Sensei

In Newtons time they were interested in predicting position of some planet in advance. If prediction was correct model was correct (more or less precise). It's similar to mine example from #34 post, but instead of observation of failing body at hand, record location of Venus through whole year, record location of Mars whole year, record location of Moon whole year.. Analyze their positions, to get velocity, analyze how they change in time. And basing on previous values, predict where body will be in future.

Simply, you simply don't understand how Universe is working.. Sorry to be honest. Model has to predict something, with higher or lower precision, but being able to predict anything. Your model is predicting nothing. Meshes is 3d applications, 3d games are made of triangles because it's the elementary object with area (line has area = 0), which can be used to created any other 3d object. But if you would be able to zoom in quantum world, you would see empty space with just some electrons and nucleus instead of solid surface.

Venus a = 8.87 m/s2 Mars has a = 3.69 m/s², or a=3.711 m/s² according to Wikipedia.. How can you even ask such question after reading post #34??? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/84336-if-pi-ratio-was-squared-and-98-mss-how-would-this-change-the-whole-of-science/?p=815752

He said that acceleration is different on different planets/moons....

9.8696044010893586188344909998762 / 9.81 = 1.0060758818643586767415383282239 So in percentage it's difference by 0.6% higher..

PI^2 = 9.8696044010893586188344909998762 g = Earth's acceleration at sea level is 9.81 m/s These two things are not equal.

PI^2 (PI multiplied by PI) is 9.8696044010893586188344909998762 which in your vision is close to 9.8.. Accident. On Moon or other planet it won't be close each other.

It's not complex, but you're not taking care of anything, writing 6.626e-33 (post #40) (10x higher than should you use) but you should write 6.62607e-34 (Planck const)... etc. etc. etc. These values are not some random values made up by scientists, but we can prove these values to be true. Simply make thread "how to calculate Planck const at home" and I will show you experiment confirming it's value that we know...

Very quantum friendly. So the same initial Newtons light theory, that was also particle-like (but he used corpuscle word instead of nowadays particle)

micron is 1/1,000,000 (1 per million) of second. So result should be 67/1000000 = 0.000067 = 6.7e-5 (four zeros after dot, not three) We have been talking about it in thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83549-is-coulumbs-law-symmetrical/page-2#entry809747 You can write 10*10^3 or 10e3 or 1e4. You can write 3*10^8 or 3e8 Don't mix these two systems..

simplify3, you basically don't even know what ToE (Theory of Everything) has to be about... ToE MUST predict energy of photon, rest and kinetic energy of electron, the all particles, the all decay modes, calculate the all half-lives, calculate ionization energies of every atom/isotope, calculate spectral lines of every atom/isotope, etc. etc. etc. f.e. I am asking in what temperature, pressure, volume some molecule will be solid, liquid, gaseous and you straight away should tell me, if you have ToE.. ToE should be able to calculate everything..

OpenOffice is free to download. Don't confuse it with Microsoft Office.

Sorry, mine English dictionary is showing the same word for both liquid and fluid..

Take photo camera, attach it to tripod (so it'll be steady recording in one direction), and point it to f.e. white wall with attached vertical scale. Start recording movie, and release some solid heavy small object f.e. metal ball (because we're not interested in air resistance, or other effects - if density of object would be smaller than air density like balloon with hydrogen or helium it would actually flight up). Then transfer movie to computer and load it to movie software such as VirtualDub, Movie Maker or After Effect or so, where you can scrub timeline and see each frame of movie. Read distance object traveled at given frame from vertical scale. In 30 FPS (frames per second) movie, each frame is 1/30 second = 0.03333(3) second. You will receive data like f.e. t = 0 s, distance = 0 t = 0.1 s, distance = 0.04905 m = 4.9 cm t = 0.2 s, distance = 0.1962 m = 19.62 cm etc. Enter data to OpenOffice Spread Sheet to Distance column like in this image: To calculate velocity you have to subtract distance at time t1, from distance at time t0, and divide by time it took flight. v = (x1-x0)/(t1-t0) so in OpenOffice it's calculation: =(B3-B2)/(A3-A2) (it's in third column) Then acceleration is a = (v1-v0)/(t1-t0) so in OpenOffice it's calculation: =(C4-C3)/(A4-A3) (it's in forth column) As you can see, it's steady 9.81 m/s^2 for this little home experiment. If it wouldn't be "home experiment" we would also pomp out air and do experiment and hermetic tube with vacuum to remove any air influence, and use high frequency recording camera like 1000 FPS or more. Without camera it's possible to measure it with precise stopper and scale. Release object from 1m and see how long it takes to reach ground, then repeat for 2m, 4m etc. The more precise time measurement, the better result you will get. But in times when everybody have digital camera, why not use it. Repeating it on the moon or other planet would show different accelerations. Repeating it with higher air pressure, or in liquid would show also different result. Especially in liquid.

No, I didn't ask how to drive some "pi ratio".. PI^2=9.869604 but g = 9.81 That's >0.6% difference. I asked whether you know how to measure and calculate acceleration in experiment that your can perform anytime at home..

I don't think so Iwonderabouthings was ever rude. At least I have not seen such behaving. I hope so too. Iwonderabouthings, I will give you in private message mine private database of science discoveries & theories in order they were published (1600-2014 years).. With links to articles and links to authors, people involved in discovery or theory. So you will have a couple months of reading. Please don't speculate, don't create your own theories how something works before learning mainstream explanations that are well documented, well tested.

I am sorry if you feel offended.. That was not mine intention. Somebody with ADHD can't concentrate on one subject for longer time.

Your threads are such chaotic (f.e. post #10, #14). You can't talk about one subject at a time. Do you have ADHD? When scientists are making experiment, we are trying to reduce influence of other forces to null, and calculate thing that we're interested in at the moment.

Iwonderaboutthings, do you know how to calculate 9.81 m/s acceleration (or other planet/moon acceleration) purely from experimental observation.. ?

Cloud chamber was showed to public in 1911. Wilson saw the first time traces leaved by cosmic rays in 1894. Oil drop experiment, to measure quantization of charged particles, was done in 1909. Published in 1913.

Fixed. I was calculating from perspective somebody with solar panels at hand at any time from nearest shop selling them. Exact model. 1600x800 mm size, with area =1.28 m^2, giving 190 W (15% efficiency), for 315 usd with tax each. 36.6 V and 5.2 A according to shop specification. I was simply interested "what quantity of them do I need to cover all mine needs". 14 such solar panels (for $4410) = 18 m^2, and it should give me all what needed, including winter time. Time (whole year) would tell whether it's correct quantity... Without. It's what I am personally spending (the most of it is server running 24h/d) Nope.

Sorry I meant 1000 MW. Thanks for spotting it.

Each m^2 of Earth is receiving average 1360 W, but part of energy is absorbed by atmosphere, which gives max 1050 W per m^2. Solar panel typical efficiency is 15%, so from 1050 W there is remaining 160 W/m^2. Then you have to take care of that Sun shines just between 4-20 at summer, or between 8-16 (or so) at winter, and max output is varying depending on hour. For mine latitude I have calculated that I need 18 m^2 to cover all mine needs 460 J/s (which is 330 kWh per month), regardless of season and hour. During day there must be enough gathered for all night. So if nuclear power station have 1000 MW it's giving energy to ~2.2 mln houses like mine. And it's equivalent to 39 mln m^2 of solar panels.

Couple months ago I even wrote letter to our government showing that their idea to start up new atomic power station for $7bn (10 MW) is simply silly. For the same money they could buy at detail price solar panels enough for 2 million apartments and make them independent from power stations. But instead I suggested them to buy/create whole company producing solar panels, which would decrease costs even more..

Neutrino is fermion in mainstream physics, but almost nobody would call it "matter"..