swansont

! Moderator Note So it’s both anecdotal and not addressing the question asked. That’s less than helpful.

Any response would be moot since the forum software has changed. The picture can be changed in your profile (click on your user name, select profile. In the upper right there’s something that says “cover photo”. I think that’s where you can upload a picture)

please follow the rules

Why haven’t you posted the formula, and analysis based on it? The rules require you post your work. “members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links” (rule 2.7)

What solution? The only equations I’ve seen were in relation to a huge scale.

! Moderator Note You need to back this up with some credible reference.

The simplest explanation is that you are mistaken. It’s up to you to explain what your proposal is. Using proper physics terminology. That’s not helpful. Of course we say gravity does work. We refer to it as potential energy. That’s not physics terminology. Equations do a much better job of describing what’s going on. Accompanied by a diagram of the forces. You haven’t “shown” anything, as far as I’m concerned. You haven’t provided the information that is useful for a physics analysis. Where are the equations? You haven’t followed through on the analysis I asked you to provide - you stopped partway through - and haven’t made a cogent connection between your various scenarios.

We already have. “technology that can modify human beings , expand lifespan” We have pacemakers and artificial heart valves. Artificial limbs. It’s not clear to me what modifications would be needed for space colonization; the barriers are with other tech.

If your idea depends on gravity then it's not going to work (or work well) in space, far from any sources, where gravity is small. Gravity is able to transfer momentum from the planet to a craft with a gravity boost, which is something that already exists. Gravity is radial, so I don't see how you get propulsion, which suggests a tangential force, from that But you haven't presented your idea very clearly. Pointing out objections to an idea is an inefficient way of doing this. This is way too verbose. Too many caveats. Pick a system, show an analysis. The simplest system you can. AFAIK it is a launch system. To me, propulsion implies it's going to work for travel. And, of course, it has nothing to do with anti-gravity. None of this does.

Be...sure...to...drink...your...Ovaltine

To say it was actuated means that's how they started the motion or oscillation. They used different frequencies so they could measure the response and determine the resonance - the frequency where energy was added to the oscillator most efficiently. Using a PZT (piezoelectric transducer) makes sense, as certain piezos have a range of frequencies where they will respond. As an analogy, if you wanted to ring a bell and find its resonant frequency, you could use a frequency generator and a speaker, slowly ramp the frequency and detect the bell's response. That's basically what's being described, except they are using mechanical stimulus with a PZT.

This seems to be a comment about reactionless drives and conservation of momentum. Nothing about gravity or apparent weight. And it is correct. I haven't seen a description of the device, nor any propulsion claims that I could parse. Your first post was quite verbose and confusing. Referring to a ball 160 km in diameter suggests the balls are 160 km in diameter. If you make them larger for illustrative purposes, those details are irrelevant. You can simply say "balls not drawn to scale" and leave out such extraneous information that will only cause confusion. Being concise but thorough is not always easy, but important. Mircrogravity is often used, because nominally the objects are in freefall if it's a circular orbit, but deviations from that orbit, or having a finite size, means nothing can truly act as being weightless. That's a dubious claim, because a reactionless force can't magically appear just by changing the analysis. If it shows up, it's an indication there is a flaw in the analysis. You need to explain this. That's not really a propulsion system, as I understand it.

I think what's being discussed is a plant that needs e.g. zinc (or some similar situation). There's nothing you're going to plant that's going to introduce zinc to the soil. You need to introduce it by other means, as you have described - bring in soil from elsewhere or add fertilizer that has it.

I was aware that clover adds nitrogen, but that's hardly a trace element (which was the context). Does it do more?

To rebut the notion that "Religion's seemed to have spread through persuasion rather than force." all one has to do is show that some religion is spread through force. Some conversion is forced ≠ all conversion is forced As Trump's followers are nominally political, it would seem to be irrelevant to the point.

What do you mean the "resonance is induced"? A vibration would be induced. A resonance is a specific condition of such a vibration (it's close to a natural mode of the structure) The resonance will depend on the design of the resonator. If you mean adjusting the resonance, that is often a function of temperature. For inducing an oscillation, a PZT could be used. IIRC some micromechanical resonators have electronic characteristics (e.g. a capacitance), so you could induce an oscillatory current or voltage to induce vibrations. It could be induced by radiation pressure (i.e.bouncing a EM standing wave off of it)

You have to show it's inappropriate, and using an example that's not anywhere close to what actually exists doesn't do that. And apparent weight has yet to make an appearance. IOW, if there's a flaw in analyzing 160 km structures in space, that's irrelevant unless we actually have 160 km structures in space, or the effect on something that size is overwhelmingly large and is still present at smaller scales. The ISS is about 100m long and in LEO (so maximum gravitational acceleration for something in space), so that's ~3 orders of magnitude between your example and what we might currently care about. (if the relevant dimension is radial, the ISS is even smaller, and the effect drops off even faster because of the 1/r^2 nature of the force)

Do you have a case where someone did a calculation on the center of mass for items separated by thousands of km? Because it makes no sense to use your example unless it has direct application to some other analysis. Are there any "particles" anywhere close to, or exceeding, 160 km in diameter in orbit around the earth? I can think of one: the moon. I can accept the possibility that the evaluation of the orbit of a large body might require some adjustment of the point mass used in Newtonian physics, if the body is asymmetric. If they are spherical, though, an application of Gauss's law tells us we can treat them as point masses. Any perturbations that come into play would probably be due to the objects not being rigid bodies. What is A ("lengthening of A")?

The way this works is that you back up dubious claims with reputable sources. Otherwise you are in violation of our rule on soapboxing. That's a dubious claim. Have you looked at ancestors of the foods we eat, before humans did selective breeding and other domestication? Maize is a striking example. https://blog.nationalgeographic.org/2009/03/23/corn-domesticated-from-mexican-wild-grass-8700-years-ago/ That's a lot of improvement that takes place before you get to the kitchen. Some of that is false advertising. But some of it is fact. You can't validly dismiss the whole effort without analysis.

Suffice to say that there was some action behind the scenes. You only saw part of what was going on, and that snapshot was biased. Staff is not in the habit of divulging the contents of private communications, and it's disappointing when others do it. It is (ironically, considering the circumstances) a matter of ethics.

So with the two 1 kg masses, they are further away and the force is at an angle to the beam, but it's symmetric, so it should be balanced. What's next?

! Moderator Note This isn't really news. If you have something you wish to discuss, please open a thread in the appropriate section. For discussion, not broadcasting/blogging.

What is it you want to discuss? (This being a discussion forum, and not a blog)

A reminder that we do not delete accounts. You may choose to leave, and you might be shown the door, but your posts remain. We generally only remove posts from sight when there are rules violations involved.

! Moderator Note That’ll do, donkey. That’ll do