Ghideon

Ok, I see no real explanation how this is supposed to work and no math, lets try another angle. You seem to have some basic equipment available, maybe a set of experiments* can be arranged? First: Why does the saucer not lift off the ground** when you just start the engine and do not throw the saucer? What are the limiting factors according to your model? (weight, rigidity, frequency...) Second: How can the lift, if any, be measured with equipment you have available? Idea 1: Do you have a sensitive scale available? What happens if you run the engine in saucer while the saucer is placed on the scale? The scale should read less weight if the lifting force is generated? Then what does the scale read if you place the saucer upside down with engine running? The saucer should try to press itself down, increasing the reading. Problem here is that vibrations and any flow of air will affect measurements. Another line of reasoning starts with these two statements: and Also, pictures above shows a device on water. Idea 2: Do you expect the effect you want to use is greater when the resistance is provided by a medium with greater density? If so, how about building a submersible saucer? Then it may be possible to balance the buoyancy of the saucer so it is almost neutral. Place saucer at the bottom, just heavy enough to sink, with engine running. Does it move up? Then do the opposite: reduce weight so the saucer floats, turn it upside down and start engine. Will it dive to the bottom? This setup has other issues, for instance that water is not compressible. I'm not expecting this to work but may inspire or give insight why I am very sceptic about the possibility that the propulsion will work. *) I'm aware of forum rules, maybe the thread needs to be moved for this discussion... **) I'm assuming the saucer is supposed to take off vertically like a helicopter if you succeed with the design.

First thing: Even if we do not at all agree on the results, experiments and builds are cool! I can hear the sound but I see no lift at all. I suppose someone off-camera throws the saucer? How does the results compare to a set of experiments without the engine running? I missed this part previously: Your saucer uses inertial propulsion, and inertial propulsion has already ben sent to space and failed? How will your version work?

Thanks for your answer. I do not quite understand how a the smooth and complex movement of a bird wing is comparable to a rigid* saucer. When the saucer makes a quick movement of the wing up, the force required to move the air above the saucer results in a force that presses the saucer towards the ground. Maybe this is the one**: How will the saucer you propose be able to behave differently than the car above? So far the discussion focus on movement through air, what is the purpose of using the failed idea above when more useful designs exist: Another disadvantage is that it looks kind of uncomfortable to ride in the vehicle. *) I assume that the saucer is rigid and not constructed like a jellyfish **) Found a movie; first few seconds of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYhwLnIzSEY

Thanks, I don't think that was obvious from your description above. The saucer does not look like a fish or a bird to me, maybe a jellyfish is a more useful analogy? Can you describe the mechanism in more detail, preferably including some math? I fail to see how the saucer would be able to leave the ground.

Hello @MasterOgon. Is something missing from the description? I've highlighted two statements; they seem to contradict each other? (emphasis by me) How does this work in the vacuum of space?

Thanks! Lets continue the discussion: I did not suggest that the earth can be stopped. I asked in context of the situation described in your paper: Please describe in detail what physical mechanism you refer to in your paper and how that mechanism works. Not how the earth will be stopped but the effect the stopping will have on time. Or, at least, please answer: Supposing the Earth stops its Rotation and Revolution: Does that, according to your theory, have an effect only on the time for all all living things and non-living things earth? No. Earth would continue to rotate around its own axis if the sun would suddenly disappear.

Thanks for your reply! I would like some furhter clarifications regarding this before moving on to other parts of your paper. The following two statements seems incompatible: 1: from your paper 2: from your reply I have three alternatives*, a,b and c. Are one of them correct or do you have some other explanation? a: When earth rotation and revolution stops accordijng to (1) it only has an effect on the time for allvon earth. b: (1) is more of a general analogy or example; time for things on earth and in other places do not experience any change until all movement, expansion etc has stopped in the whole universe. Stopping only earth rotation and revolution will have no effect at all on earth living things and non-living things. c: (1) is not stating what was intended and needs to be edited. Note: I do not say that any of the alternatives are what I believe happens or is something mainstream science suggests. It is only my attempt at understanding the consequences of specific statements in your paper.

Hello. I have two initial questions: When things are sent into space and therefore no longer follow earth rotation, they will cease to change/transform? Do you have a reference for the claim? How did matter transform to create planet earth if no change/transformation is possible before the rotation of earth?

You will have to provide some references or evidence for your speculations. For instance, what physical mechanism allows for this:

I'm usually restrictive when op only has a link and no discussion, but I gave this one a chance. Unfortunately I've not yet studied all the formulas used in the paper so I can't comment on the math; "dE" is for instance not defined. (Maybe a reader with more knowledge is supposed to know the definition) This caught my eye: Why does a universe have a maximum possible radius?

Ok! What is the name of the movie?

Question: According to you (or the film maker) the laser does not hit the second wall; where does the photons emitted by the laser go? @swansont and @Strange already gave good explanations. But I'll try to address this from another point of view within the context of the setup. You seem expect that experiments run before and after acceleration have different outcome. To me that seems to imply that the light source (laser) must have some kind of "memory" of beeing accelerated. But if nature would behave like that it would have strange consequences. Think of what happens if the space lab in the movie receives a spare laser from a service spaceship? If that spaceship was starting from another location and accelerated differently, the spare laser would "remember" a different acceleration than the the original laser and therefore behave in a different way. It seems like the movie maker have a serious plot hole?

Thanks for the article*, I'll read it once I get some time. Ok, but the article you quoted says it is unsure: >Off topic joke It would be easier if you added a link to the article, so I suppose the above should read: "as per new look at Heisenbergs uncertainty position of article cannot be determined" <end of joke *) I suppose it is this one: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-gravity-quantum?

I do not find an answer to my question in your reply. Your text is not compatible with my understanding of Big Bang for the reasons @Strange noted. Maybe you need to ask some specific question(s) about the topic?

I have limited knowledge of this; here's a very short answer, other members with more knowledge may fill in* -Wormholes are speculative and are based on a solution of the Einstein field equations. -I'm unaware of any evidence or observations that supports wormholes at this time. -At least within the context of general relativity there is no known process that would create a wormhole. So the answer as far as I know is: no, wormholes are not the other side of blackholes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole https://www.space.com *) Maybe it is better to open a new thread for this question.

I don't understand much of the post above, maybe it was lost in translation. Did you mean wormholes?

I did not get that, to be able to answer, can you please explain? What information creats us? I have some trouble with the statement above. Of course a radio signal (=information) can travel faster than the antenna (=source) that sent the signal?

Maybe this one? Jordan, P. (1971), The expanding earth: some consequences of Dirac's gravitation hypothesis, Oxford: Pergamon Press https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth

New idea based on your input so far; combining a variant of the suggestion from @Sensei with your interest in algorithms. Are you familiar with the various versions of RAID* ? You could look into questions like "What algorithms are used? How do systems recover from disk failures in different RAID levels?" *) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_RAID_levels

Ok! Let's try some reasoning: 1: Network Science: for instance a system with geo redundancy. 2: Information Retrieval: gather information from various components of the system above 3: Knowledge Extraction: extract "knowledge" from the "information" retrieved above. Combining 1, 2 and 3: Lets say some system, or set of systems, are mission critical and have automatic failover and real time replication of data between several sites. The systems have some means of sending logs in real time to a central destination. At this central location the information is analysed to try to extract knowledge. Now we have a setup where several possible thesis topics can apply. Speculative examples and ideas: - What software is currently available? - What algorithms are required in this setup? - How can for instance machine learning or AI be applied? Example; trying to include 1-3 and also both operations and business: Low level logs from one or more sites states that response times increase. How long will it take before customers will be affected and maybe head elsewhere? Can possible problems at a low level be automatically transformed into an estimate of loss of revenue? Can maintenance be prioritised immediately from a loss of revenue perspective rather than technical severity? One or more of these aspects may give some ideas about thesis topic. Note: Of course there's software that can, or at least is claiming, to be able to do this. But as far as I know it is not necessarily a simple task to actually do it in reality.

Hello, Are you mainly interested in software or hardware? Is the topic related to high level business aspects or more operational levels such as disaster recovery, failover or maintenance? I may have some ideas, depending on your input.

I got curious and did some quick research regarding showers and water taps in case you are interested. Notes: -Only Legionella was addressed. -I concentrated on local conditions (Sweden) and documents from official sources, I’ve not had time to track down or read original scientific papers. -The sources are in Swedish only but links to original documents are included. ----- One source* states that showers are a common source. This has resulted in detailed rules for new buildings and maintenance guidelines for older houses. Short extract of the information available: Water containers contain bacterias but they are killed if temperature is high enough. At temperatures of 70 ° C, 90 percent of bacteria die in less than ten seconds. Problems: 1: Water containers may have too low temperature 2: There may be stagnant water between the container and the tap There are recommendations regarding minimum temperature in water heater, (50 ° C) The recommendation is also to let the water flow for a while if the tap has not been in use for some extended time. For new buildings there are rules regarding the minimum and maximum temperature allowed at the tap. The hot water may not be too cool before mixing with cool water. I also did a check of the hot water system in my house. The system heats the water to a high temperature periodically (default=weekly) to kill bacterias, but it is not permanently keeping the temperature at this level. (The manual for the control panel says “Legionella function” by the way) ------ Now some speculation based on the information above, I have no sources for this. -It may possible to save energy by lowering the temperature in the tank or by disabling the periodical extra heating. That may increase the risk for bacterias. -Geothermal systems popular here usually have lower operating temperatures than other, older types of systems. Incorrect setup may result in hot water stored at temperatures were bacterias are not killed, especially if focus is on low energy consumption only. This could increase the risk in newer systems. End of speculation. ---- As a comparison to the quadrupled levels in the U.S I checked some statistics on national level in Sweden. Official statistics*** does not give any clear support for any specific source or major changes. *) the National Board of Housing, Building and Planning (swedish only) www.boverket.se -legionella pdf **) A Swedish study, but the reference list is mainly in english: www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se pdf ***) public health authority statistics, Swedish: https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/folkhalsorapportering-statistik/statistikdatabaser-och-visualisering/sjukdomsstatistik/legionellainfektion/

In short, is your opinion then, that we* have the same knowledge about how nature works now, as we had before we started to use scientific methods? *) we=the group of all human

Thanks for noting that what I stated was unclear. I'll try to clarify: Newton introduced absolute space (and time) and discussed absolute velocity. Anyway, In the context of this topic and the diagrams posted, I got interested and found https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-theories/#4.2.1*. I haven't read all, but chapter 4 "Newton" and, more specific, chapter 4.2.1 "Absolute Space vs. Galilean Relativity" compares Galileo's, Newton's (and other's) views. *) I haven't searched for a second source yet. I can't make statements about the reliability of the source.

Hello, It is not rekommenderas to post only a link, please post details here on the forum. I was curious and clicked the link and found: Maybe this was intended for the speculations section?