mooeypoo

Okay, seriously now. This thread was going downhill for a while, then it got a bit better, then it started teetering again. If you want to debate this subject, get rid of the petty 'he said/she said' attitude, it's not doing anyone any good in delivering their message and just flaring the emotions up. The first part of your post was completely irrelevant. If you can't discuss this subject without resorting to personal whining in every post, then drop the discussion. Knock it out, all of you. ~moo

nnnnnnnnoo. You offer a theory that doesn't work in conjuction of current theories (hence, if your theory is accepted, it is to REPLACE current theories). The burden of proof is on you to prove your theory. We are not rejecting your theory on any grounds OTHER THAN you not proving your theory. You seem to either brush off the burden of proof or demand we prove the current theories. Do your research on the current theories, they are proven and they predict and they have observational substantiations. Yours have none. The burden of proof is on you.

Criticizing your theory is not slander. It's criticism of your THEORY. that's what is done in a peer review process, Epimenides, we criticize a theory to see if it holds in reality. We would be neglecting our scientific obligations if we didn't. And you will encounter much more (and much harsher) of this criticism when you come out to the world with your theory. Please remember the following: 1. The burden of proof is on you. The current theories are proven over and over again. They make clear (and true) predictions. They work in reality. We are not the ones who need to prove the current theories. You, as the one offering an alternative, should provide proof for YOUR theory. 2. Proving one alternative is false does not mean a SINGLE alternative is therefore true. Even if current theory is false, that doesn't mean your theory is true. For example, if I prove that pink elephants don't exist, that doesn't mean that purple ones exist necessarily. Your attempt to poke holes in the current theories is notable, but it's insufficient in proving your theory as true, even if you do succeed. 3. If you're not ready to take criticism on your theory, you should rethink your readiness in publishing it. We are a science forum with very smart, accomplished people. Some are PhDs, some aren't. We're all rigorous in our scientific demands. But we are not as rigorous as the *ACTUAL* peer review process. You shouldn't take criticism so personally, you should take it as a preparation for a real peer review. Think of it this way: If your theory fails our peer review, what do you think the result would be for a formal peer review? Welcome to a mini peer review. Good luck. ~moo

Guys, there's no need to go into personal insults or mutual disrespect. However controversial this issue is, I am sure the debate can continue using better logical, scientific and less emotional arguments than these.

You only need to integrate r once, and you get an "extra" power because the [math]d\tau[/math] integrand in spherical coordinates. Please, if you're not sure of your answer, don't answer.

Hellooo all you astronomy/mechanics wizzes. I had my final final today, and I am hoping I did well. I felt okay, but it's a confusing subject so.. well, I'd appreciate actually seeing if I made it. It's not too much about the grade (class avg is in the 40s so far), it's more about making sense of it and makign sure I understood things right. Either I will have to take this course again (meh) or I continue to more difficult subjects, in both cases I should understand this material well. So.. on we go: Problem 1 Consider a simple pendulum where the bob of mass m is attached to the support by a thin spring (taken to be massless) of spring constant k. The equilibrium length of the spring is [math]l_{0}[/math]. The pendulum can oscillate in a single vertical plane. The spring can strethc and the angle [math]\theta[/math] can change. Obtain the lagrangian and the equations of motion of the system (You do not have to solve the equations of motion). I feel so stupid.. I just noticed. I wrote in the notebook [math]\frac{1}{2}k(l-l_{0})[/math] ... but I didn't add that to the lagrangian!!!! AAA!!! <sigh> anyhoo, here's my answer: [math]L = 1/2 m (\dot{l}^2+l^2\dot{\theta}^2) + mglcos\theta[/math] Obviously my equations of motion are wrong after this point since my lagrangian is lacking the spring but anyhoo, I'm hoping for partial credit, and for - at least - me understanding THAT part: [math]\frac{d}{dt} (\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{\theta}}) =\frac{\partial L}{\partial \theta}[/math] AND [math]\frac{d}{dt} (\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{l}}) =\frac{\partial L}{\partial l}[/math] Which result in: [math]\ddot{\theta}=-gsin\theta[/math] [math]\ddot{l}=\dot{\theta}l+gcos\theta[/math] I know I forgot the spring, but is my method right after the setting up of the lagrangian? I don't have my notes for problem 2, so there's nothing much to report here.. :\ Problem 3 A disk of mass M and radius R can roll on a horizontal plane along the x-axis (Ignore motion along the other directions). It is attracted to a fixed point P with a force F=-ks where s is the distance of the center of the disk from P (see figure). Obtain the Lagrangian and the equations of motion. The disk can oscillate (in a rolling motion) as shown. Obtain the frequency of this oscillation. (Moment of Inertia of a disk for rotations around its axis is 1/2 MR^2. HINT: Obtain the potential energy corresponding to F and then use the geometry to relate s to x). Okay, [math]F=-\nabla V[/math] so: [math]V=-\int ks = -\frac{1}{2}ks^2[/math] and I decided to represent everything in terms of x and xdot, (where [math]s=\frac{x}{cos^2 \theta }[/math] and an added [math]\frac{1}{2} I \dot{\phi }^2 [/math] for the rotating disk, and a relationship of arclengths [math]R\phi = x[/math]) so: [math]L=\frac{3}{4}m\dot{x}^2-mgR-\frac{1}{2}k\frac{x^2}{cos^2\theta}[/math] and [math]\frac{d}{dt} (\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{x}}) =\frac{\partial L}{\partial x}[/math] [math]\ddot{x}=\frac{2kx}{3mcos^2\theta}[/math] Question 4 A globular cluster of stars has a spherically symmetric (independent of angles) distribution of mass which falls off with distance r' from the center, up to radius R. The density can be approximated by: [math]\rho (r') = \rho_{0}(1-\frac{r'}{R})[/math] for r'<R [math]\rho (r') = 0[/math] for r'>R where [math]\rho_{0}[/math] is a constant. Obtain the gravitational potential at a distance r from the center, where r<R (the point under consideration is inside the mass distribution. You can express the result in terms of [math]\rho_{0}[/math] So.. [math]V(r')=-G \int_{0}^{r} \frac{\rho(r')}{|r-r'|} d\tau = -G \int_{0}^{r} \frac{\rho_{0}(1-\frac{r'}{R})}{r}r^2dr sin\theta d\theta d\phi = -4\pi G\rho_{0} r^2(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{r}{3R})[/math]

New subject can be discussed here, in Pseudoscience/Speculation, where it belongs. And now that that was settled: North, the "bendiness" of light is a well proven, positively observed phenomena that influences many other observable phenomena and physical concepts. Here is a short list of proven effects about light bending due to gravity: Gravitational Lensing: We can see galaxies and stars that are otherwise "hidden" behind other massive objects *because* light can bend. This is actually pretty cool; there are objects in space we can't see directly, but we do see a slightly distorted image of their light as it bent from the gravitational field of a massive object like another galaxy. Not only can we observe this, we can actually calculate - VERY ACCURATELY - the exact location of the original star, and that calculation fits precisely with all the other effects the star has on its environment. Check these out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring [*]When general relativity was "put to the test" (as in, when we looked for observable phenomena that can be explained using general relativity) we found that we can explain many things we couldn't before. We cannot explain phenomena correctly until we take into account that light bends *DUE TO GRAVITY*. We can even calculate this effect CORRECTLY. That is extremely powerful in proving the theory. Check this out: http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/EinsteinTest.html There are more, but the above should give you an idea of why light DOES bend, and quite a whole lot MORE than just what you see in the desert. In fact, what you see in the desert is not light bending, it's the air heating up and moving; light itself didn't bend, it just moves through a volume that is MOVING -- hence the effect. If you jump into a pond and look at the sun through while in the water, you will see a similar effect. The light doesn't "bend", the *SURFACE* through which you are looking at that light is moving. That's an entirely different phenomena. Now. If you believe otherwise, you should give proof, substantiation and some decent explanation of why your notion is true and the current, proven, observed, predictable, mathematically-sound theory is false. Nonintuitive? Perhaps. But proven. And works. And quite cool, actually. ~moo

The discussion of north's notion about the bendiness of light was moved to another thread, so this one can continue on topic. Fasten your seatbelts and enjoy your stay.

Damnit, that's just when I should be starting my PhD.... all these exams for NOTHIN'!?

Pastafarians everywhere thank you, too.

Well, those are the f=ma -> m=f/a -> a=f/m I wrote above.. he seems to refer to integration/differentiation, though, and we need more details for that.

Indeed, thanks for that.

It's not necessarily a basic manipulation... If I don't know more about what you intend on doing, i can't really answer. There are textbooks about this, I personally have 3 just from previous courses.. look online, I'm sure there are online resources too.

Inverse relationship, as in [math]F=ma \dashrightarrow m=F/a \dashrightarrow a=F/m[/math] ? Or [math]F=m\frac{dv}{dt} \dashrightarrow \int \frac{F}{m} dt = \int dv[/math] Or... what? See, there are so many things you can do with this concept.. we need a bit more information to answer your question.

Why do I have a feeling we're being set up towards a specific answer which then you could talk about? Look. You don't just differentiate or integrate in physics, it's meaningless. You need to take a specific problem and then pick the right mathematical tools of analysis. Give us an example.. where did you encounter the problem where you need to integrate a force/mass?

You were not banned because you didn't communicate, you were banned because you were disrespectful. Before you can be a scientist, you should be a decent human being. If you start bashing people for *reading your theory and criticizing it* then your science is utterly irrelevant, for the purpose of this forum. Own up or shut up is true for both your science *and* your attitude. It might sound harsh, but science is not about emotion, it's about facts. Cry or not, if your theories are bunk, they're bunk. And realising a theory you worked hard on for a while is bunk is not a very pleasant feeling, so I can understand your emotions. We're all human. But we can't promise you we won't criticize your claims again, so the only way we (mods and users) can try and make sure the experience in the forum is beneficial is to make sure the attitude in which our minipeer-review is handled. Don't take things so personally. You're here to learn and/or to show us why your theory is better than other theories. Nothing in this should be taken so personally. ~moo

Nice meeting you. That said (and meant), you must understand that the scientific method is crucial for a science discussion. If you give no corroboration, you are not being scientific. If your claims are unbased, you are not being scientific. If you ignore everyone's tough questions, your theory is not moving on from bunk to science. Period. We criticize claims, we don't criticize people. Unless, of course, the person making the claims is getting personal with others, in which case his claims don't matter, for the sake of basic decency. You should consider your experience in this forum as a mini peer review. Theories go through this process where they are criticized as much as possible. The purpose is to try and show the theory is wrong. That is the purpose! Why? because if the theory survives peer review (and is repeated in experimentation), then it is accepted in the scientific community. And if it fails, it is sent back to stage-1 where it should be re-examined, rephrased, rebuilt, or just tossed off. If you come here to give your theories, expect rigorous criticism. Because that's the point. If you can't handle it, then don't put your theory out there. We are not going to give up our rigor just because you don't like it. It doesn't work this way. So.. discussions should be polite (both ways) and we will do our best to explain our reasoning and requests, but you can't just expect us to listen without any criticism. It's a science forum, not a self-help forum. Your other accounts were banned twice. And, I must point out, you were given the right and honors in sharing your views *FOR A VERY LONG TIME* and with quite a large benefit of the doubt, in both those times. But you were banned because you didn't follow the rules, you didn't care about anyone's replies and you were completely disrespectful to criticism. That is not the spirit of this forum. You can't really say we're not listening. Are you? ~moo

... you have to be more specific. Mass in what volume? In what coordinates? Spherical? Cylindrical? What aer the limits? Can you just post the full question with *all* the details so we could help?

What is "rational" for you is not rational for others, necessarily. That's why math exists; it's the most rational of all -- there's no interpretations or personal bias, just a straight forward way of proving things fit reality. Rational Representation is meaningless if it is done out of your own personal understanding and interpretation. In short, you need to provide substantiations and proofs to your claims because things are not always the way they seem. In fact, they rarely are.

Yes, it seems I was too late

F=ma is just a way of representing the actual [math]F=m \frac{dv}{dt}[/math], or [math]F=m \frac{d^2x}{dt^2}[/math] So.. you need to be more specific. Are you integrating with respect to dv/dt ? or dx/dt? or are you integrating with respect to mass (with a system of particles) ?

So far, my young sir, you were the one who insisted on calling the carrot a bumblebee, all the while sitting on a high branch with your nose stuck in the sky. Science has no room for petty ego challenges. The questions that were raised were challenging your claims, not you personally, so please address them properly instead of throwin petty ad-hominems everywhere. The people in this forum come from varied backgrounds. Some have PhDs in physics, chemistry and other subjects, some are on their way to one, some are not officially trained. If you actually did your research on the forum and went on to read some of the threads, you would see that we examine theories by the merits of their CLAIMS, and not by the person saying them. That is why some of our finest contributors have absolutely no official training whatsoever; as long as they substantiate their claims and follow the scientific method in inquiry and debates, all is good. Finally, I want to remind you that YOU came to US for your theories, not the other way around. We are here to listen and help but we will not insist or plead that you accept our help. If you wish to have an audience that bows to your feet at every claim, you should go elsewhere. If you are willing to get off your high horse and start substantiating, follow the rules and stop degrading others, then please, stay. The burden of proof on any new claim is on you. Please remember that. Humility never hurt anyone, specifically when the accuracy of their claims is highly questioned. ~moo

Repeating a statement that was unsubstantiated will not make it true. The problem here is that you invent a term (which is perfectly fine, for the purpose of inventing a new theory) but you don't quite define it. As a result, your units are inconsistent and unclear, if not flat out wrong. Tom, take into account that in physics, there is no difference in units between the same terms; for instance, velocity has the same units as speed. One is the magnitude, one is the vector, so they are different in physics, but they relate to the same movement, or the same phenomena, and therefore have the same units. Units don't just exist for 'fun', they are part of explaining the phenomena, most of the time (with a few exceptions). For instance,when we look at velocity, the units are [distance]/[time] because the definition of velocity is the distance an object goes through at a specific amount of time. Units are crucial. If you say that Total Inertia (and I agree with D H here, inertia is a problematic term in physics, you need to be more specific), is different than Simply Intertia, then you need to use the same units, because it doesn't make sense otherwise. If they're NOT the same, then you need to define what you mean by "simply intertia". It seems to me (and i may be wrong, do correct me if I am) that your "simply inertia" and "total inertia" have the same relationship as, say, a force on an object vs. the total force on that object. For that matter, an object can be subjected to many individual forces, ("simply force"?) and the total "Net" force is all of their effects, combined ("total force"?). If this is what you meant, then they indeed must have the same units, otherwise you cannot add them up. Units are like properties. If you have two objects with different units, they have different properties. They cannot be added to one another (or, well, not in a way that would make sense) and if they are multiplied, the result now has the multiplication of the units. So you need to show that this is logical in your theory; that the units "add up". That is part of the proof. ~moo

We accept!!! oh.. wait.. he already is a physics expert Just a pointer, when a member's nickname is green (instead of white) it means he's an expert. When it's blue, he's a mod. When it's red, he's an admin. I wonder if we have that in the FAQ.. anyhoo, could be useful.

Okay, Epiménides, it seems you should redefine light instead of redefining photons, seeing as photons are pretty much defined by their *MOVEMENT* (speed of light, energy, etc etc). If you think that the 'particles of light' (call them whatever you wish, it's your theory), don't move, you will need to redefine the particles of light. And light itself. And you will need to start referencing your work if you want anyone to take you seriously. We're a science forum, not a philosophical mythology forum; we require proof, and we require substantiation. So far you repeat your explanation but you give absolutely NO corroborating evidence. Claiming the current theory is incorrect does not make yours correct. Even *IF* you manage to prove the current theories incorrect, you are STILL in dire need of proving your own theory to make it a valid alternative. ~moo