Mellinia

P=[(F)<dot>(a_n)]/ A a_n being the unit normal vector of the area. so, yeah. you can do that. hmm...What are you going to do with it? An integral of it?

The integral of a force function of time w.r.t time, is the change in momentum of the object in which the force is applied, not the work done. To do the integral, you'll need to find the relation between dx and dt then do substitution.

note that the angle of deviation(after the double refraction) for each light ray of different colors is zero. You may verify this by doing a simple calculation by using snell's law, for different wavelengths of light.

Scientist in China(using earth tides) have calculated the speed of gravity as c.The earth's shape is affected by the sun(gravitational force) and there will be time where different areas experience different tides(not water but land tides). They calculated the time of propagation between the changes and found that the time used for the tides to change is the same as the time for the light of the sun to reach the earth at those places. http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2013/01/02/Findings-say-gravity-moves-at-light-speed/UPI-37801357162827/

Yeah, not much but then again both of them will learn lots.

You know what, guys? I would really really love to see this guy debate with illusio over their theories. Wouldn't that be both fun and educational? Note: Illusio is the guy who proposed the other Truth: GR is wrong and his theory of partial dragging, particle produced ether is right. So....I guess you can pm this guy and give it a go. Note: He's as adamant as you are.

Ms. you have confused yourself with pictures and math. When I take 1+1, I will always get two. You put two triangles on top of each other, and you still end up with two triangles. The problem is what you see.

on a side note, ......Have someone hacked your account? But I digress... Most of us do believe Big Bang as the beginning... Space and time are virtual concepts, but they fit in nature. Yes, they are not real, but they exist.... Photons, among other massless particles, can be detected by your eyes. Are they unreal? I hope not..... In response to the OP, um, that's why they proposed gravitons to link them together.......

Yes, that is why the electron is a particle and a wave.

I've always wondered why some people think that the moon landing "hoax" is important enough to be spat out from their mouths.

Which brings us to another question: Are you saying photons cannot display wave properties because it is a 'solid' object? Let's do an analysis. Hypothesis: Photons have mass that can be calculated by theory(if there is one) Objective: To find the mass of a photon by calculating. variables: i) photon mass Procedure: i)Apply equation in theory. ii)Look at the answer Result: photon mass is calculated. For most of us: Hypothesis is not accepted as it does not conform to experimental results. For you: Hypothesis is accepted as...well, because you accept your theory. Do you see why this is so strange for us?

I believe you have seen: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/69681-avoiding-black-holes-by-gluon-field-collapse/ This guy showed us the theory, the maths (that is consistent is units, and uses maths that is not self created out of nowhere.) , the predictions. Now that is the proper way the present a scientific theory. Unfortunately, you showed us the theory, the maths(if that was even maths...), and the predictions....the predictions were wrong, the maths were convoluted, and the theory hinges on an effect that describes the 'ether' as a fluid, without explaining the mechanism of ether production. You simply stated some strange particles produce them, without explaining why they haven't been found yet. Faraday did not maths. He did the experiments and let peers do their evaluation on them. Maxwell did the maths. But the Faraday experiments were consistent with the predictions of his hypothesis. Your experiments were not self-consistent, unexplainable by your own theory, and we can't repeat it. Are you taking random results of experiments that seemed to be correct? And still you did not in any way answer our criticisms rationally. You didn't even to attempt to answer. You saw no need. You thought that we are seeing this wrongly. 当者则迷,旁观则清-->Seeing things in your own eyes doesn't compare to the objective eyes of others. Your hope to 'collaborate' is like gathering a cult of ToEBi...with you as the cult leader. Dude...just...........dude!

unfortunately, without the math, the theory cannot ensure that all rows are conserved,because you would have to do the experiment infinite times in infinite conditions to show that this holds for infinite rows.

The ozone layer has holes in it. What could be worse? [/sarcarsm]

Rockets already flew to the moon. The ozone layer is depleting. The ozone layer is not a solid. The animals are getting skin cancer. If you went there, you probably would too.

Unfortunately, yes there is one, and fauna and flora are dying because of that. Another thing. If rockets flew to the moon, the exhaust gases will also destroy part of the ozone layer, apart from tearing it apart. Thus the rockets will create holes where our atmosphere can leak out forever?!!!

For air molecules to leave a planet, it must have a velocity higher than the 'escape velocity', which is \sqrt { 2g{ r }_{ E } } , plugging in 9.8 for the value of g and 6.4e6 for earth's radius, we have 11kms-1. The velocity of air molecules is about 0.48kms-1, which is way smaller than the escape velocity. For where the equation come from, see Newton's universal law of gravitation. Thus, air molecules and ozone molecules don't leave the Earth that easily. Did you thought that the ozone layer was a solid and it encased the earth?! If yes, have you ever thought of the large hole in the ozone layer above the North poles?! If your explanation were true, Our atmosphere would have been gone years ago.

Photons mediate the electromagnetic force. Feynman diagrams can help in understanding it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_carrier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

They move and spilt but I don't really know if the energy contained is spilt into the different masses, or exchanged, or simply merged together. For example, your conservation of rows examples show that the rows become larger than before. What does that mean? Is energy shared? Or that energy is absorbed from the surroudings? The theory is not quatifiable.

Have you ever played chess? If you did, you would have known that playing against a much better player than you will heighten your ability. In spite of losing almost every time, you will still gain valuable experience. I tried it, and even though it brought me lower morale, my chess skills improved and I got better in analysing the chess field. The purpose of 'going to Mars', instead of testing and creating equipment on extreme conditions of earth is that the most extreme cases of nature is rarely observable on earth compared to Mars. Mars has an atmosphere higher in percentage of carbon dioxide than earth. By learning to tame the levels of carbon dioxide there, we get to solve our city air pollution and find ways to clean the air. Mars has little water. That's the crux of it! Even deserts have water pockets underground but Mars have hers in the poles. By finding ways to retain and create and recycle water, we can solve the problem of water shortage in places where droughts or unclean water is common. Mars have no lifeforms. Thus, no source of food. By solving the problem of have an self-sustaining food source on Mars, do you have any idea how many people will that feed?! Mars have a terrain matched with absolutely horrible weather and day-night temperatures and a higher value of 'g'. By creating machines and materials that can survive those conditions we would have created much durable materials and machines better at moving around and coping with the air pressure.The tallest mountain on Mars eclipse the earth's by whopping 14 kilometers!! A past note was that solving the problem with solar glare led us to better glass materials and better cameras. The weather on Mars is unpredictable and by constructing ways to study it, we get better ways to manipulate our weather. Have you ever been hit by a strong hurricane and lost your home or worse...? If you had, then you would probably have wished we studied ours and Mars atmosphere better. While trying to decipher the way to live on mars, we learn ways to adapt to current surroundings and better, because Mars is have a hell of a place to live. On the side note, It's quite difficult to like a country whose population treat your group as a bunch of blood thirsty killers and think that your sole reason to live is to Jihad when the majority of Sunni's are opposed to the so called Jihad. Did you ever meet a muslim before? Because I have, and my country has more than half of them, and none of them want to bomb ourselves to oblivion.

Ah, so light speed outside the horizon is not at c. ...... We reduce the stress we put on our backbone, by increasing the area of action, right? So this electromagnetic force is equal to the reaction force of gravitational force?

So the electromagnetic force is the one trying to push us away from the Earth? Technically I am uncharged, right? because the positive charges and negative charges on me cancel each other out. Isn't the velocity of light photons constant in any reference frame, irregardless of acceleration or position? That's what SR was based on, right? When accelerating, we still measure c as c as length contraction and time dilation occurs.

Then how do we observe decomposition? i.e. One row into two.