swansont

The temperature increase depends on the amount of CO2, not CO2 per capita. That’s the climate science impact (where this was posted) CO2 per capita is more of a political issue of who is taking action and who isn’t. As is shaming the US for insufficient effort.

An understanding of statistics will be necessary Lead attenuates. To suggest it blocks radiation could be misconstrued

This was earlier, possibly before a thorough understanding of the dangers was developed

SteveKlinko has been suspended for posting multiple threads based on or linked to the same speculation, despite being warned not to.

See below... Non-sequiturs and once again avoiding answering the questions.

! Moderator Note I asked you not to do this. You have a thread for this; stay there.

The same reason people get annoyed by foreign visitors who butcher (or refuse to learn) the language of the place they are visiting. In this case it’s a distraction, and seems to be used in the place of rigorous analysis. Yes, and I’d ask what was supplying the force. Whichever one you referred to in your example. You just called it “particle” Applied by what source, and to what object? Collision between what objects? Why do you keep changing the conditions? There was no collision described in your paper. That’s Newton’s 3rd law. Action-reaction. There is existing terminology. Making up new vocabulary is one of the things that annoys me. As mentioned in our guidelines for these discussions https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/ you need to be familiar with the area of science into which your idea would fit, or the material you are critiquing. You must also know the terminology. You can't effectively communicate if you are using different definitions than everyone else, or making up nomenclature for things where it already exists. (the value of posting an abstract is also mentioned) You have to clearly explain your idea in order to answer that. But then you don’t know what the force is. F=mv doesn’t tell you Numerical equivalence means nothing in physics. Units matter. I assure you, forces can be a function of time

But mv does not have units of force. v=at for constant acceleration, but that assumes constant acceleration, so it’s not generally true. 9.8 ms-1 is not an acceleration. It should be 9.8 ms-2 These details matter. No they are not equivalent. F = dp/dt You do need proper units to get valid answers Physics is pretty well-established. I would prefer it if you wouldn’t make up stuff as you went. On the contrary, F = dp/dt means the duration of the force tells you the change in momentum. A constant force in effect for twice the time will impart twice the momentum. And yes, that’s known as an impulse.

I’m not sure where this comes from, seeing as how none of these topics had been under discussion. And the topic was math, rather than applications of the math. Here would be where I disagree; despite the fact that do have some artistic accomplishments on my resumé, I don’t see how you “need” to be an artist for this. That doesn’t explain anything. You could replace it with “When I say floobengarb, I mean just that” It provides no illumination Again, that’s not math, as such, even though math is used in quantifying descriptions of these phenomena. I will point out once more that you have failed to answer the question of who “we” refers to in your earlier comment. You said you were very glad I asked, but then you dodged the question. Again. You have also failed to say which scientists are famous for their political correctness

Your example was a drop of water coming out of a faucet. The difference in the force with height is negligible - it is not responsible for the increasing separation of the drops. If you disagree, show your work. Show me an equation where force directly depends on mass and velocity. I meant in physics terms. I have not idea what "planting a mawashi geri" means. Pretty sure it's not physics terminology. Stop with your insipid examples. We are analyzing two objects in orbit. NOTHING ELSE. We are analyzing two objects in orbit. NOTHING ELSE. It's not at all helpful to keep changing the subject, if your goal is to explain your idea. I don't know what an applied velocity is, as I said. Re-using the phrase is not helpful. How does the satellite acquire this extra velocity? Restating a term is not an explanation of what it means. (i.e. explain contrary motion and bounce without talking about contrary motion and bounce) And I will continue to ignore any description that includes Iron Man or anything other than two objects in orbit around a planet.

But Newton's law does not specify the center of mass. It tells us that every bit of mass attracts every other bit of mass. We use center of mass because Gauss's law is usually a very good approximation. But it is still an approximation if you don't have the symmetry, and the torque comes from the deviations from that symmetry. And the tidal forces cause an asymmetry in the shape of the earth (or Mars, as the case may be). The mass that is no longer in a spherically symmetric distribution is at the surface - the tidal bulge - and that exerts a torque, because the force is not along the line between the centers of mass.

Particles are counted as a positive number , and antiparticles as a negative. So a particle/antiparticle pair has a particle number of zero. It's bookkeeping. Thus the statement that there are three quarks is true. The number of gluons is immaterial, as it was not part of the question, and the number of quark/antiquark pairs (mesons) is immaterial as well, as their quark number is zero. This bit: “plus zillions of gluons and zillions of quark-antiquark pairs.” Without this phrase, one’s view of the proton is so simplistic that it is not possible to understand the LHC at all. Is accurate, because physics is more than memorization of a few facts. Saying that a proton is comprised of two up quarks and one down quark is not meant to be a comprehensive description of a proton, or what happens at the LHC. The gluons and mesons are important in understanding the interactions that go on within a proton, so the quora blurb is addressing a different question than what was asked.

When your object is not spherical (symmetrical), Gauss’s law doesn’t work. The objects aren’t points, so mass away from the center exerts a force. r x F is torque

I would imagine it’s similar to how the moon maintains tidal lock with the earth, even as it slows the earth’s rotation

I was hoping for something specific. Otherwise this accusation is a slur on scientists in general, which is poor form. What does that have to do with math as “an "exotic" mixture of unknown dimensions” and you said “we” understood this. Who has this rather bizarre understanding? I ask that you clarify, and back up your claims.

Why would you do that? Since c= 299792458 m/s, how you get this value? Please show your work. How can you satisfy causality if the delay depends on the trip duration, which can only be determined after the trip is complete? No, it’s not. You have no basis for it, and it violates physical law. Speculation is not supposed to be fiction.

So where does 38.75 come from? How does the electron “know” what the duration of motion is going to be, before it moves, in order to determine its delay?

That’s ~100 million times the speed of light (assuming m/s), so I assume it’s a typo. Can you show how you arrived at this? You should do this in general. Even though it’s clear what speed you chose for your example, you should have stated it. Also: units. Use them. How does one test your conjecture? How does the electron “know” what t is going to be, to determine its delay?

That’s not a tension between them. That behavior is not the result of experiencing a different force, or acceleration. If the masses are equal, they are experiencing the same exact force. This result is a fairly straightforward result of kinematics. Mass and velocity does nit give you a force. And you still have not explained what this alleged bounce is. Where does this energy come from? That makes no sense from a physics perspective You don’t have a “device”. You seem to have two particles in orbit. I think, because your description is far from clear. You should really gave started with an abstract. And you should define all your terms. You don’t really “apply” velocities. You can impart a velocity by exerting a force. Contrary motion? of what? what is an ”internally activated” orbit? Again you mention a bounce without having explained what that means. You haven’t described objects pushing each other apart. You have two objects in orbits. They are not, so far as I can tell, interacting with each other, hence there can be no push.

Which scientists? Who is “we”?

What movement? Why is there a delay? Under what circumstances? Is this a delay before it starts to move? Why is 38.75 the max possible speed? What does γm represent?

You are making it complicated. You did not explain what was going on. What momentum is being “generated”? What is the source and destination of the momentum? Is this an interaction between two satellites, or a satellite and a planet? From what I’ve read, you start with a circular orbit and change it to elliptical, but without explaining how (you just add in a second velocity vector) Then you start calculating angles without explanation, and begin talking about different particles without explanation. It’s not posted in the thread, so quoting is impossible. Momentum transfer requires a force, but you don’t do any force analysis But there’s no structure. You just have particles. The only way for them to interact is gravitationally, and that will be negligible between the objects. The only interaction of merit is the gravitational force exerted by the planet. You’ve not justified anything else.

None of that is necessary for explanation. Physicists trust the numbers. Drawing do not need be to scale. Illustrative is fine. This doesn’t explain what it actually is. Making up new terminology is not helpful. Is there any reason to get away from just identifying the forces involved? There’s only gravity, right? A tidal force is just a different value of that force in two locations. If you have compression and tensile forces that requires a structure, and you need to give details of that structure

Gauss’s law assumes spherical symmetry. If you don’t have that symmetry (from a tidal bulge, for example) then it gets more complicated. You can have a torque, which allows for changes in angular momentum. The force is no longer completely radial.

In principle, yes, (it makes it easier to quote) but in looking at the document it’s not very useful. You dive into details without explaining what you are doing or hope to achieve. You have two conflicting scenarios (different attack velocities), and you introduce new terms without explanation, such as “bounce” What is allegedly bouncing? You mention a bounce force, but there’s no discussion of forces anywhere else. You mention a drive particle without explaining what it is. It’s unclear what you are trying to do.