on: 12/11/2018 02:12:22 »

but EGWs do not affect the length of solid objects (& do not affect ticking).  But EGWs do initially affect the length of objects &  ticking (ie when the EGW first arrives), but not after the EGW establishes itself. Believe it or not.

When you make statements like this you make it clear that you don't understand how gravitational waves are supposed to work. Yet you insist that you understand their properties better than the people who designed, built and run LIGO. Please do better research before pretending that you know more than physicists.

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does the Higgs field give mass to virtual particles?

« on: 12/11/2018 02:01:16 »

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/


Could it be that great minds do not always think alike?

Interesting. I thought for sure that I read somewhere in the past that they were the same...

9

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?

« on: 12/11/2018 01:58:41 »

The basic idea of energy content depending on mass and speed is correct .
P.

Stating it as mass multiplied by velocity, however, is incorrect and should therefore never be stated in that way.

10

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How much force does a torch or flashlight beam apply to a dust particle?

« on: 12/11/2018 01:54:36 »

This suffices but a square meter is more of a flood light! lol

The value he stated was a measure of radiation pressure. It does not imply that the light in question necessarily covers an area of one square meter.

I'll now attempt to calculate the maximum speed of a dust particle due to this force. I'll do this by using the terminal velocity equation:

V_t = sqrt((2mg)/(ρAC_d)), where

V_t is terminal velocity in meters per second (which is just maximum speed in this case)
m is the mass of the dust particle in kilograms
g is the acceleration due to the gravity in meters per second squared (but will be substituted for the accelerations from earlier)
ρ is the density of the air in kilograms per cubic meter
A is the cross-sectional area in square meters
C_d is the drag coefficient (0.47 for a sphere)

V_t = sqrt((2(6.54 x 10^-20)(0.0255))/((1.225)(1.9634954 x 10^-15)(0.47)))
V_t = sqrt((3.3354 x 10^-21)/(1.13048247655 x 10^-15))
V_t = sqrt(2.95042167 x 10^-6)
V_t = 0.0017177 meters per second

V_t = sqrt((2(5.24 x 10^-10)(0.000127))/((1.225)(7.85398163397 x 10^-8)(0.47)))
V_t = sqrt((1.33096 x 10^-13)/(4.5219299257582275 x 10^-8))
V_t = sqrt(2.943345 x 10^-6)
V_t = 0.0017156 meters per second

11

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?

« on: 12/11/2018 01:27:38 »

I stated for the easy understanding of the uninformed !

Which means you told them the wrong thing.

12

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?

« on: 11/11/2018 23:10:07 »

Kinetic energy is simpler to phrase , as in KE=M×V .

That is not the correct equation for calculating kinetic energy. The correct equation is KE = (1/2)mv². The equations for momentum and kinetic energy are not synonymous.

13

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does the Higgs field give mass to virtual particles?

« on: 11/11/2018 17:58:35 »

You may be right, My reservation though is the Higgs boson itself is a virtual particle also that arises out of the vacuum of space like any other quantum fluctuation.
Would you say the higgs field overlays the normal random quantum fluctuations (as demonstrated by the Casimir effect) that exist throughout all of space, or would you agree they are one and the same.

Virtual Higgs particles would just be an added component of the quantum vacuum background. They are just one species of fish in a sea full of other fish. Higgs particles even give mass to each other.

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How much force does a torch or flashlight beam apply to a dust particle?

« on: 11/11/2018 17:51:47 »

Thanks @Kryptid - one question - how is this equation - P = I_f/c - derived in the first place. I'm trying to do the dimensions / units on it to understand it, but I'm struggling.

It seems to have something to do with the Poynting vector: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vector

That's a little above my understand, unfortunately.

15

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does the Higgs field give mass to virtual particles?

« on: 11/11/2018 15:09:51 »

If I recall correctly, virtual particles are identical in every way to "real" particles. The only difference is how long they exist. So the Higgs field should affect virtual particles.

16

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How much force does a torch or flashlight beam apply to a dust particle?

« on: 11/11/2018 15:06:21 »

...of course, a dust particle is continually being knocked by air molecules, which absorb any accumulated velocity, and impart their own random velocity to the dust particle.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion

Yes, that's true. The drag forces imposed on a dust particle would be relatively large due to its tiny size.

Another potential complicating factor if one were to try to observe this at home would be convection currents generated by the heat of the light bulb. For all I know, those might impose more force on dust than the light beam.

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?

« on: 11/11/2018 03:43:03 »

So NOW the overall system is the point ! 
Haha !

It always was.

18

Just Chat! / Re: The SPF of vehicle side-window glass is ...

« on: 11/11/2018 01:47:07 »

I'm surprised. I once thought that glass blocked out all ultraviolet light (from the Sun, at least).

19

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?

« on: 11/11/2018 01:37:34 »

Momentum = Mass × Velocity .
Two ships are inside a giant box , they launch from opposite sides , tethered to giant reels .  Before they collide , the reel-drags activate , bringing the ships to a halt .  Their momentum drops to zero , the box never had any .  Where the bleep did the momentum go !? Come on , I know you got this !
P.M.

Assuming that your two ships were identical to each other, then the entire box-ship system had zero momentum throughout your entire scenario. Each individual ship has momentum when considered in isolation, but the fact that they are traveling in opposite directions from each other means that they cancel each other's momentum contribution out from the viewpoint of the entire system. Momentum is a vector quantity: it has both magnitude and direction. The momentum of this system was zero from the beginning to the end.

20

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How much force does a torch or flashlight beam apply to a dust particle?

« on: 11/11/2018 01:02:12 »

The pressure is going to fall off the further away from the light you are, so I'll assume a best case scenario where we are looking at the pressure the light is producing right at the face of the flashlight.

The equation for calculating radiation pressure is P = I_f/c, where:

P is pressure in pascals
I_f is the irradiance in watts per square meter
c is the speed of light in meters per second

If I have a 5 watt flashlight with a lens radius of 2.5 centimeters (0.025 meters, 0.0019634954 square meters), then the irradiance will be about 2,546.48 watts per square meter. This assumes that 100% of those watts are going into the creation of electromagnetic radiation, which we know it wouldn't be. The actual efficiency might run anywhere from 10% to 90% depending on the kind of bulb used.

So now we put the relevant numbers into the equation:

P = 2,546.48 watts per square meter/299,792,458 meters per second
P = 0.00000849414 pascals (newtons per square meter)

Multiply that number by a value from 0.1 to 0.9 depending on how efficient the lightbulb is to get a better estimate.

EDIT: According to Engineering Toolbox, household dust particles range in size from 0.05 to 100 microns across. For the sake of convenience, I'll assume they are spherical, resulting in cross-sectional areas of 0.0019634954 square microns (1.9634954 x 10^-15 square meters) and 7,853.98163397 square microns (7.85398163397 x 10^-8 square meters) respectively. Now to calculate the force on these particles:

F = 0.00000849414 newtons per square meter x 1.9634954 x 10^-15 square meters
F = 1.6678205 x 10^-20 newtons

F = 0.00000849414 newtons per square meter x 7.85398163397 x 10^-8 square meters
F = 6.671282 x 10^-13 newtons

To find the acceleration that the light imparts on these particles, their mass will need to be known. If I assume that they are made of organic matter, then a density similar to water might not be far off the mark (if it is, we can modify this later). A sphere 0.05 microns across has a volume of 6.54 x 10^-5 cubic microns (6.54 x 10^-23 cubic meters). A sphere 100 microns across has a volume of 5.24 x 10[/sup]5[/sup] cubic microns (5.24 x 10^-13 cubic meters). The density of water is 1,000 kilograms per cubic meter, so:

m = 6.54 x 10^-23 cubic meters x 1,000 kilograms per cubic meter
m = 6.54 x 10^-20 kilograms

m = 5.24 x 10^-13 cubic meters x 1,000 kilograms per cubic meters
m = 5.24 x 10^-10 kilograms

Now for the acceleration:

A = F/m
A = 1.6678205 x 10^-20 newtons / 6.54 x 10^-20 kilograms
A = 0.255 meters per second squared (for 100% efficient light)
A = 0.23 meters per second squared (for 90% efficient light)
A = 0.0255 meters per second squared for (for 10% efficient light)

A = F/m
A = 6.671282 x 10^-13 newtons / 5.24 x 10^-10 kilograms
A = 0.00127 meters per second squared (for 100% efficient light)
A = 0.00114 meters per second squared (for 90% efficient light)
A = 0.000127 meters per second squared (for 10% efficient light)