swansont

What do you mean by "based solely on experience"? That's not particularly descriptive. What experience? Whose experience? What kind of experience? ? Obtained inductively, with verification, is not proof. You seem to be insisting on contradictory definitions.

Centrifugal (outward-seeking) force? The electron is attracted to the nucleus. It is a centripetal (inward-seeking) force. The force that attracts the two to each other is the electrostatic force. They attract each other. Action. Reaction. There is no other force present.

! Moderator Note The default position on this site is that science and the scientific method is valid, and that has to underlie all scientific discussions. If you have an argument with the basis of science, that can be discussed in Speculations, and only if you have an actual argument that is backed up with evidence. Not hand-waving. edit: off-topic posts have been split https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/123374-science-and-the-scientific-method-split-from-is-there-the-proof-of-heliocentrism/

! Moderator Note Heliocentrism is not related to the aether I was not negotiating Heliocentrism is not dependent on the wave nature of light

What is a linear fictitious force? I don't see how that follows. Is there any physics you can present, rather than hand-waving? if I have two charges, do they not exert force on each other? Your example seems to rely on this happening in the atom. Why not outside of it, too?

! Moderator Note molbol2000, If you want to support an aether wind, present evidence of it, preferably in a new thread.. Nobody is required to show it doesn't exist - the burden of proof is yours. The question asked in the OP was "Is there the proof of heliocentrism?" and that has been addressed: proof is the wrong word; science uses evidence. There is indeed evidence of heliocentrism. Follow-ups in this thread should be about heliocentrism.

How is this reactionless? You pushed on the electron. The electron pushes back. No, other than being obviously wrong. "It's obvious" is not evidence, and not a model (which is required if you are trying to supplant an existing model)

You don't get to decide what science is, and a "generalization of experience" is not what science is. Then it's moot. If aether is not responsible for what we observe on earth, why would you expect it to appear elsewhere? We can already explain the phenomena without relying on an aether. And we do know that the results we get here apply elsewhere, because we can analyze signals from planets and stars and see e.g. spectroscopic data from them, which confirm that our models are correct. Science excludes personal opinions. Science only cares about what evidence you have, and whether your model agrees with experiment.

That doesn't get you where you want to go. Momentum will still be conserved. These are not present in inertial frames. They are fictitious. They appear to cause an acceleration, because your analysis is ignoring an acceleration. IOW, there will be a force you aren't accounting for in your analysis. Deformation requires a force, which has a reaction. Lots of physics uses ideal conditions. Nothing special here. No. Electrons do not have planetary-like orbits. Acceleration for 1/10 of a radian of what? If you accelerate the electrons there is a force, so of course the atoms accelerate. But for whatever causes this acceleration, it's an electromagnetic interaction, so the electrons will exert a reaction force. EM interactions make things more complicated, but doesn't get you a reactionless system. If you look at Noether's theorems, they show that momentum conservation holds owing to translation symmetry (the physics is the same under a translation of the coordinate system). You're making arguments without regard to the fact that we already know momentum has to be conserved, which means reaction forces are always there.

I don't think you know "very well what I have done" since you have not developed the skills necessary to evaluate what you've done. Not really. Either it's relevant and it will be a disappointment, or we will be left wondering why e.g. a plumber thinks he can do brain surgery. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. You don't understand physics, and don't seem interested in learning. You have latched on to a simple answer that is wrong. The whys and wherefores really don't matter too much, since that won't change anything.

That's the opposite of what I said. There's lots of evidence, and all science is based on models, so "just a model" is an odd description. The aetheric wind is a model, too, BTW. One that's contradicted by the evidence. No, I disagree. The planets could be "orbiting" in epicycles. The models are perfectly consistent with each other mathematically — you can transform one into the other with Fourier analysis — but we prefer the one that has a testable mechanism.

! Moderator Note Is this just a re-hash of your closed threads, or is there new evidence to consider?

Science doesn’t have proof, it has evidence. You can make a model where the earth is the center of the solar system, but you have to deal with epicycles. Heliocentrism has the features of (1) being much simpler, and (2) a separtely-confirmable physical explanation (gravity), which geocentrism lacks.

They aren’t real. The commonality is the disregard for understanding physical law. Your zealous adherence to thinking fictitious forces can make things move is basically the same as the perpetual motion adherent’s faith that they can make their unbalanced wheel work if they get better bearings. There’s a principle (used in relativity) that it doesn’t matter what frame of reference you use for your analysis - if it’s impossible in one frame, it’s impossible in all frames. The only difference between the frames is a transformation. We both have to agree that a device is moving, relative to some point. If it’s not moving in my frame, it can’t be moving when observed from yours. Let’s say the end of the mass has a contact on it. When it reaches some external target, it completes a circuit and detonates a bomb. That bomb can’t go off in your frame, but fail to go iff in mine. As I’ve said, the concept only applies in an inertial frame. I’m not interested in going down that rabbit hole. Frankly, given your demonstrated level of acumen, I have no confidence you could carry out and properly report an experiment.

Action-reaction only works in inertial frames. It makes no sense to discuss it in an accelerating frame. If it’s not reactionless in an inertial frame, it’s not reactionless. There is no free lunch. IOW, if it doesn’t move on its own when you just watch it, it won’t move on its own just because you spin in your chair

It’s possible your references are mistaken, or you aren’t reading them right. Given the misconceptions that came to light here, the latter is definitely a possibility. As to the former, a lot of people claim perpetual motion, too. They aren’t credible.

This might be a lye.

No. There is always a reaction when you analyze it in an inertial frame.

! Moderator Note This is a listed example of a bad-faith argument in our rules. ! Moderator Note Spectacularly wrong. One might think you are trolling. In any event, hijacking threads to bash science without supporting arguments violates multiple rules

It’s a .org site, not .com Metformin is generic, so not a lot of money in pushing it, since there is no exclusive manufacturing and marketing There are penalties for making false medical claims in advertising

Because wikipedia is an exhaustive source. If it’s not in wikipedia, it’s not true. </sarcasm>

Indeed. At 90 degrees, these are gears At 0 degrees, no drive either, since there’s no torque applied Kinetic energy doesn’t work that way. The energy of the system is the sum of the energy of the components. None of the terms are negative. Two items rotating in opposite direction will not have zero net rotational energy

Work is being done in your original example (the motor), so this analysis assumes just a nut and a bolt with no work, which is fine, but keep this in mind. The next step is to find the relationship between rotation speed and linear speed of the nut and the various energies. It’s probably easiest if you assume the nut and bolt have the same mass (it has to work for any mass, so if it fails for the simple case, it just fails). See if you can conserve energy. The math will be easier because you have discarded the constraint of momentum conservation If these are supposed to be kinetic energies, how can they sum to zero, unless they are identically zero? The screw is turning, so its rotational energy is not zero. You can’t have energies being the negative of each other. KE is always a positive value.

I get ALL at the store, in the detergent section. That’s my source.

! Moderator Note No, we don’t, as a matter of policy. Proselytizing is against the rules