1

New Theories / Re: Unobserved(stateless/unphysical) Quantum Waves + State(physical) = Spacetime(GR)

« on: 27/10/2019 20:03:07 »

I want to say every expletive that exists right now. I hate you.

You hate science.

2

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How do I explain tidal locking to a ten year old?

« on: 06/09/2019 23:19:35 »

Take a bicycle into class. Hold up the front and spin the wheel. Tell them to pretend it's the (a) Moon spinning, close to a planet.

You'd need to explain that due to friction in the bearings and with the air, the wheel will slow down; but in space the Moon would just keep spinning.

Now stick a big blob of plasticine or blu-tack on a spoke, near the rim.

Explain that this represents that the density of the moon is not perfectly even (see mascon), and that the moon isn't perfectly smooth (see mountains). So the mass is not perfectly distributed.

Spin the wheel, it'll (if the bearings are good!) always stop with the extra weight down.

... there's lots wrong with this, but in a "lies to children" way I think it's a reasonable graphic demonstration.

(e.g. The worst thing here is it implies a stop to rotation, but a tidally locked Moon is of course still spinning, just the rate has matched its orbit. You'd need to explain that the bicycle is stationary on the floor of the classroom and you can't demonstrate that part, but if they can imagine the bike orbiting the Earth they might be able to see what would occur.)

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is it possible to have a satellite fixed?

« on: 19/08/2019 04:36:52 »

Hard to know what's wanted, but Lagrange points seem worth mentioning.

https://www.space.com/30302-lagrange-points.html

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/754/what-is-a-lagrange-point/

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

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Impossible question about our Solar System, can anyone answer? Please help.

« on: 08/06/2019 22:10:30 »

That feeling of weight is gravity from Earth accelerating you.

No it isn't.
It's from the Earth attracting me.

Not sure if you're joking or not. So anyway ... that attraction is an acceleration.

Thinking of gravity as a "force". What does a force do to something? It accelerates it.

Don't forget that mass and weight are not the same thing (though living on Earth we do treat them the same and even have scales measured in kilograms (or in a couple of countries, hogsheads or something)).

Weight = mg       (m = mass, g = local gravitational acceleration)

g, on the surface of Earth, is more or less 9.8 m/s/s
The SI unit of weight is the Newton, in base units: kg.m/s/s
Note that "per second per second" ... acceleration.

Refs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_acceleration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_(unit)

(As Halc notes, the reason you feel it, is because the floor, or your chair, "push back". That doesn't change that it's an acceleration.)

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Impossible question about our Solar System, can anyone answer? Please help.

« on: 08/06/2019 05:33:19 »

... My problem is that my understanding of the word 'gravitating' simply suggests moving towards something. As you mentioned the earth is accelerating towards the sun, hence gravitating towards it. ...

Just to add something related which may help you see the thing from another direction:

Stand up. Feel your weight on your feet. (Or sit down, and feel your weight on your, well, not feet.)

That feeling of weight is gravity from Earth accelerating you. Yet you don't appear to be moving anywhere.

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What are the mechanics of Time dilation - how and why does it work?

« on: 07/06/2019 09:45:37 »

A moving clock slows down or does it tick normally because in its frame it is always stationary. Therefore, a moving clock will tick normally (without slowing). Does my question make sense?

Say you and a friend are drifting in space. You are both wearing watches.

The distance between you is changing, so there is relative motion.

There is no absolute concept of "moving" or "not moving", so both of you can consider yourself as at rest, and the other is the one who is moving.

For both of you, your own watch (no matter what kind of clock it is) is ticking at 1 second per second.

For both of you, the watch on the other is slow.

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What are the mechanics of Time dilation - how and why does it work?

« on: 02/06/2019 01:38:15 »

OK To reiterate: Who is dilated more 1 A, 2 B, 3 Neither? Someone has to be physically dilated more.

You're mixing frames.

If we assume A is the "stay at home" twin and B moves away, then yes there could be a C for whom both A and B are the same speed relative to them. Note that C would also have to be moving, according to both A and B.

According to A, C is moving away at half the speed B is moving away.
According to B, C is moving away at half the speed A is moving away.
According to C, A and B are both moving away at the same speed (in opposite directions).
At this time, according to C, time dilation is the same for A and B.

Then there's the turn-around. B heads back to A. For your addition of C, C will also now need to head back ...

According to A, C is moving closer at half the speed B is moving closer.
According to B, C is moving closer at half the speed A is moving closer.
According to C, A and B are both moving closer at the same speed.
At this time, according to C, time dilation is the same for A and B.

During the two times of plain inertial movement, everyone can consider themselves as at rest, and their clocks will tick at one second per second - according to them. And also, according to them, the other peoples' clocks will tick slower. Your addition of C does not change this.

That B (and C) will be younger than A when they all get back together is not about some "real" physical dilation happening to one but not the other during the travel. That would imply some absolute rest, where A is "really" at rest and B is "really" moving.

It's an effect of one of them staying in a single inertial frame the whole time while the other (or others) do not.

(Although acceleration is needed to have B change direction, the effect is not specifically "caused" by the acceleration. Alternate methods of this experiment involve someone else coming back, and B passing them their clock reading as they cross paths. The clock that returns to A will still read less.)

While B moves away (according to A) the situation is symmetrical, i.e. B can consider A moving way.
While B moves closer (according to A) the situation is symmetrical, i.e. B can consider A moving closer.
(And this is where the "paradox" of "twins' paradox" comes from.)
But ... the overall scenario is not symmetrical, someone (A) just sat in their chair holding their clock and a cup of coffee. Someone else (B) had to change frames; they either spilled their coffee (by accelerating) or had to pass their clock to someone else to return to A.

8

New Theories / Re: Never reducing propellant for deep space propulsion tech

« on: 27/09/2016 19:41:25 »

If you stand on a skateboard and throw a rock, then you will move in reaction.

But now you've lost the rock.

If you do something to keep the rock, like tie a rope to it so when it's gone a small distance you can stop it and pull it back, you'll find that it negates your movement.


Exactly how are you recapturing your iron balls? What's the line along the bottom of the diagram?

9

New Theories / Re: What time does the rocket arrive at point B?

« on: 13/09/2016 07:51:48 »

A laser is a beam  passing through the constant.

My hovercraft is full of eels.

10

New Theories / Re: What time does the rocket arrive at point B?

« on: 13/09/2016 06:16:50 »

it does not matter the water is clear you can still see the water , look from above ,out of the water if needed

That's because water isn't actually perfectly clear (as you would say - it's not "gin clear"). What you are seeing, is light affected by that water, coming to your eyes.


How about telling me how time-of-flight laser range finders work.

Is it mere coincidence that they give correct answers, while operating by some principal that you would deny?

11

New Theories / Re: What time does the rocket arrive at point B?

« on: 13/09/2016 02:01:36 »

... Now underwater look with your eyes , can you see water that is a few feet away ?  Unlike air I have now give you a visual. Just like you can see the water that is a few feet away,  you can see the light passing through that water that is a few feet away .

No.

If the water is perfectly clear, I won't be seeing it, I'll be seeing light that has passed through it; so (for example) I'd be seeing light that left the other side of the swimming pool and travels to my eye.

If the water isn't perfectly clear, e.g. it has some dirt swirling in it, I'll be seeing light reflected (absorbed/re-emitted) by that dirt. Similar to being able to see a laser beam in a smokey room.

12

New Theories / Re: What time does the rocket arrive at point B?

« on: 12/09/2016 23:34:37 »

Of course you see a red dot on the wall but you do  not see a reflective beam if you add smoke to the room, you only see the incident ray of the beam. Fact.

You are mixing things up; of course we don't see the beam itself, as it travels through your "gin clear" air, unless there's smoke or something in the room.

But that red dot on the wall is diffuse reflection of the light of the laser.

(That's good evidence that we don't see light that's distant, we see light that gets to our eyes.)

What was your point in this bit anyway?

No magic involved it is see through

Until you can somehow explain or prove why "see through" gives "instant vision" - it remains magic.

Now you are understanding , the air is see through, the light passing through that air that is not in your eyes, not entered your eyes is see through, you do not see light in space because it is not compressing.

Aside from degenerating back into gibberish, you are contradicting yourself here. Earlier you talk about seeing light that hasn't reached our eyes, now you talk about not seeing light in space.

You can't keep your story straight.

Connectivity

Your "Connectivity" is magic until explained. So far, it seems to be akin to telepathy opr something. Magic.

Now go back and consider measuring where a shadow is, consider if  you did not see light in space it would be dark space like a shadow.

No. We see light when it reaches our eyes. Shadow is simply an area where none (or less) light comes from to reach our eyes.

The sun lights a field, the grass sends light to our eyes. A tree blocks some of that sunlight hitting the field, we "see" the shadow on the grass because that area is sending less light to our eyes. So very simple. The perfect shape of the tree on the grass is wonderful proof of how shadows are created.

In space, you could have a billion laser pointers sending light passing right in front of you, and you'd still be in darkness if none of that light is reaching your eyes (reflected off dust or something). Vision is simply about light getting to your eyes.

It's not magic.

13

New Theories / Re: What time does the rocket arrive at point B?

« on: 12/09/2016 20:22:39 »

Clearly the laser has no reflective beam from a brick wall, you would like by magic for the light to be reflecting and travelling across the space to your eyes, come up with garbage about diffusion, none of this is observed in reality. Every single DJ in the world will tell you there is no  beam of the laser reflected from a wall.
You are quite clearly making it up and it is not what happens in reality.

You make no sense at all. Are you truly saying that if you shine a laser at a brick wall you wouldn't/couldn't see a red (or other) dot on the wall where the laser hits it?

Have you ever seen someone use a laser pointer? To highlight things on a screen? To play with their cat or dog?

You've never seen a movie where the target of a sniper sees a red dot on themselves? Are those people wearing mirrors?

Now your being daft, the dot on a sniper is a laser dot from another sniper, not a reflection.

Eh? I said the target of a sniper sees a dot on themselves.

And what do you think is causing that dot? The laser aimed by the sniper. The laser hits the target and, because they are wearing clothes, not mirrors, a diffuse reflection is seen.

Even if it was a dot on a sniper from another sniper, as you said, it's still a dot - what's causing that dot? Magic?

Yes we see by the light, why do you keep  mentioning this when I am not arguing about t hat?

Because light has a limited speed, but you think sight somehow works by some other - instant - mechanism (magic).

Which part about see through do you not follow?

"See through" simply means light can travel through an area. It has nothing to do with your magic instant sight.

Hellooo!   it's is see through, we can see through space and see things, we can see things happen, predict things to  happen because space is see through. Only you are  being illogical about see through.

No, you are inventing some new mechanism for sight, when we already know about light and its limited speed.

Nothing about the knowledge of the limited speed of light contradicts any normal understanding of "see through".

The air between my eyes and my monitors is "see through", so light can travel from them to me, and I can read this web page. My hand is not "see through", so if I hold it up between my eyes and my monitors I can't read this web page. None of that is contradicted by knowing that light takes time to travel, so some time (less than I can possibly notice, because it's too close) will elapse between that light leaving the monitor and reaching my eyes.

But you see distance, you see light that has not entered your eyes in that distance, the space is not dark like a shadow is it now.

See ... there's your magic. You say we see light that has not entered our eyes! How? Telepathy?

Rubbish, what we see is light that has entered our eyes. From the sum total of what we see, we are able to judge distances. Our brains are accustomed, for example, to using relative size; so if we see trees, we know the ones taking up more of our field of view are closer. (That's just one of the cues to our ability to judge distance). This is why it's quite easy to create optical illusions.

see through, see through. see through,

Not instant. Not instant. Not instant.

Please don't be so childish.

We dont see individual photons full period, ''they'' are made up and of the imagination.

Did you stamp your feet as you wrote that?

I am not discussing electricity.

Why do you always accuse others of avoiding questions?

Can you see individual electrons?

NO, it is not an assertion, you can see the rocket all the way because the space is see through, do you have problems understanding what see through means?

It's you who badly uses "see through". You can't support your assertions by other made-up assertions ...

It means there is no obstruction to sight, so if there is no obstruction you can see things, you see things that are not obstructed at the same time you see other things that are not obstructed.

These two things do not follow.

Unobstructed sight has nothing to do with allowing that sight to occur instantly across distance.

14

New Theories / Re: What time does the rocket arrive at point B?

« on: 12/09/2016 09:45:24 »

Firstly objective means without personal feelings or influence, there is no personal feeling in admitting we can see through the tube.

What's objective is there is light hitting your eye: Other people can verify that experience. And, importantly because our eyes and our brains can be fooled by any number of illusions, we can build detectors that measure the light.

It's your interpretation of what all that means that is subjective.

Secondly science has not proved light reflects off objects into your eyes, ...

Your personal disbelief and rejection of science does not prove that science to be wrong. What's your experiment to prove current science wrong?

... contradictory is that a laser does not reflect of a wall, it only reflects of a mirror or shiny like surface.
You want  proof? shine a laser through a smoke filled room at a wall, no reflective ray unless a mirror is used. ...

Rubbish. You can shine a laser at a wall, and see a red spot (if that's the laser used) on that wall. Clearly the laser light is reflecting off that wall, to your eyes. If you hit a mirror, you might get the laser reflected as a beam; but a normal wall will provide a diffuse reflection - the laser light is spread around, reflecting (absorbed, re-emmitted) in all directions.

You've never seen a movie where the target of a sniper sees a red dot on themselves? Are those people wearing mirrors?

''Science - via actual experiments - has shown us that sight works via light, and light has a finite speed.''

Yes we need light to enter our eyes to see, but once we open our eyes in light we can see everything in the ''scene'' at once.

Science has shown that it's light itself that we see by. You are inventing some additional "other way" that we see, that somehow involves light plus ... plus ... plus ... what!? Magic?

''Your concept of immediate sight across any distance is what's illogical; you have no real explanation for how that could possibly work. How does your fairy story trump the actual science?''

It is not illogical that we can see through space. It is not illogical to consider a Photon does not contain the information of distance.

It is illogical to think that seeing things across space somehow means our awareness is itelf across that space, witnessing things as they occur.

I've never said a photon contains "the information of distance". That's not needed.

It is logical we can observe and measure distance and see an entire distance, it is logical that I can measure a red apple in its exact location a distance away from me.
It is logical I can measure a shadow to be in its exact position,

That in itself is close to OK.

It trumps science because science is full of subjective fairy tales. it trumps science because the very fact that we see through space, we see the Sun , we see light of the sun at the sun, the sun also permeates light to highlight other objects, however we can see through the light it is not opaque.

None of that shows that you're seeing things "instantly".

It trumps science because we don't actually see photons, we see only clear/invisible.

We don't perceive individual photons; to see even a single white pixel on your computer screen requires many photons to leave that pixel and travel to your eye.

Do you also disbelieve in electricity because you can't see individual electrons?

p.s you dont see the rocket arriving at 9:16 ,

That's an assertion based on nothing more than your desire to hold on to your ignorance.

Next you'll say something childish like "don't tell me I'm wrong because I know I'm right" - oh wait, you already did that in your blog.

15

New Theories / Re: What time does the rocket arrive at point B?

« on: 12/09/2016 08:39:13 »

...

I noticed you ignored the rocket travelling up the tube.

It leaves Earth at 9:00:00  , we see it arrive at 9:08:00 , we do not see it arrive at 9:16:00 We observe the rocket every step of the way.

Quite clearly insane and contradictory to reality.
...

As well as your usual swapping of objective and subjective, that's all just your usual assertion that you are correct, without evidence.

And no, I wasn't ignoring the rocket in the tube, I was commenting on a specific part of your recent post.

It's actually very logical and self-consistent that we see the rockets 9:08 arrival, at 9:16, as that's how long it takes for the image of its arrival to get to us. Light has a speed, and it's not infinite. It doesn't matter that we watch the rocket the whole way; all that means is that as it gets further away, the longer the delay is for us seeing an event occurring on that rocket. e.g. when it's half way to the Sun, the delay is 4 minutes. All perfectly in order.

Science - via actual experiments - has shown us that sight works via light, and light has a finite speed.

You clearly don't like this, as it contradicts your personal views, but you have no evidence that it's wrong.

Your concept of immediate sight across any distance is what's illogical; you have no real explanation for how that could possibly work. How does your fairy story trump the actual science?

16

New Theories / Re: What time does the rocket arrive at point B?

« on: 12/09/2016 06:05:16 »

When you say and agree you can see through the tube, you are admitting you can see through space, I. E the start point and end point of the tube simultaneously and at the same time being seen,   ...

No. That's your silly literal interpretation of a figure of speech.

Seeing "through the tube", in reality, simply means light from a distant object can pass through the tube and reach our eyes.

... a rocket travelling up the tube is seen for the entire journey, because the very fact the space is see through. If you cannot understand how useless your photon is after that , then I suggest you are illogical.

What's illogical is your idea that we can see things "instantly" even though they are distant, and light takes time to travel.

17

New Theories / Re: What time does the rocket arrive at point B?

« on: 12/09/2016 01:39:20 »

Nobody is denying that a tube can be seen through.


What is denied, is that the light from the near end of the tube and from the far end of the tube, reaching your eye at the "same time" left its respective ends at the "same time".

Perfectly simple and logical.

You may be seeing both the near end and far end in one "scene", but that in itself doesn't prove that the light giving you that "scene" left the ends of the tube at the "same time".

You can extend your tube all the way to the Sun: the light from the Sun will be taking 8 minutes to travel down the tube to get to you. Light from the end of the tube near your eye will get to you in far less than a second.

You've not yet shown how this standard understanding is wrong.

18

New Theories / Re: What time does the rocket arrive at point B?

« on: 02/09/2016 01:32:27 »

I would say sight was infinitely fast for the very fact then when I extend a measuring tape , I can see the entire tape and measure at the same time, I do not see 2cm later than 1cm and so on all the way to as far as I can see.   The entire Universe I can see  is one continued picture in my mind that is all seen at the same time.

Given light travels 1 cm in 3.3 x 10^-11 s, do you really think you could tell the difference?

19

New Theories / Re: What time does the rocket arrive at point B?

« on: 29/08/2016 21:25:20 »

Do you agree that both A and B are in the present ?

"in the present" needs very careful definition.

20

New Theories / Re: What time does the rocket arrive at point B?

« on: 28/08/2016 05:07:17 »

An event occurs at A (at 9:00:00), the object  B travels (  1 light second distance) , B sees  A (at 9:00:01).

An event occurs at A (at 9:00:00), the object  B travels (  1 light second distance) , A sees  B (at 9:00:01).

True.

Why? How? What is your evidence for this?

The basis for the common understanding of everyone else, is the relationship between speed, distance and time. How do you refute this?