Ghideon

Did the any of the replies guide you to the answer? Was any of the responses particularly helpful or not helpful? Some feedback would be nice.

Thanks again, I've learned more than I initially hoped for when I commented in this topic! Side note: Maybe the topic was intended for the puzzles section, as an "Spot the Odd One Out" quiz? You would have responded quicker than me...

Thanks! I was not sure about Magnetic diode, and I had no intention clicking the link. Agree, I was wondering why the list mixes mainstream science and fantasy devices. It is not a very helpful list, but I'm open for discussion if the OP returns to the topic.

This caught my interest, did you intend to start a discussion? The comments on the topic, in the link you posted as a reference, suggests that this is not considered mainstream science.

I don't think that analogy works very well for several reasons. 1: On subatomic level other forces than gravity are more relevant for holding an atom together. 2: It sounds like you describe an atom as a model of a planetary system, not a galaxy?

I see the quotation marks but can you please provide the source?

I'll try to give some hints by asking questions. What is [math]V_{i} [/math] ? If you draw a picture, how are the final velocities related to the inital speed?

Just trying [math] for the first time... (Vfy)^2=(VisinΘ)^2+2ay⋅Δy [math] V_{fy}^{2} = V*sin( \phi )^{2}*2a_{y}* \Delta _{y}[/math]

Ok. Maybe you intended to post this in speculations? I don't understand the idea, can you please clarify. If the sun has a hollow core with vacuum in it's centre, then it follows that this vacuum is surrounded by some incredible strong shell/force/whatever that prevents the solar plasma from entering the void? If so, how will the probe be able penetrate that incredible strong "stuff" using electromagnetic fields?

Thanks for the analogy! I have a followup, sorry if I'm repetitive but I don't get the connection to the case with the electron. In the case with radiation from charges you state that acceleration and slowing down has a different outcome? In the car analogy, does that mean that a car hit by a moving object will suffer a different outcome than a moving* car hitting a standstill object? To continue your analogy: Two cars collide. I thougt the result depends on the relative motion of the two cars, not how one or both move relative to the road. Or, according to you, does it matter which one of the cars that accelerates at the time of impact? *) Just to state the obvious: I use the road as a frame of reference. The observer of the crash is not moving along the road.

From memory I subjectively find local strawberries sweeter than e.g. apples, and strawberries require a lot of sun. But sugar* content tables suggest that strawberries generally contain less sugar than apples. So in this case sun, sugar content and taste didn't correlate in the way I expected. I'll have to rethink this, my idea about correlation between measured sugar content and sunshine for a fruit or berry does not seem to work. *)There are several types in fruits according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose

I dont want to be picky but by sweet do you mean the taste or the measured sugar contents? I intend to give this some thought and want to get started in the right direction. Interesting point. Do animals in varying climate have different needs, giving raise to different evolutionary advantage in different climate zones? Sweeter food is an advantage in hot climate?

Please explain how the two forces does not combine vectorially, I fail to get that from the discussion so far. See studiots comment:

I agree* that Python is a good start. It's used in many different areas meaning that you kan apply your new skills in many interesting contexts. Google Python machine learning och python arduino for two rather different examples. Good point that also applies to tools needed; many Python examples and tutorials can run in a web browser with minimal preparation. Personally I don't like to mess to much with the setup of compilers, libraries and tools to get started. *) A few years back I would probably have said Java

Ambitious, but infinite speed is not possible as far as I know. Yes, the fact that it is never going to work as as means of delivering evidence of some unknown aspect of physics is strikingly similar.

"Bowing out" made me think of the asymmetry of the earth magnetic field and wonder if that has an impact of properties of the moon discussed in this topic. I tried to find references to see if the moon passes through earths magnetic field and found science-at-nasa/2008/17apr_magnetotail Didn't have much time to research but I found this*, worth adding in this context: ref: Earth’s magnetic field could help protect astronauts working on the moon So when doing experiments on the moon regarding some phenomena in this thread I suggest this adds to the complexity. Yes indeed, and that's part of the fun *) have not checked for other sources backing up the claims in the news article

That is cool, but a lot of it looks like speculations about something else that is completely impossible for many reasons. Some of the problems in the thread sometimes looks like language issues*. Maybe you have a question but to the reader it comes across as suggestions or misconceptions about more basic physics that needs to be addressed first? I often have to work pretty hard just to put together a question that I can understand. There is probably evidence in several threads where I have been active... *) Probably pretty obvious; english isn't my first language. I'm not sure I'm in a position to make a valid guess.

Yes thanks, I was quite active in that thread for a while. I do my best to stay away from that topic in this thread.

Let’s try another angle, this is not a very precise description but this simplified version is OK given the context. I think the mainstream view is that: -Rotation of a planet core can have impact of the magnetic field that surrounds the planet. -A planet’s magnetic field can protect the atmosphere from solar wind. That connects rotation, magnetism, solar wind, atmosphere and opens for discussion about other parameters than gravity alone? Is this the topic you wish to discuss? Yes, that is obvious. And I have to speculate about what you are speculating about

To be honest I do not have enough knowledge about static. But movement, if you by that mean rotation, does not seem likely. There is something with the way you ask the questions that make me wonder; is your idea that the planet does not have any gravity initially? First the planet must have an atmosphere and then the atmosphere creates the gravity? That's why you ask for me to choose between static and movement? I don't get this one. First you create an empty space. Then matter is attracted = moves into the empty space you just created. Then what? No empty space and no attraction; everything falls apart?

I think you first should ask, and understand, how planets collect gasses based upon the density and the diameter of the planet?

Better sense than what?

I think you can get different answers depending on the situation. On one hand I immediately agree with @Strange, the pressure is low enough to have minimal impact on experiments that requires vacuum. But on the other hand, assuming identical pressure; does the small amount of air in the vacuum lab on earth have a different mixture of gasses than the vacuum on the moon? Are there some other types of experiments where that would make a difference?

Agree, I can't see anything new. Not sure if it means anything but are there other cracks than the large one?

Thanks, From the text i highlighted above I guess you intended to answer my questions like: 1: Can you put a name on your device? "the RedBarron device" 2: What is the effect the device will cause if operating as expected? "attract a solid object". 3: Is the effect something that can be modelled within mainstream science or are you speculating about something completely new? "I could imagine the cylinder gyrating violently initially like a spinning plastic egg before settling into frictionless spinning" From #1 and #2 I draw the conclusion that gravity generation is expected. I think you have to back up your claim better, can you post a mathematic model for #3?