swansont

It's your claim. Provide the evidence. Unnecessary? Make sense? How does that qualify as an answer in this context? If we're in a simulation, we don't get to decide what's in it! You claimed that a mirror universe or multiverse would falsify the claim. Appeal to personal incredulity is not falsification. That's not good enough. It has to not be possible. This is a fallacious argument.

Did you notice that pesky little "dt" in those equations? What are the fundamental units of force? Of momentum? Are they equal? On the contrary. My professional opinion. And, once again, you have failed to explain what is going on in your diagrams, that people might have a chance to make some sense out of them. None of those black dots has the same velocity as any of the others, and therefore do not have the same momentum. They do have the same speed, however. If they are evenly space, one can make the argument that for any particle moving at velocity v, there is one moving at -v, so if the masses are all equal, the net momentum is zero. That's consistent with the center of mass not changing, and being located at the center. I will ask yet again: what is liquid in your diagram? Momentum can indeed change without an energy source. A ball moving in a circle at constant speed does not change its energy, but does not have constant momentum.

There's an adage that anything that attaches "theory" to the end isn't actually a theory. Anyway, over what hypothesis is string theory being favored? Is that anywhere close to being on the same level of model as string theory? Evidence is demanded. The inability to test string theory is one of the biggest objections to it. Is either one of these considered mainstream, as in "it's being taught as solutions to fundamental issues of physics in university textbooks"? Betteridge's Law of Headlines is still holding. Why would one be unable to simulate them, if one assumes we are in a simulation?

You must be one of the few who have never experienced wind or waves while out on the water. That the distance between the canoes must change when there are waves. Adjacent canoes will be at different heights, changing the distance between them, or forcing them to move laterally. This puts stress and torque on rigid components, or will make flexible components go slack and then taught. One obvious question: is it cheaper/easier to put a device on the ocean, or to move the salt water to a ground-based plant (passive or active)

I can identify, at most, two masses in your animation. The ball, and the rim (which ideally could be zero) You have done nothing to provide sufficient information to clarify what you are talking about. Based on what you have given, this is nonsense.

F = dp/dt Force is not change in momentum. (F ≠ ∆p) The former has units of force, the latter has units of momentum. They cannot be equal Most of us are. I asked you what in your post is liquid, since you have mliquid terms that keep popping up in your equations. Yet your OP said it was a pendulum, and you describe it as a mechanical system. You also never actually explain what's supposed to be going on in your animations. What the heavy grey and black lines represent, for example.

Straps only work under tension (i.e. they keep things from moving apart) I imagine they have to be moored in at least one spot. But not too tightly. Have you ever shaken something wet? Do all (or most of) the drops cling to the material? No, not the only problem. Basic trig should show you problems. The tubes probably aren't much of an issue, as they would be subsurface and are the one part of the system that can be flexible without compromising performance. Flexible or rigid?

The force is not the change in momentum. If the center of mass is is stationary, the system has no net momentum, and vice-versa. How long ago what? Yes. What’s more, I can apply these equations, which is what you need to do, rather than making gifs, thinking it proves anything. Why do you have a variable called mliquid? You described this as a pendulum, and have not said anything about a liquid.

Yes. I will ask again: what are the forces? No, if the momentum remained constant, the center of mass would not move. How do you get the ball to do what it does without external forces?

I don't understand your objection. If I change the momentum of the brick, its velocity will change. Thus, velocity is an example of something that can change when there is an external force. And for a system of constant mass, it must change.

Yes, as I had implied. There must be a force acting on the system for it to behave like that. There is no application of conservation of momentum. The center of mass is moving to the right. Momentum is not going to be zero. ! Moderator Note Your links were removed for a reason — they violate our rules on advertising (see rule 2.7 in the guidelines). Don't put them in again, or you will be banned as a spammer. Whatever you want to discuss needs to happen here, on this site.

And if something accelerates, its velocity changes. By definition. One way to change momentum is to change velocity. It strains credulity to think you are objecting to this.

i find that surprising. Waves will cause the whole thing to want to contract. If it's rigid, you put a lot of stresses in place, but if it's flexible, then what keeps the "canoes" from collecting together? If the structure is vibrating, you will lose water from it before it can be collected as drops will tend to shake loose. Perhaps these are solvable problems, but that does not mean that they aren't an issue. And solutions cost money, affecting the viability. If something is not cost-effective, one reason can be that the cost of solving the engineering issues is too great.

Posting the same animation doesn't answer my question about the animation. The momentum in the above animation is not zero. Animations aren't enough to demonstrate anything, since they need not obey the laws of physics.

If they exist, how about a link to their description?

! Moderator Note What we have a problem with is people who make bald assertions. What gets you into trouble is if you are unable or unwilling to back up a claim, and keep making the assertion. You can choose to follow the rules, or not. But let's be clear: it's your choice.

You don't see any obvious structural issues with this? or logistical ones?

Are they even possible in principle? How could you test this idea? That sounds like something that you need to address

Is there any evidence that these exist in nature? How can it not?

! Moderator Note All along? This is a new thread. What discussion does this support?

You can pick any inertial frame you want. It doesn’t matter. The physics is the same in all of them. It doesn’t change, as such. It’s different. In one frame it’s at rest and has no momentum. In any other it’s moving, and p = mv

The annihilation releases energy, so there is no threshold - it does not need to be “forced” If there is KE, the photons will have more than 511 keV, or (with sufficient energy) you can produce other, heavier particles

So? Internal forces don’t affect motion. Why would they affect time? Why would time run differently for a hydrogen atom than a carbon atom, moving at the same speed?

If the motion is at constant velocity, there is no force, so presumably no “counteraction” Thus q = 0 You haven’t defined t’

A ball of mass m, moving at speed v, has mass+kinetic energy. Why/how does that energy move at c?