Ask me (***ALMOST***) A N Y T H I N G about E V E R T H I N G (Mastermind for Success)

[Roli]

Again, matter being converted into energy is well known. Matter certainly stores energy, in proportion to its relativistic rest mass. That's fundamentally different than saying matter and energy are the same thing, which is false.

Matter has fundamental properties, such as spin and charge, that don't have analogues in energy. For instance, there is no spin or charge associated with gravitational potential energy, or classical kinetic energy. Saying that they are the same thing is as wrong as saying a photon is an electron. They have completely different properties and behave in completely different ways.

I am 100% justified in being quickly dismissive of the op, with respect to his claims of being an expert in all things physics. I am justified because I spent 10 years going through the process of becoming a physicist. Thousands of hours, and countless late nights studying the brilliant minds that came before, all in the hopes I could catch a glimpse of the glory of nature. That process equipped me with the capacity to parse statements and determine if they are being produced by someone who has gone through at least some part of that process.

Bringing up Barry Marshall only proves my point. He had two bachelors degrees, and was actually educated in medicine. His work contradicted the prevailing school of thought, but nothing he suggested contradicted reality. Moreover, his new theory for ulcers was couched in the language of his branch of science, rather than the language of star trek. His peers would have attacked him as being wrong, but he was taken seriously enough to actually prove that he was right.

You're free to believe what the OP says, but as someone who knows better, it's my responsibility to sound the alarm.

I myself am reserving judgement, and whilst you can say in hindsight that Barry Marshall's peers took him seriously enough, that is patently wrong. He took the gut bacteria exactly because, nobody was listening to him. The fact is, as far as his peers were concerned, he was contradicting reality, until he proved otherwise. In fact, there's an argument to suggest, that that is science in a nutshell.

By the way, I didn't just reference Marshall, I also referenced Einstein in his initial rejection of Quantum Mechanics...

I respect your knowledge, and the countless hours you've put into becoming a PHD, I perhaps even envy it, as physics has always been a love of mine, however I don't seem to have the natural aptitude to bury myself in pure mathematics.

Essentially I believe the OP when he says he is autistic, and has a deep understanding of the nature of physics, I believe he is a savant and can probably show the physics world a thing or two.

Anyways, seeing as the OP seemed to miss my Mars question; I'll ask it to you.

If we could hypothetically gather enough molten iron; and if we could drill to the centre of Mars. Would we create a magnetosphere by pouring all of that molten iron into the planet? Would that also change the gravitational mass of the planet, bringing it closer to the 1G we are used to?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Nexus]

I myself am reserving judgement, and whilst you can say in hindsight that Barry Marshall's peers took him seriously enough, that is patently wrong. He took the gut bacteria exactly because, nobody was listening to him. The fact is, as far as his peers were concerned, he was contradicting reality, until he proved otherwise. In fact, there's an argument to suggest, that that is science in a nutshell.

By the way, I didn't just reference Marshall, I also referenced Einstein in his initial rejection of Quantum Mechanics...

I respect your knowledge, and the countless hours you've put into becoming a PHD, I perhaps even envy it, as physics has always been a love of mine, however I don't seem to have the natural aptitude to bury myself in pure mathematics.

Essentially I believe the OP when he says he is autistic, and has a deep understanding of the nature of physics, I believe he is a savant and can probably show the physics world a thing or two.

Anyways, seeing as the OP seemed to miss my Mars question; I'll ask it to you.

If we could hypothetically gather enough molten iron; and if we could drill to the centre of Mars. Would we create a magnetosphere by pouring all of that molten iron into the planet? Would that also change the gravitational mass of the planet, bringing it closer to the 1G we are used to?

Even if you could instantly create a speherical hole in the centre of mars that is connected to the surface, gravity would crush all the matter surrounding the hole into the centre. It like trying to create an air gap underwater, the water will displace it very quickly.

 

[CapLab]

So...lowtek ...
my special friend...

this is no intelectual conversation here, and i'am really dissapointed from you personally and other of the "others".

Ok, this is not my way but if you scream for it, i will use your jargon / slang (simple words in explicit context) .

my english is bad but i know expecially you will understand me right - because you are PhD scientist and much more clever...

I hold briefly my impressions regarding your "friendly warning" to the other forum members:

Your lecture is presumptuous, arrogant, self-complacent and blatantly characterized by badly researched facts.

Above all, it is incomprehensible to me how you can be able to interpret my words according to my own gusto and to use them finally for a targeted undermining of my welln know'n competence .

This pubertal behavior is extremely unwise and you should calibrate yourself for it.

The same is sub to those who hold what you are and imitate.



YOU dont K N O W me...



If i tell you something, it will be a pleasure to hear - this is what EVERY people wich K N O W me personal and "LIVE" will agree and subscribe ...


So this here is expecially to All Critic :

I share your skepticism ...
on the basis of the indications you have mentioned is quite comprehensible since I also dealt with Karl Popper's delineation criteria of Fraud / Fringe / lyssenkoismus and other synonymous for unserious science ...
I hear you're "alarm bell shrill" freezed...

I rechecked every indicator seriously and this i do is in harmony with all critics of experimental science .

I know...
Science journals, symposia and physics forums can at least sing a (lament) song about the many self-proclaimed world improvers who give their mustard everywhere and simply negate established physics!

But you make the mistake to believe i am a guy like them...

I'am a savant wich try to learn to communicate with the homo homini lupus ...

I am not doing any crappy shit on physic - I am not altering something or change anything, but merely i will re-presenting a different kind of interpretation on the basis of the designs by planck, heisenberg, bohr et al !

Just make it much more easy by creating a real true visible analogon (Ockham's Knife Principle) and get a tech haptical feedback to dimensional surface ?!

Do you understand me ? anything to answer ?

Hey -You are f***k here with THEM (Einstein etc.) and their speculative hypothetical conclusions - not with my own insignificant opinion ...

I merely subsume (!) Only their hypotheses, assumptions and conclusions which have not yet been full and exactly validated to a unified and above all physically contradictory overall real visible and habtical picture!

Also it's useless to fight against...lol...
In contrast to YOU, I can therefore remain relaxed - my claims are based solely on many different but nevertheless everywhere physically accessible experimental facts!

In order to be able to conclude my thoughts, however, an overall view, which I can not afford to do here for reasons of text-capacities, is necessary.


Autistic Communication is hard process and it is therefore incomprehensible to me why you go out of the way of a factual and professionally debate and to avoid this with personal directly attacking.

The arguments of you as a supposed PhD into the field guided arguments are then nevertheless somewhat too poorly and it inevitably urges the impression, as if you would with you in the essence content completely unknown compartment cover around, whose foundation and basis you quite obviously do not know.

Many relevant details are not to be learned from the physics books, but only, and this mission you have failed, through years of intensive study to the subject area and its historical theoretical development itself.

I have to assume that you have read neither the original lectures of Einstein, Planck, Wien, Exner, Born, Hertz, Tesla, Heisenberg, Mach and the many other here not listed founders , let alone their biographies (in which explicitly also viewble are the intentions and professional / factual problems with the theorie formation) ? Sorry but in particular: Born, Heisenberg, Bohr and Schrödinger's, Einsteins and last but not least Dirac's standard works should be part to your specially "competency" at least in the core familiar before you post here again...

Hey, we having Fun - Right ?

Ok, back to serious and hard part ;
To the language and the applied Termina :

I must here again - it is already noticeable - point out that I have studied many divergent subject areas and combine them (the mother of the progress) - just so new and it is therefore also appropriate , Different termina such as zb That of the "fractus" wich is most deepfield associated with fibonacci and mandelbrot algorythm .

If i switch to hard between interdisciplinary sub to surface enviroment you have to ask for definition of Term.

This is most important !!!

If this bothers you and intramural complex triggers, this is your personal problem that has nothing to look for here in the thread wich wanna solve problems .

yeah lowtek, again...

these words are expecially for you :

To lead first brian greene ,then also immediately what about youtube and popular science to report shows that your reproaches-mutatis mutandis - but probably only a reflection of your own references.

So i have also "the rest spinning around here" to say :
the essence of the intellect is the open mind !


Ok because i know, here in this forum i have to fight back against hard injurement, precognitive and prejudging voice from threadkiller-leader lowtek, this is for Y O U :

So, people like you already know from many other forums - threadkiller who cant stand any discursive excursion and wich only looking with eloquent presented half-truths to support their own profile neurosis ...

Bubblemakers who think they are more intelligent than their surroundings, know better and know no sense of shame.

But lowtek - i was the wrong choice ... i'am no storyteller like you and i will blame you and your stupid PhD* degree right here and N O W :

*70 Years old reput. Prof'z follow MY POV'z...


I'll come to your "facts".


1) Maxwell's theory is a perfect description ?

Ahhhhuuuuu ...

Maxwell's theory fails on various scalings and is commutatively interpretable (ASK 4 Definition'z) .

You contradict the serious science which knows that only a uniform field theory solves the problems that maxwell's equations can not solve or includes by itself *.

of course, the formula are over 200 years old and do not include knowledge about natural fractus or physic of nuclei and molecular bindings .

(*DTV Atlas Physik Vol 2, all editions, maxwell equations)

Hmmm... ...lowtek, your assertion is disproved!


2) I have never said that matter and energy are the same - I spoke of condensed energy, which is per definitionem essentially something quite different from the "energy" with which mathematical formulation is made or you associate the nomen "Energy" with (do you KNOW F O R C E ?) .

"Your interpretation" of my words shows what spirit child you are and what intentions your post pursues and that you are here the definition power over my articulation is more than just impertinent!

3) planck's "h" is more than just a pure number...

EVERYONE knows that it is a parameter that represents the energetic minimum content of a field singularity - quasi its manifestation limit size (Talk about the spin ?)!

Even the casimir effect shows the nature of the field configuration / manifestation very clearly or do you want to negate the experimental validated existence of the zero point radiation and casimir effect himself ?

I do not expect you to be taught this essential detail in school or you could have researched it by yourself - you must have ever heard Heisenbergs original lectures and interpretations, or simply times planck in disput with wilhelm wien in the annals for physics letters... lol ..

How can h stay in superposition?

As a manifestation of a field configuration, h always remains linked to this field - not the manifestation itself, but its information is thus superposed (even if it is necessary to invoke the information required to invest a certain amount of energy).

And of course it is impossible to obtain a precise result with a mathematics that already generated in its base relics (10: 3x3 = 9.999 ...), which could be assumed as infinty and random.

-i2 .... serious ?

"approximation" - wich pervert and ugly mathematical lvl !

Already the boltzmann distribution of the brown molecular movement is a real misunderstanding, because here no isolated quantum system is considered, but only a (imprecise) Definition of the temperature (which can [must] also be calculated in the SI unit Joule ! ) is given.

Every particle has its own energy - do you want to deny this experimentally confirmed fact ?


4) Now, if each atom is an energetic singularity, it should also be apparent to the law of logic, which is why the radioactive decay appears "spontaneous" (only the lamb shift is very difficult to measure for each individual atom; , When which atom obtains the required wavelength to emit a corpuscle or else) ...

And sometimes by the way: in the BEK cooled and also syncronized radioisotopic nucleide (analog suprafluidem 3H) decay with excitation with a specific frequency all at the same "approximate" moment!

Thus the indeterminism is ad absurdum led, and another of your allegations from old physics books, which are as antiquated as your slide rule, refutes!

Well...my shisma f***k'z your dogma ...

5) Why do not I dedicate my entire life to a single aspect (as example) of thermodynamics and, in contrast to other scientists, have knowledge in various disciplines, did you ask (de facto)? Well, the answer is because in contrast to a money-oriented researcher's life, I simply study nature from passion and obsession 24/7 and not just with crappy indoctrinative content in the week for a few hours every day on the uni campus like you .

and i am autistic savant -i learn faster by doing DIY or improve something modified and i read a lot of books at same time ...after 2 years i know every discipline in deepest detail - i need input and switch to the next ...
this is known as asperger HFA data collector syndrom .

Goethe, Faust, 1 act. "I studied jurisprudence, physics, biology, ... and ah, striving hard to recognize what holds the world together ..."


However (@ all),

There are people, such as Newton, Dirac, Einstein, and Tesla (all of whom have symptoms of autistic disorders [asperger]), which are researched out of inner motivation and whose intellect is directed toward the phenotype of nature like me ...

So I'm not alone with my art and must explicitly point to the fact that Aspies have shaken your simple view of the world over and over again!


Ok Guys, hope it was funny enough for you ...


I do not want to waste my time with annoying post-replies, I was here to help altruistic and just some ignorant hobby science amateurs destroy this serious thread...

I will spend my time better in crafting devices (wind copper wire to solenoidal and toroidal coil) because this lowend-lowtek interface is out to date .

In the next few weeks, I will be showing some effects on youtube - so you know who you are dealing with (all transparent DIY tutorials).

Then (!) we can talk about my competence again - OK Before it is obviously meaningless and I hold it to date as Arthur Schopenhauer:

"Never let yourself be seduced at any time, wise fall into ignorance when they argue with ignorant ..."

My success will make you silent!

Friendly greets,

Heiko


(PS: On Up:

You know, "Electrician with physics knowledge", you do not know anything about me and wonder about my slang? Kiddie, I have already built HV inductors and tesla transponders, when I could not even speak and one of mine Hobbys is the construction of portable wireless energy transmitters , specialized vacuumtubes and, among us, circuit bending analog synthesizer (TB303) ...

So, do not do important to cash here rep 's, "simply freeze", especially if you have no idea why caplab is called ...)

 

[Roli]

Even if you could instantly create a speherical hole in the centre of mars that is connected to the surface, gravity would crush all the matter surrounding the hole into the centre. It like trying to create an air gap underwater, the water will displace it very quickly.

Yes, but you can create an air gap under water, by inserting a tube full of air into a swimming pool for instance. So hypothetically, if you did the same on Mars, would it work?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[MJ DeMarco]

Second, what does "commutatively interpretable" mean?

Could these phrases simply be a poor translation of what he is trying to communicate?

He did say English is his second language.

With that premise, I have been unable to make a judgement if its all trolling BS, or poor communication/translation.

 

[Roli]

Try taking that tube down a couple hundred feet below the surface and see what happens...

That is why I used the word hypothetically, I'll swap it with the word magically.

So, if you could magically transport a load of molten iron to the centre of Mars, could you create a magnetosphere? Also, would that alone be enough to change the gravitational mass of the planet?

 

[Nexus]

Yes, but you can create an air gap under water, by inserting a tube full of air into a swimming pool for instance. So hypothetically, if you did the same on Mars, would it work?

So you want a material that you surround the hole preventing it from collapsing. No material that we know of is remotely close to being strong enough to do that. Even if such a material would exist, you wouldn't be able to actually make the hole work unless it magically appeared and it was coated by that material like a tube. If you tried digging using some machinery made of an infinitely strong material, at a certain point everything you dig will get displaced by rock due to gravity. If you immediately surrounded the hole you dig with that infinitely strong material, basically forming a tube that only contains air, then it STILL won't work. The air itself would be crushed by gravity and turn into liquid due to the immense pressure. To solve that you'd need to remove most of the matter in the tube, making it a near vacuum. That process in and of itself would be pretty much impossible. In addition to that, you need to make sure that almost nothing can enter said tube and fill it up again. Even then, the amount of time it would take to fill it up assuming your hole doesn't eat up so much of Mars that it's unrecognizable would be insane. If you have plenty of time to wait, there's still the problem of how you're going to get a hold of an incomprehensible amount of iron/nickel, that is molten, keep it molten, not get fused into Mars due to how strong the gravitational pull will be between your ball of metal that is probably larger that Mars' moons and Mars itself. Speaking of moons, those will probably present a myriad of other problems that are for all intents and purposes, impossible to work around.

TL;DR Even when assuming so many things which almost certainly cannot be true to be true, the idea of creating a magnetic field around Mars by filling up its core with a magnetic substance is still well beyond feasible.

If you want the real numbers for all this I can work them out later, as for now it's pretty late at night and my brain is starting to shut off.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[CapLab]

First, the language of engineering and physics is math. Arguing that accepted physical theory is wrong but not providing the math to back up your assertions is like arguing that you can write better story than Shakespeare without using words.

I learned a long time ago that anyone who makes physical claims without providing the math to back up those claims is likely just good at reading pop-science threads on the Internet, as opposed to someone who truly understands the physics.

Long story short, if you want to argue here that you know accepted physical theory is wrong, let's see the math.



Since I'm an electrical engineer (and not a physicist), I'll jump into this discussion, as I have studied electromagnetism and Maxwell's equations extensively...

First, please tell me, on which scales does Maxwell's equations fail? On a quantum level, classic Maxwellian formulas change, just like classic Newtonian equations change. Nobody argues that Newton was wrong because his equations don't hold in the quantum world; similarly with Maxwell's formulations.

Now, you said that Maxwell's equations fail on MULTIPLE scales. If you assume quantum level is one scale, on what other scales does Maxwell's formulations fail? Since engineers would disagree with this assertion, instead of just giving your opinion, please give some support as well. Have you done the experiments? Can you prove Maxwell's math fails under specific conditions? Let's see some support for your assertions...

Second, what does "commutatively interpretable" mean? I've never heard this term. But, it sounds like a mathematical concept, so again, please provide any math necessary to support your response.

Sorry,

Mj marco see it right - here the main problem is my language skill...

I cant answer you question now because it's big theme and i'am also in complex business with investory for patent rights ...

So you and also roli and the others : sorry, i'am AFK 4 2 Days...

But i will answer soon as possible !

Also foreclone - i didnt forget you and will call you next days .

Friendly greets

Heiko

 

[Roli]

So you want a material that you surround the hole preventing it from collapsing. No material that we know of is remotely close to being strong enough to do that. Even if such a material would exist, you wouldn't be able to actually make the hole work unless it magically appeared and it was coated by that material like a tube. If you tried digging using some machinery made of an infinitely strong material, at a certain point everything you dig will get displaced by rock due to gravity. If you immediately surrounded the hole you dig with that infinitely strong material, basically forming a tube that only contains air, then it STILL won't work. The air itself would be crushed by gravity and turn into liquid due to the immense pressure. To solve that you'd need to remove most of the matter in the tube, making it a near vacuum. That process in and of itself would be pretty much impossible. In addition to that, you need to make sure that almost nothing can enter said tube and fill it up again. Even then, the amount of time it would take to fill it up assuming your hole doesn't eat up so much of Mars that it's unrecognizable would be insane. If you have plenty of time to wait, there's still the problem of how you're going to get a hold of an incomprehensible amount of iron/nickel, that is molten, keep it molten, not get fused into Mars due to how strong the gravitational pull will be between your ball of metal that is probably larger that Mars' moons and Mars itself. Speaking of moons, those will probably present a myriad of other problems that are for all intents and purposes, impossible to work around.

TL;DR Even when assuming so many things which almost certainly cannot be true to be true, the idea of creating a magnetic field around Mars by filling up its core with a magnetic substance is still well beyond feasible.

If you want the real numbers for all this I can work them out later, as for now it's pretty late at night and my brain is starting to shut off.

Awesome answer thanks; I'm writing a sci-fi and wanted to know if, when, and how to include it. I knew it was impossible now, and would be for some time, however I wanted to know how far into the future something like that would ever be.

I think the tech would be around the level of Iain M. Bank's, Culture, however they would come up with a much more elegant solution to terraforming a planet. As for my little novel, it is only set a couple of hundred years into the future, so it is us who will have to adapt to Mars, not the other way round.

The problem now I will have fun thinking about, is having babies in space, which at the moment would also impossible, I'm thinking grav ships, that accelerate at exactly 1g for 9 months. Though I'm not sure how to calculate what speed they would be going at in that time, I think it's more feasible that they would accelerate, and decelerate at 1g....

 

[Roli]

Sorry,

Mj marco see it right - here the main problem is my language skill...

I cant answer you question now because it's big theme and i'am also in complex business with investory for patent rights ...

So you and also roli and the others : sorry, i'am AFK 4 2 Days...

But i will answer soon as possible !

Also foreclone - i didnt forget you and will call you next days .

Friendly greets

Heiko

Cool, I look forward to your return

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[lowtek]

Awesome answer thanks; I'm writing a sci-fi and wanted to know if, when, and how to include it. I knew it was impossible now, and would be for some time, however I wanted to know how far into the future something like that would ever be.

I think the tech would be around the level of Iain M. Bank's, Culture, however they would come up with a much more elegant solution to terraforming a planet. As for my little novel, it is only set a couple of hundred years into the future, so it is us who will have to adapt to Mars, not the other way round.

The problem now I will have fun thinking about, is having babies in space, which at the moment would also impossible, I'm thinking grav ships, that accelerate at exactly 1g for 9 months. Though I'm not sure how to calculate what speed they would be going at in that time, I think it's more feasible that they would accelerate, and decelerate at 1g....

Seems like an awful lot of energy to waste just to have babies. For giggles, here's the outline of the calculation ( to be done by the reader )
v = g * t, assuming they start from rest with respect to Earth's reference frame

g = 9.81 m / s^2

t = 9 months in seconds

it should end up a significant fraction of the speed of light, and require a vast amount of energy needed to accelerate a reasonably massive space ship to that velocity. If you get greater than 299,000,000 m/s then you'll have to dial back the time.

You will only have a couple choices for energy sources - antimatter drives or a kugelblitz (YouTube this one).

You're right that it's probably better to split up the acceleration into two phases, but that doesn't change the energy requirements.

Oh, and any collision with a a milligram of space dust is the end of your crew

A far better option is a rotating space station, traveling at much lower velocities. Centripetal acceleration equal to about 1 g is a much more palatable option than relativistic velocities for a large space ship. Or a smaller centrifuge that gets us close to 1g for a good portion of the day; perhaps the travelers sleep in gravity and work in micro gravity.

 

[Roli]

Seems like an awful lot of energy to waste just to have babies. For giggles, here's the outline of the calculation ( to be done by the reader )
v = g * t, assuming they start from rest with respect to Earth's reference frame

g = 9.81 m / s^2

t = 9 months in seconds

it should end up a significant fraction of the speed of light, and require a vast amount of energy needed to accelerate a reasonably massive space ship to that velocity. If you get greater than 299,000,000 m/s then you'll have to dial back the time.

You will only have a couple choices for energy sources - antimatter drives or a kugelblitz (YouTube this one).

You're right that it's probably better to split up the acceleration into two phases, but that doesn't change the energy requirements.

Oh, and any collision with a a milligram of space dust is the end of your crew

A far better option is a rotating space station, traveling at much lower velocities. Centripetal acceleration equal to about 1 g is a much more palatable option than relativistic velocities for a large space ship. Or a smaller centrifuge that gets us close to 1g for a good portion of the day; perhaps the travelers sleep in gravity and work in micro gravity.

Hah! Great answer, yes I'm aware of the energy problem...

As far as the calculation is concerned, I'm not sure if the answer is 228,847,680 m/s or 2,244,995,740.8 m/s - First answer was 9.81 x 23,328,000 (seconds in 9 months) though I wasn't sure if I was meant to square the 9.81, so hence the second answer. Whichever they are both theoretically impossible speeds, so it's nice to know this wouldn't work.

I felt that the spin idea wouldn't work, simply because as I understand it, centripetal acceleration does not act upon mass exactly like standard gravity, which I thought may hamper the development of a fetus. Which by the way, are problems I believe NASA/SpaceX et al. will have to solve in the next 5 or 6 decades or so, you can't have a self-sustaining Martian colony unless it can self-replicate.

Last question, then I'll get out of your hair

Assuming we one day get around the massive energy problems, and manage to build an alcubierre drive; will the travellers in the ship still suffer time dilation, seeing as they technically aren't "moving".

Also, inside that warp bubble, will I still be able to shine a light from the back to the front of said bubble? If so, will some kind of physics keep those photons travelling at c, as regards to an observer outside the bubble? If that makes sense! :-D

 

[lowtek]

Good question. Acceleration is acceleration - it doesn't matter if it's from gravity or from a spaceship. If you were in a completely closed room, inside of a spaceship moving at 1g, could you devise an experiment to prove you're on a spaceship instead of Earth? Assume we replicate the magnetic field, etc. If you toss a ball, would it follow the same parabolic path as on Earth? Cliff notes are that yes, it would.

The way you answer those questions of "should I square that g?" is to look at the units (which you seem to be aware of). Units obey the same laws as any other variables in algebra, meaning they cancel, multiply, etc.

So, you have [v] ( the bracket indicates we are talking about units instead of values) [g] and [t]

[v] = [g] [t] ----- [m/s] = [m/s^2] - so the seconds in the numerator (from t) cancels one of the seconds in the denominator (from the g) and you end up with [m/s] as you would expect. If you squared the g, you would end up with [m/s] = [m^2 / s^4] ---- [m/s] = [m^2/s^3] --- which is of course false, so don't square the g.

The first # you come up with isn't impossible, since the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. It's really hard to go that fast, but not impossible.

With respect to the warp drive, I'm only marginally familiar with them, but it seems like you have a slight misconception about relativity. The passengers of any vessel, moving at some velocity close to c ( say 0.99 c) will not experience any effects of time dilation or lorentz contraction. In their frame of reference, they are completely stationary, and it's the outside world that is moving at 0.99c. They therefore see the outside world shrink before them, and the clocks of outside observers appear to be moving fast.

The whole point of relativity is that all observers must measure the exact same value for c, no matter how fast they are moving. This is because the physics you derive from experiments shouldn't depend on how fast you are moving - the laws of physics are universal. Since the speed of light is a constant, it cannot depend on your velocity. The universe conspires to make sure you always get the same value for c as anybody else.

Knowing this, in our spaceship, when they turn on the flashlight, the beam races away at 299,792,458 m/s, even if the ship is traveling at 299,792,457 m/s.

The warp drive is a theoretical device that gets around the maximum speed limit by taking advantage of a loophole. Relativity only applies to matter and energy, not space time itself. You could, theoretically, shrink space time in front of the ship, and expand it behind the ship, in such a way that the ship is propelled through the universe at some velocity greater than c. The ship sits in a pocket of space time, completely motionless, while the universe expands and contracts around it.

I would expect that if you were to emit a beam of light from the very back edge of the bubble, it wouldn't reach the front edge of the bubble until the ship stops. This is because the front end of the bubble is moving away at some speed greater than c, and so the beam of light can't catch it.

Just speculation of course. Hows about you go build one so we can test my prediction?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[lowtek]

Could these phrases simply be a poor translation of what he is trying to communicate?

He did say English is his second language.

With that premise, I have been unable to make a judgement if its all trolling BS, or poor communication/translation.

Something to consider:

English is not his native language, so he can't communicate with us without sounding like a crackpot...

Yet, he reads the physics preprint server ( arxiv.org ) on a daily basis, and manages to understand the papers written in English, to the extent that he claims to be an expert in multiple fields?

 

[MJ DeMarco]

Yes, I suspected you'd suddenly get too busy to answer any more questions...

Very RichKid/DeletedUser/GrumpyCat-esque...

User: "I'm happy to announce I'm a multi-millionaire just 9 months after begging my roommates to pay rent."
Forum: "Congrats, please give us some specifics into your process and/or business model."
User: "Delete my account."

 

[Millenial_Kid5K1]

Been avoiding this thread on the premise that it feels too "internet tough guy" for me, but holy shit. 90% of what he's posted here is not even wrong.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[CapLab]

First, the language of engineering and physics is math. Arguing that accepted physical theory is wrong but not providing the math to back up your assertions is like arguing that you can write better story than Shakespeare without using words.

I learned a long time ago that anyone who makes physical claims without providing the math to back up those claims is likely just good at reading pop-science threads on the Internet, as opposed to someone who truly understands the physics.

Long story short, if you want to argue here that you know accepted physical theory is wrong, let's see the math.



Since I'm an electrical engineer (and not a physicist), I'll jump into this discussion, as I have studied electromagnetism and Maxwell's equations extensively...

First, please tell me, on which scales does Maxwell's equations fail? On a quantum level, classic Maxwellian formulas change, just like classic Newtonian equations change. Nobody argues that Newton was wrong because his equations don't hold in the quantum world; similarly with Maxwell's formulations.

Now, you said that Maxwell's equations fail on MULTIPLE scales. If you assume quantum level is one scale, on what other scales does Maxwell's formulations fail? Since engineers would disagree with this assertion, instead of just giving your opinion, please give some support as well. Have you done the experiments? Can you prove Maxwell's math fails under specific conditions? Let's see some support for your assertions...

Second, what does "commutatively interpretable" mean? I've never heard this term. But, it sounds like a mathematical concept, so again, please provide any math necessary to support your response.

yeah, the math...

Looks like i have to repeat myself again:

Decadic System is a Error of human logic, and well it's historical based on our ten fingers...

of course , its not stupid "kabbala" and many other systems are äquivalent but it will be always just a "working Theory" and no physical truth !

I follow your POV, that Mathematics are a language to describe (nearly) accurate physic phenomena but if we are honest : on biggest scale, energy go to infinity and on lowest scale, time will be stopped if we believe in our math system... do you agree ?

This is because :
Decade is definiteley NOT realized in N A T U R E !

Nature do not make nonsense like 10:3x3=9,9999...


do you agree again ?

However, Maxwell see it (wave surface config) right way but he have to use inefficient math to perform terms...

we have to do the same crapMath (actually...)


So, heres some of the stuff you waiting for and you can solve with single PC:

Rµν−12gµνR=8πTµν Fµν;

ν=4πJµ ;

Tµν=14πgαβFµαFνβ−14gµνFαβFαβ,

Rµν is a contracted curvature tensor (Ricci),
R is the scalar curvature,
gµν is the metric tensor,
Fµν is the strenghth of electromagnetic field

andTµν a stress-energy (maxwell) tensor.

maybe written as

1 √−g(√−gFµν),

ν=4πJµ

g is here the determinant of metric tensor.

This metric is conformally related to that of a flat space so that it is given by the line element

ds2=h2(dr2+r2dθ2+r2sin2θdφ2−dt2).

A field strength will given
by , where

Fµν=Aν,µ−Aµ,ν A0=er forr>r0 and Ai=0fori=1,2,3.

The static monopole solution to these equations for r>r0 is

h=dr with d=e√G c2

where d and e are constants and G and c have been temporarily restored for the purposes of clarity.

Jµ is that of a static spherically symmetric electric charge distribution, contained inside the region r≤r0 and of total charge e.

This can be verified by assuming the existence of an interior solution that can be joined to this exterior one.

One then integrates Eq.

over a spatial volume enclosing the charge,using appropriate factors of√−g,i.e., q= √−g× x0=const.

4π√−g(√−gF0i),

idrdθdφ.

Since,the integrand has only a sinθ dependence on angle,the integral reduces to the value of√−gF0i/sinθ evaluated at r(r>r0),where upon Eqs. and are then used to find q=e.

assume that √−gF0i/sinθ=0atr=0 which will be true except for the point charge where it equals e.

However,the point charge is not considered in this notice since it is not a solution to the integrated form of Eq.(1).
It is interesting to note that an electrically neutral test particle at rest in this universe will have an energy E=m√−g00=mh.

Hence E will vanish at large spatial coordinate distances from the charge.

The Reissner-Nordström solution is the spherically symmetric, static, exterior field of a charged distribution of mass.

It is given by 2 ds2=dr2l+r2(dθ2+sin2θdφ2)−ldt2
where l=1−2Mr+e2 4πr2.

If set to zero you can make a direct comparison between Eqs.(5)and(11).

In Eq(5)all the component soft hemetric vanish for large distances from the charge, so,that,

ds2→0 while in Eq.

ds2 approaches the Minkowski expression for flat space. Divergent as r→r0 and r0→0, Eq.5 gives ds2→(d/r)2[dr2−dt2]which can be light-like, space-like or time-like while Eq.(11)gives ds2→−(e2/4πr2)dt2.

you will also note that a test particle at rest in the universe of the metric of Eq.(11)will have an energy

E=m1+e2/4πr2.

and hence approaches mat large distances from the charge in contrast to the energy of the test particle in section 2 which vanished at large distances.

However,the energies have the same behavior at very small distances.

An Approximate Solution for Many Charges Referring to Eq.(5) we note that ds2 goes like d2/r2.

now you can consider charges of the order of magnitude of that of the electron.

Referring to the values given in Ref.[4], we see that if we are at atomic distances ,e.g., the Bohrradius,from the charge, ds2 will have dropped by a factor of d2/r2≈10−52 from what it was in the neighborhood of the charge.
Thus if we have a gas of these charges,separated by atomic distances, the metric will either be effectively zero if we are away from any charges, or will be given by Eq.(5)

(with the origin shifted to the location of the it h charge)

if we are with in a distance d of that charge.

Hence, in this approximation ds2= where hi2(dx2+dy2+dz2−dt2) i hi=d |r−ri| (13) (14)

References
[1]C.Hoenselaers,WilliamKinnersley,andBasilisC.XanthopoulosJ.Math.Phys. 20,2530(1979)and other references given there in.
[2]Y.Srivstava and A.Widom,Phys.Letts.B280,52(1992) [3]We use units G=c=1.
[4]We note that if e=4.8×10−10esu(the electron charge),then d=1.4×10−34cm. [5]H.Reissner,Ann.Phys.50,106(1916)



My ENGLISH is bad to explain, so please stress your PC Hardware to verify that shit..


Sorry but because thisis philosophical too, i have to do a interpretative dialogue :

Newton said: "actio - reactio ! "...
Einstein ask: "is it part of Gödel's timelines and space...? "
Platon comment's: "This space is a geometrical illusion ! "
Sarte ask : " Why Pierre is not there, in this anywhere ? "
Nietzsche Answers: "The Anywhere is like a bad religion ! "
Caligula says: "a donkey will be more intelligent ! "
Husserl ask: "where is Hegel every time wich need him ? "
Schopenhauer: "I was the first wich see he is a amateur ! "
Newton: "so lets cut his motherf***king copycat Head ! "
Titus screams: "Do not kill the Delivery-Boy !!! "
Planck comments: "God's message was ethnical & ethical !"
Kant says: "U Behavior must be like a universal moral law ! "

if you understand right, you will never ask me something like that (bad math) again...

so i repeat last time again:
maxwells error cant be corrected...

you answerd yourself :

you (we) do transform operation to get "right results" ...
you (!) only describe the dimensonal surface parametric, but if you go into the deep, you "transform" ...

what da f***k we doing there and here ?...

What do you believe, is the surface of the N O W , of the present point in "time and space" ?

what do you believe, where is the chair you sit on 1 sec in the past or future - a astable "mass" ?

this might be something for your mind...

this worlds surface wich you can see, feel touch lick or hear is directly bound to quantum scale and Effects ...
Maxwell see how the Amplitudes are oscillating and be set to 2 dimensonal parametric so thats the why the small scale is in superposition with the other sized.

there is nothing to transform - this is what i meant ... also you misunderstand the time and space continuum ground

my friend...
this youre dealing with is only a simple surface description of a approximated time term.
i deal with the level of deep underground base of all...

this are 2 divergent scales and dimensions too.


but because i see this discussion never ends and you cant spread your imagination - i have to stop it now to keep the thread clear .

be critic - thats ok ,but do not waste my time...
this correction of maxwells math have to been outsourced to real specialists at university enviroment ...

i cant do it without supercomputing and you cant do this at home too...

sorry, but this is honest .

friendly greets

heiko

 

[lowtek]

yeah, the math...

Looks like i have to repeat myself again:

Decadic System is a Error of human logic, and well it's historical based on our ten fingers...

of course , its not stupid "kabbala" and many other systems are äquivalent but it will be always just a "working Theory" and no physical truth !

I follow your POV, that Mathematics are a language to describe (nearly) accurate physic phenomena but if we are honest : on biggest scale, energy go to infinity and on lowest scale, time will be stopped if we believe in our math system... do you agree ?

This is because :
Decade is definiteley NOT realized in N A T U R E !

Nature do not make nonsense like 10:3x3=9,9999...


do you agree again ?

However, Maxwell see it (wave surface config) right way but he have to use inefficient math to perform terms...

we have to do the same crapMath (actually...)


So, heres some of the stuff you waiting for and you can solve with single PC:

Rµν−12gµνR=8πTµν Fµν;

ν=4πJµ ;

Tµν=14πgαβFµαFνβ−14gµνFαβFαβ,

Rµν is a contracted curvature tensor (Ricci),
R is the scalar curvature,
gµν is the metric tensor,
Fµν is the strenghth of electromagnetic field

andTµν a stress-energy (maxwell) tensor.

maybe written as

1 √−g(√−gFµν),

ν=4πJµ

g is here the determinant of metric tensor.

This metric is conformally related to that of a flat space so that it is given by the line element

ds2=h2(dr2+r2dθ2+r2sin2θdφ2−dt2).

A field strength will given
by , where

Fµν=Aν,µ−Aµ,ν A0=er forr>r0 and Ai=0fori=1,2,3.

The static monopole solution to these equations for r>r0 is

h=dr with d=e√G c2

where d and e are constants and G and c have been temporarily restored for the purposes of clarity.

Jµ is that of a static spherically symmetric electric charge distribution, contained inside the region r≤r0 and of total charge e.

This can be verified by assuming the existence of an interior solution that can be joined to this exterior one.

One then integrates Eq.

over a spatial volume enclosing the charge,using appropriate factors of√−g,i.e., q= √−g× x0=const.

4π√−g(√−gF0i),

idrdθdφ.

Since,the integrand has only a sinθ dependence on angle,the integral reduces to the value of√−gF0i/sinθ evaluated at r(r>r0),where upon Eqs. and are then used to find q=e.

assume that √−gF0i/sinθ=0atr=0 which will be true except for the point charge where it equals e.

However,the point charge is not considered in this notice since it is not a solution to the integrated form of Eq.(1).
It is interesting to note that an electrically neutral test particle at rest in this universe will have an energy E=m√−g00=mh.

Hence E will vanish at large spatial coordinate distances from the charge.

The Reissner-Nordström solution is the spherically symmetric, static, exterior field of a charged distribution of mass.

It is given by 2 ds2=dr2l+r2(dθ2+sin2θdφ2)−ldt2
where l=1−2Mr+e2 4πr2.

If set to zero you can make a direct comparison between Eqs.(5)and(11).

In Eq(5)all the component soft hemetric vanish for large distances from the charge, so,that,

ds2→0 while in Eq.

ds2 approaches the Minkowski expression for flat space. Divergent as r→r0 and r0→0, Eq.5 gives ds2→(d/r)2[dr2−dt2]which can be light-like, space-like or time-like while Eq.(11)gives ds2→−(e2/4πr2)dt2.

you will also note that a test particle at rest in the universe of the metric of Eq.(11)will have an energy

E=m1+e2/4πr2.

and hence approaches mat large distances from the charge in contrast to the energy of the test particle in section 2 which vanished at large distances.

However,the energies have the same behavior at very small distances.

An Approximate Solution for Many Charges Referring to Eq.(5) we note that ds2 goes like d2/r2.

now you can consider charges of the order of magnitude of that of the electron.

Referring to the values given in Ref.[4], we see that if we are at atomic distances ,e.g., the Bohrradius,from the charge, ds2 will have dropped by a factor of d2/r2≈10−52 from what it was in the neighborhood of the charge.
Thus if we have a gas of these charges,separated by atomic distances, the metric will either be effectively zero if we are away from any charges, or will be given by Eq.(5)

(with the origin shifted to the location of the it h charge)

if we are with in a distance d of that charge.

Hence, in this approximation ds2= where hi2(dx2+dy2+dz2−dt2) i hi=d |r−ri| (13) (14)

References
[1]C.Hoenselaers,WilliamKinnersley,andBasilisC.XanthopoulosJ.Math.Phys. 20,2530(1979)and other references given there in.
[2]Y.Srivstava and A.Widom,Phys.Letts.B280,52(1992) [3]We use units G=c=1.
[4]We note that if e=4.8×10−10esu(the electron charge),then d=1.4×10−34cm. [5]H.Reissner,Ann.Phys.50,106(1916)



My ENGLISH is bad to explain, so please stress your PC Hardware to verify that shit..


Sorry but because thisis philosophical too, i have to do a interpretative dialogue :

Newton said: "actio - reactio ! "...
Einstein ask: "is it part of Gödel's timelines and space...? "
Platon comment's: "This space is a geometrical illusion ! "
Sarte ask : " Why Pierre is not there, in this anywhere ? "
Nietzsche Answers: "The Anywhere is like a bad religion ! "
Caligula says: "a donkey will be more intelligent ! "
Husserl ask: "where is Hegel every time wich need him ? "
Schopenhauer: "I was the first wich see he is a amateur ! "
Newton: "so lets cut his motherf***king copycat Head ! "
Titus screams: "Do not kill the Delivery-Boy !!! "
Planck comments: "God's message was ethnical & ethical !"
Kant says: "U Behavior must be like a universal moral law ! "

if you understand right, you will never ask me something like that (bad math) again...

so i repeat last time again:
maxwells error cant be corrected...

you answerd yourself :

you (we) do transform operation to get "right results" ...
you (!) only describe the dimensonal surface parametric, but if you go into the deep, you "transform" ...

what da f***k we doing there and here ?...

What do you believe, is the surface of the N O W , of the present point in "time and space" ?

what do you believe, where is the chair you sit on 1 sec in the past or future - a astable "mass" ?

this might be something for your mind...

this worlds surface wich you can see, feel touch lick or hear is directly bound to quantum scale and Effects ...
Maxwell see how the Amplitudes are oscillating and be set to 2 dimensonal parametric so thats the why the small scale is in superposition with the other sized.

there is nothing to transform - this is what i meant ... also you misunderstand the time and space continuum ground

my friend...
this youre dealing with is only a simple surface description of a approximated time term.
i deal with the level of deep underground base of all...

this are 2 divergent scales and dimensions too.


but because i see this discussion never ends and you cant spread your imagination - i have to stop it now to keep the thread clear .

be critic - thats ok ,but do not waste my time...
this correction of maxwells math have to been outsourced to real specialists at university enviroment ...

i cant do it without supercomputing and you cant do this at home too...

sorry, but this is honest .

friendly greets

heiko

LOL

It's pretty obvious when you go from word salad that is barely readable to completely legible English, that you are plagiarizing. Copying and pasting from a preprint on the arxiv is not impressive, and not equivalent to having expertise in the field of physics.

You copied and pasted from here https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9501301.pdf

If you want to convince me that you know something about physics, answer these questions coherently and correctly:

1) in QM, for a particle trapped in some potential, what is the relationship between the symmetry of that potential and the ground state wave function of the particle?

2) in electrostatics, suppose we have two pieces of metal. One is a bar magnet, and the other is not. Using only these two objects, determine which is the bar magnet and which is the regular metal. You may not mutilate or deform either bar.

3) in QM, suppose you have a particle trapped in some potential well of arbitrary form... then you instantaneously double the width of that potential, leaving the wave function of the particle undisturbed. How would you calculate the probability of finding the particle in the ground state of the new potential?

 

[CapLab]

LOL

It's pretty obvious when you go from word salad that is barely readable to completely legible English, that you are plagiarizing. Copying and pasting from a preprint on the arxiv is not impressive, and not equivalent to having expertise in the field of physics.

You copied and pasted from here https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9501301.pdf

If you want to convince me that you know something about physics, answer these questions coherently and correctly:

1) in QM, for a particle trapped in some potential, what is the relationship between the symmetry of that potential and the ground state wave function of the particle?

2) in electrostatics, suppose we have two pieces of metal. One is a bar magnet, and the other is not. Using only these two objects, determine which is the bar magnet and which is the regular metal. You may not mutilate or deform either bar.

3) in QM, suppose you have a particle trapped in some potential well of arbitrary form... then you instantaneously double the width of that potential, leaving the wave function of the particle undisturbed. How would you calculate the probability of finding the particle in the ground state of the new potential?

in fact the dude on arxiv write what i try to say .

my communication and english skills are not perfect and so of course, in research for fast answer to the given question i decide to watch if someone do a short answer before, so my source was here to copy and paste perfect articulated words/article ...

if i cant explain the math principle with words better and shorter than this guy do it, i dont have to try it .

and ,my special friend lowtek - it's not my intention to fight here for physic or mathematical interpretation -
my special skill is to solve REAL physical problems .

your affronts make me sick because you show your own intention again ...

this is why i say goodbye !

this is useless forum and i will delete my acc .
there many much more important things to do than wasting my time with changing inefficient words or stay in permanent conflict with blind people like you .
you cant see and you will never be able to see the truth -
so die old and like the rest without insight into deep .

heiko

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Millenial_Kid5K1]

As I researched savant syndrome, this thread is actually really sad. I feel poorly for my part in it, and I'd definitely recommend people read up.

The kindest thing would probably have been to ignore or humor his grandiose claims of all-knowing, while understanding that he probably does have a good deal of reference knowledge we can make use of. He just can't always understand what he's memorized.

It think it'd be a pity if he doesn't come back; I do think we could benefit from having him around.

 

[Millenial_Kid5K1]

I don't know how old you claim to be, but he wrote that back in 1995. And you even copied his sources directly from his paper.

Not only are you a fraud, but you aren't even smart enough to hide your obvious plagiarism.

Sheesh.

I interpreted it as him saying that he knows he copy-pasted, because he felt that paper answered the question. He goes on to admit this later in that post.

Let's all keep in mind that people with savant syndrome are considered to have "Islands of Genius" which are incongruent to an overall mental disability. Recommended reading:
The savant syndrome: an extraordinary condition. A synopsis: past, present, future

 

[G-Man]

Let's all keep in mind that people with savant syndrome are considered to have "Islands of Genius" which are incongruent to an overall mental disability. Recommended reading:
The savant syndrome: an extraordinary condition. A synopsis: past, present, future

I've already apologized and tried to give this guy the benefit of the doubt, and frankly, most of this shit is so totally above my head that I have no way to sense check the facts, so, for the other dummies out there, I'll lay out what I can concretely observe:

• OP may be savant/autistic - don't know this, because only source we have is him
• OP is hard to follow - could be language, could be he's just an incoherent internet rambler
• OP is arrogant - refer to thread title
• OP is defensive - when challenged he obfuscates, goes ad hominem, and threatens to delete account

TLDR dummy verdict: Unfollow.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Millenial_Kid5K1]

I'll lay out what I can concretely observe:

• OP may be savant/autistic - don't know this, because only source we have is him
• OP is hard to follow - could be language, could be he's just an incoherent internet rambler
• OP is arrogant - refer to thread title
• OP is defensive - when challenged he obfuscates, goes ad hominem, and threatens to delete account

TLDR dummy verdict: Unfollow.

I agree with all of your bullet points. I've met other autists in my internet travels, and this seems to be pretty much par for the course.

I was just thinking that if we could stop antagonizing him, he could be useful to answer certain kinds of questions, e.g. knows from his memory which materials have been used for inventions in different situations, or different manufacturing techniques, etc.

Of course I'll bet it's too late for that. We'll see.

 

[MJ DeMarco]

1) in QM, for a particle trapped in some potential, what is the relationship between the symmetry of that potential and the ground state wave function of the particle?

2) in electrostatics, suppose we have two pieces of metal. One is a bar magnet, and the other is not. Using only these two objects, determine which is the bar magnet and which is the regular metal. You may not mutilate or deform either bar.

3) in QM, suppose you have a particle trapped in some potential well of arbitrary form... then you instantaneously double the width of that potential, leaving the wave function of the particle undisturbed. How would you calculate the probability of finding the particle in the ground state of the new potential?

this is useless forum and i will delete my acc .

Whoop, there it is!

 

[Raoul Duke]

Hi.

#landfill

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.