Robittybob1

By the time you had discovered all the facts of the present moment, time would have moved on. You would never keep up to date knowing "the PRESENT MOMENT 100% in all its States, interconnections,networking,forces and factors..."

You think the general population would be happy with that? Is it going to be imposed on us by the UN?

Which country would get the prefered time? And not to spoil the party, time is based on zones of Longitude rather that latitude!

you would wonder why they have evolved along this line of evolution. Is this something also being kept from us?

How old are you?

What does RT stand for?

Yes when you divide a mass with an atomic weight it ends up with a number of moles, something like that, it been a while since I've done any chemistry. Do they then multiply that with mass again? If you see a link share it please. No problems - I went back to bed so the whole world was ignored.

Thanks - from a Google search gravity seems the only use of formulas where mass is multiplied by mass. Does anyone know of any other? When you look at the the dates there was thousands of years between the Eratosthenes and Newton. Science has been a slow process. What was the rush the other day?

It wasn't clear from that link why Newton had the idea of multiplying mass times mass. Is gravitation the only situation where mass is multiplied by mass? OK the idea of making it an inverse square would be from the idea of light weakening with distance. So that to me suggests he must have thought gravity as a type of radiating force, like light, fading at greater distances. I suppose if you then think it is the radiant component of mass that is being radiated the gravitation force would be the shared radiation between the two radiant masses. I think you might get a "mass times mass" if you calculated shared radiation from that. It was 100 or so years later that the value of G was found accurately. (I suppose Newton had some estimate.) In what situation was Newton actually able to prove his gravitational formula? Did Newton know "the distance R to the Moon is then about 60 RE."? Who first accurately estimated the distance to the moon?

What does your logic tell you?

Will you get to use the maths? I find I don't get to use the maths enough so I forget it as fast as I learn it. What's your technique for making it sink in? I seem to be able to remember physics perfectly. So a model that is a type of "working model" is so much easier to conceive rather than a model based on a mathematical description.

The maths would help in the end but I have found the insights are simpler than that. The apple falling from the tree (Newton), the elevator free falling (Einstein), the electron orbiting the atom (Bohr). OK they were the initial concepts but they progressed from there. I must have had at least 5 revolutionary insights since coming onto the forums in the last 5 years or so. None have been accepted as yet but they are out there. Whether a super knowledge of math would make it easier to make people convinced? Yes, I think it would and that is why I have been brushing up on maths lately. Will I ever get good enough to apply math? I doubt it.

I have always done that. I'm not saying "I'm right, stuff everyone else", but when objections come in that appear to be bordering on flaming it is frustrating. Agreement and acknowledgement of what the parties both agree on is also important. Cheers any way, other things have to be done today.

Cheers! I thought I was onto something but without support and funding maybe it will just fade away.

So it becomes pointless discussing new hypotheses here as every model proposed can be dismissed by just saying it wasn't scaled up enough or the equations might not be applicable. I feel to be fair the objections should be subjected to the same standard. No objection unless you can show the objection is relevant.

The art of throwing the javelin is something I practiced as a kid. You had to throw it up and make it come down point first. Has it ever been analysed mathematically, and could it teach you any more than a bit of practice could? A good technique could have helped, gym work to build up muscle strength too. Yes it appears it is a bit of a science.

Right, one day I might get around to the Maxwell's equations, but I was a very practical physics person who would do things such as this person in the short YT clip of levitating a ping pong ball with a dryer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-myUNjYjhIA. The airflow keeps the ball centralized in the flow so in fact he is able to tip the system to nearly 45 degrees. OK one can look at that and understand the physics of it but if you said I have to write down the mathematics of that demonstration before you'd accept it, I would struggle. Would the demonstration be a sufficient model in itself? Good reply, and thanks for the opinion. I'm feeling quite beaten today, but hopefully I'll recover. Ok we were discussing a lot of relatively simple physics but each step was disputed. How can that be? When faced with that I found it became impossible to make progress no matter how well I thought I explained each step. Each accepted aspect of physics will hold true - if there is an electrical current there will be a resistance and heating. (baring the superconductor situation). So if a motion created that current and it is flowing around a body there with be a viscosity (a friction) factor to overcome. These are just simple physics that can't really be disputed, can they? So they don't have to be modeled as well, surely not.

Would a model have made a difference then? I can think of a demo model. "Still not good enough", could have been the reply. So you are saying it is a matter of changing the jury's view that counts the most, but you also have to convince the judge for he gets to sum up the case too.

A ball bearing would be an ideal object to drop into various liquids of different density (concentration) and viscosity (temperature dependent).

Interesting answer. Would the "idea" have to be based initially on some observations? There would be some data that suggests the speed of sound varies with density. I could imagine you would then graph density verses speed and see what sort of curve one gets. Slope and shape will reveal what type of relationship you would be dealing with. When I first read what you wrote I thought yo were saying someone would just make up a formula! So will all models rely on some initial data? Why did Newton make gravity proportional to mass not volume? Different objects weighed the same when their mass was the same rather than their size or volume. Observational data seem so essential. How did he work out it was proportional to mass times mass? Deduction? From that link about Newton that Strange gave us: Amazing! It takes time trials and errors to get there!

How much of that model did Newton work out himself? Thanks to all who have replied to my question. I still haven't fully understood how I go about converting an idea into a model. I had thought deeply on how I could model it in a physical mechanical way but it became impossible for me to construct, so that was out, so what do you do next? Get financial backing to overcome the difficulty! That would be one solution.

Have you looked up the meaning of density? What word should you be using?

There is a list of types of models so which one should I have tried? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling#Types_of_scientific_modelling A lot of models seem to rely on computer graphics, but I think they were wanting something else. Can you give me an example? (Please)

I was asked to model my hypothesis. How does one even start doing that?

I had this concept that melting would be due to heat and loss of pressure. The Inner Core of the Earth is solid due partly to the intense pressure. With much less pressure at the same temperature it would liquify.