swansont

You just agreed that this was derived from the reaction forces. It's not a statement of the second law NOBODY has applied F = ma while claiming you can do so from the second law. (Other than you) And yes, they are different forces, acting on different objects. But since they must have an equal magnitude, it's very useful to use them, since we want v(t) and now we have an equation that has dv/dt in it, so we can integrate, and get the result without (mis)using Fnet = ma. Pretty neat, huh?

! Moderator Note Garbage moved to the trash. Numerology : not science — and you know that's true because both sides have ten letters, and 5 + 5 = 10

No. It's probably important to note that (AFAICT) nobody asked or stated what the net force on the moving rocket was in the link. It's not needed to solve for v(t), and usually the whole point of such analysis is to get equations of motion. Knowing the net force on the moving rocket isn't really useful information, precisely because you can't just equate it to ma, since F≠ma for a varying mass. But saying that "rockets dynamics works fine with cassical (sic) Mechanics and the Newton's Laws if the second is expressed as F = ma" is ludicrous if you look at the derivation, since it's obvious that they did not do that. They used F = dp/dt. You are the only one here making the case for F=ma being the proper form, and you have not provided any evidence to support your position.

OK, then. ma = vedm/dt is not a statement of Newton's second law; it's the third law. It is derived from the second law, using F = dp/dt

The camera app? You need to be more specific about what wave properties you are trying to detect.

Bose-Einstein statistics — which kickstarted quantum statistics — describes how bosons (named after Bose) behave. That's pretty heavyweight (other than fundamental bosons that are massless, of course) _ _ _ In that light, you could add Fermi-Dirac statistics to the list

Lorentz-Heaviside units Bose-Einstein Condensate Abraham-Minkowski controversy

Two issues that pop up are that 1) this is a massive hand-wave, and is precisely the part you need to explain and 2) the photons are in a fiber, not a vacuum, so the states of the vacuum (whatever they are) are irrelevant They're all related for photons, and don't represent different bits of information. There's no "mixing" Again, you have done zero to explain what these "empty states" are or presented any independent confirmation that they exist. That says nothing about antigravity

No, rocket dynamics uses dp/dt and uses the changing mass in the analysis Your link doesn't say that's the net force. It says it is a force (and it has units of force), called the thrust. But you have to realize that they are treating the rocket and the exhaust as one system in the derivation. IOW, they aren't talking about the force on the rocket. The net force is zero in their derivation. Asking what is the force on the rocket is a different question than what the derivation in your link addresses. The end goal is solving for v(t), which is expressed as Tsiolkovsky's rocket equation. But even so, they address this when discussing the action/reaction force pair. There's an action force of the mass leaving the rocket, and a reaction force, acting on the rocket, in accordance with Newton's third law. That force is given as ma.

That's the problem. If you're going to entangle the photons, you need single-mode, polarization-maintaining fiber. therwise you lose the polarization entanglement. It's not a 1.5 mm core. It's closer to a micron. Hard enough to couple light in with reasonable efficiency when everything is stationary. You still need to explain how a red- and blue-shift will cause antigravity, and why the entanglement is important. One issue I can see is that the photon is continually interacting with the fiber. Any force you might think is there has to take that into account (it's a long-standing issue in the Abraham-Minkowski controversy, for example) Also, you have a circular system, so integrated over a loop any effect that might be there tends to vanish.

! Moderator Note Was this post one of the ones that was moved? (That's a rhetorical question.) Get over it already.

A conveyor belt moves at speed v. You drop masses on it. Solve for the motion of the masses using F=ma m (dv/dt) + v (dm/dt)

Amazing Random has been suspended pending staff deliberations. spamming, soapboxing and sockpuppetry (AUDI R6)

How do you spin the optical fiber and couple light into it?

Because I don’t think you’ve done the calculation. Are you refusing to answer?

I know the gas laws. I don’t think you have considered them, that this is all nonsense, and you are wasting everyone’s time.

You assured us this wasn’t nonsensical. I’m asking for some evidence.

What pressure and volume of air will get you to the moon? Show your work. If this isn’t nonsense, you should be able to answer the question.

You don’t have a theory. No math, no model, no testable predictions.

! Moderator Note That doesn't make it mainstream, and you still have not posted the material here, as far as I can tell, so you can't really point to anything to confirm it's mainstream science. The journal where you published it suggests it is not. hence, speculations. ! Moderator Note Speculations is where non-mainstream science goes. This is our version of peer review. ! Moderator Note I think you mean libel. Someone telling you that you are wrong is not libel. The only mention of the word "theft" I find is yours. Likewise "falsification." When I search those words in this thread I get your posts, and nothing else. Since you have made the accusation, you need to point out where these transgressions have occurred. You should have reported the posts. Idle accusations are not part of civil discourse. Moth spoke of falsifying your ideas, which is a standard metric for science — trying to show if they can be disproven. ! Moderator Note The position of this site is that mainstream science is the default position. It is non-mainstream science that needs to be supported and defended n these discussions. There are plenty of places for you to go to find out what the mainstream science entails. That burden belongs to you. ! Moderator Note See my earlier remark about civil discourse.

Yes, I was wondering how much it cost captcass to get published there.

That's a tad premature. Much of your paper is just text, and you are making claims before any equations show up. OK, hypothetical entanglement. You have to establish this before it makes sense to go any further. Yeah, you'll have to explain this, too. How? You need to explain what you mean by this. And this. A "curvature beam"? Why are the photons necessary? Why would length contraction lead to antigravity?

Then why hasn't anybody done so?

I think the emperor has no clothes. Also, this is a thread on Yahweh/Yahaweh. Science and tech, and metaphysics, has little or nothing to with atheism, or theism. Your word use here suggests you do not know what metaphysics is. Assumes facts not in evidence. The universe can be efficient. It does not mean it is.

So you solve all of your problems with metaphysics? That’s extraordinary.