swansont

! Moderator Note No model, no discussion

Where did I define anything? I don’t even know what “quantity of counteraction to forces” is supposed to mean. You have not defined it, and not even described it consistently

As geordief points out, the time is relative. If you toss a ball in the air, and comes down again, you can solve for the up-down motion using simple kinematics. An observer in relative inertial-frame motion to you can also solve the problem with the same stable of equations (i.e. the same physics) but the solution will be a parabola. Further, you would not be able to say who is moving. If you’re on a train, or on the ground, you toss the ball straight up in your frame in order to catch it. In the other frame, the path is a parabola. All you can say is that there is relative motion. That’s what the postulate means.

Yes, that’s it.

FreeWill has been banned because we’re tired of the trolling

! Moderator Note Being in philosophy doesn’t relieve you of the responsibility to back up factual claims

Nope. This makes no sense. Wave-particle duality does not say that wave and particle behavior will be observed at the same time. If you tell me it’s a matter wave, I can’t show you particle behavior. But in interference, you get the wave behavior, and later on, when you detect, you get particle behavior. No, the experiments have been done. We know what the model predicts and know the results. No guessing or assuming needed. Sorry, “spacetime object” isn’t a thing in mainstream physics. Your own pet theories are not a part of this discussion. ! Moderator Note Since you’ve decided to teach/preach, I have moved this to speculations. Give us your model, predictions and/or evidence. You should be familiar with the rules by now.

It says the same laws of physics apply. There is no experiment that shows that one frame must be at rest, while another must be in motion. Energy is a relative value so in general different frames will measure a different energy.

You will see wave behavior if your experiment is set up to see that, and particle behavior in an experiment designed to see particle behavior. It’s not like a quantum particle acting as a wave can never exhibit particle behavior in some other interaction. Observing isn’t an issue - this isn’t related to wave function collapse

Oh, please. My graduate work was on atom interferometry. There is a whole slice of AMO physics dedicated to matter wave interactions. One expression is "atom optics" because of all the things they were doing with atoms that we already do with light. If you think that this hasn't been tested it's because you just haven't looked. Some of the things you've said suggest you don't really know what you're talking about, and so you have unreasonable expectations of what answers you will get.

! Moderator Note As this thread does not meet the requirements for discussion in speculations, it is closed. If you just want to post your pictures of molecules, get a Tumblr or Instagram account.

There are accelerators that use heavy ions. LHC and RHIC. But as these are high energy, they probably don’t show what you’re looking for. Cold atom experiments may be a better bet. (See below) deBroglie wave behavior isn’t wave function behavior, as Sensei already pointed out. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.6196.pdf “When the de Broglie wavelength is comparable to the interparticle spacing, the coherent matter waves associated with the various particles in the gas are forced to overlap, meaning (pictorially) that the number of independent quantum states in the gas becomes comparable to the number of gas particles. At this point, the quantum statistics of particles come into play in describing the nature of the gas.”

What scientific analysis is the basis of your conclusion?

Or just pump the water someplace (where land is cheaper than on the coast), and pump slightly saltier water out. Or sell the salt.

! Moderator Note Further discussion on Pascal's wager has been split https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/119888-pascals-wager-and-atheism-split-from-what-made-you-stop-believing-in-god/

You have not explained at all why you think Newton's second law* is wrong. *as applied to a system of constant mass, as implied by having a center of mass You gave an answer? You keep saying this, but refuse to explain what, specifically, is going on in the animation. What are the black balls? What is happening to them? Why do they change direction? Here's my solution: Drawings/animations do not have to follow the laws of physics. No, I'm pretty sure the burden of explanation is on you, and simply repeating yourself without doing so will end this thread. Are you refusing to answer the other questions that have been asked of you? I'm guessing the equation was copy-pasted from somewhere else. Which also explains why he is only posting general equations and not actually applying them to the problems that have been posted. No independent physics knowledge being displayed.

Stop stalling and answer the questions that have been asked of you.

Whatever the total mass is. This is your example. I don't know the value. Stop stalling and answer the questions that have been asked of you.

Type out the f**ing answer. Try it without using any animations, or simply regurgitating a previous response. EXPLAIN it. And yet, momentum is not force, and force is not momentum.

Still wrong. F=ma They're already the best cold-atom clocks in the world, but whatever... Your attempts would not be permissible for a student who wished to pass their course. I note the complete lack of physics in your attempted rebuttal. I, and others, have pointed out errors, and you have ignored the corrections, and repeated the mistakes. Force and momentum, for example, are not the same thing. If they were, we would not need two names for them. They would be interchangeable in equations, but they are not. They would have the same units, but they do not. I think you forgot to proof-read this. Force isn't energy. (or were checking to see if anyone caught the error?) A Newton is the force necessary to accelerate 1 kg at 1m/s^2 For real? You will answer the questions? What does the blue arc physically represent? How does it get smaller? What force causes it to move? What is liquid in your "mechanical" "pendulum"? Why is the CoM of what looks to be a circularly symmetric body (body #2) not located at the origin? What component mass changes over time?

I would be very surprised if a government report were published less than ~3 weeks after the measurements were made. You have to write the report, edit it, and very likely have to get multiple layers of approval to publish. What is the density of dust, vs density of lead?

Have you tried 3-D printing? There may be companies or hobbyists who will do it for cheap, especially if you have the drawing file already done (and want several of the same size, so the setup isn't just for one item). If they have to do the CAD work, it will cost more, but you may be able to scale a standard drawing to the needed size. Check out the Maker Bot Thingiverse. That's a collection of shared designs. Some libraries have 3D printers you can use. Here's one map showing where some are; I'm sure there are others

More detail needed.

In a world of >7 billion people, one has to allow for the possibility that two of them will independently have similar ideas. The notion that one's ideas were stolen is vanity on steroids.

You can make a falsifiable claim and not have it be a scientific theory. Falsifiability is one element — a necessary but insufficient condition. "Elvis is still alive" is a falsifiable claim. It's not a theory. Theories have to make specific enough predictions that they can be shown to be wrong. If you have competing theories, you need to be able to do an experiment where they will give conflicting predictions, so one can be eliminated.