swansont

You have to meet us partway. It’s one thing to explain why a model is wrong, but it’s too much of a burden to teach basic science on top of that. Which is the bulk of the work. The poles have flipped several times over the history of the earth.

! Moderator Note This is a place for discussing science. Either mainstream science, or some model you are proposing and can support with evidence. Not your opinion. Not untestable WAGs

No

n is the index of refraction. We know that c is invariant and that it’s about 3 x 10^8 m/s, and depends on the permittivity and permeability of free space, by why those constants have those values is not known.

If it’s enclosed it does not create thrust. All you’ve done is claim that it does. Work and momentum continue to be different things. Energy is not a vector. Force is. They are not the same thing. Instead of answering my question, all you’ve done is made a box in a diagram. What happens to the momentum? I am not asking about the kinetic energy. Also, please answer the other questions that you’ve skipped.

Photons travel at c. Light travels at c/n One is a quantum explanation, the other is classical.

The work is path independent, but the accumulated phase of the clock depends on the frequency and the duration of the trip. The dilation only tells you what happens to the frequency.

The force exerted by light is F = P/c (where P is the power) for absorption, and 2P/c for perfect reflection. You need P = mgc/2 which, for just 1 kg, is a little less than 1.5 Gigawatts. At the distance of the earth, sun intensity is around 1.3-1.4 kW/m^2, so you need around a million square meters. And you’ll likely fry the solar sail, because you don’t have perfect reflection.

Work is not force. Force is directly related to momentum, not KE The relevant quantity is momentum. KE is generally not conserved these kinds of collisions. If you magically cut the speed in half, you reduce the momentum by half. That directly correlated to the recoil after impact. Describing a box moving a certain distance after impact assumes other factors - the box will keep moving absent other forces being present - and you are not actually analyzing the collision. You’re just waving your hands. The example you gave earlier had no reduction in momentum, so there’s no inherent change in the dynamics. No, that’s not what would happen. The box would only move back if the ball moved back to its original position. The CoM never moves. How do you slow it down? Where does the momentum go? What you’ve described is magic, not physics.

! Moderator Note Can’t say you weren’t warned Don’t bring this up again

This is all moot, since I was talking about manufacturers (plural) in competition for market share. You can compete on quality or price or possibly intangibles (prestige). But it’s predicated on competition. Even so, selling just 3 million over 25 years means most people were not buying this car.

! Moderator Note But you are preaching your pet theory, not asking about mainstream physics. Pick one. Ask questions to learn physics, or give us your model and evidence to support it.

Point taken. I was thinking in terms of a market economy. edit: Still, an average lifespan of 28 years sounds like it supports my point

I have no idea what that is. edit: according to Wikipedia, it was cheap and reliable, and about 3 million 601’s were sold over ~25 years.

Math. -1e +1e = 0 You’re just making stuff up, and it’s proving tiresome

Electricity and magnetism is real physics. The wave equation is real physics. You haven’t demonstrated any understanding In a word, no. If you are claiming this, you need a model and evidence. If you keep engaging in the rectal reach protocol, this will be closed.

I agree with zapatos. People won’t buy cars that are known to break down. Manufacturers have a vested interest in some level of reliability. You can get that with quality control, and also with redundancy. If a part shows that it’s near end-of-life then you don’t need redundancy (tire tread, for example) If it’s life-preserving, often you do (brakes on more than one wheel)

It’s not

Sorry, but joigus is right. You are vastly overestimating your understanding of physics

No, you cannot. Making stuff up is kinda the opposite of science. Sure we do. The speed of an electromagnetic wave from Maxwell’s equations is c

I doubt such a citation exists; it’s like proving a negative. Emergency backups working as planned isn’t newsworthy. But we hear about such failures when they occur. When hurricane Sandy hit the US east coast some years back, gasoline and diesel supplies were impacted, because the refineries and terminals were without power. So generators couldn’t be replenished once the fuel ran out. No gas/diesel for trucks to move fuel to critical customers. This was news, because it was a failure of unanticipated duration. I imagine this caused a re-think of emergency procedures, as would the scenario you describe. I know we have at least one thread where that idea is shown to fall well short of being self-sustaining (and I notice the article provides no analysis). A few added km of range, yes, but nothing more.

The plane is a description from Newtonian physics, which is adequate to explain the vast majority of the behavior of the orbits. Much in the same way as we use classical physics to explain things and not invoke negligible quantum effects.

The KE doesn’t matter; at 45 degrees the momentum is smaller. KE doesn’t directly correlate with the force

I don’t see where you stated that. This will change the mass distribution; the box would move but the center of mass would not. How do you reduce the KE before it hits the rear of the box Does it continue forward after the stream is turned off?

! Moderator Note Discuss freewill as you wish, but you need to do it without proselytizing.