studiot

Perhaps my comments about small frames and 'stretchy' frames got mixed up. I think we have covered (not in the strict analytical maths sense) small frames = patches. (gosh isn't it difficult to choose words without special emanings ) Surely you can have stetchy frames in non-remannian geometry or the Pocincare disk ?

To get back on topic an leave the leaves alone. The blue colour is caused by scattering from water (note not elements) that is deeper than 50 metres. Here are some facts. As sunlight penetrates seawater, By 1 metre depth most of the red is lost to absorbtion by the water. By 10 metres depth all the red and most of the yellow and about 50% of the green is lost. By 100 metres depth all the red yeloow and 95% of the green is lost, leaving only blue light. As any light penetrates water it is scattered. The only light going back upwards (by scattering) from the deep is blue light so that is what emerges and is seen form space. There are exceptions. The resence of phytoplankton scatters some green light upwards Some Algae scatter red light upwards giving the famous colour blooms. But remembering that light travelling upwards is subject to the same absorbtion regime, the red and green light only reappears if the water is shallow enough.

@icarus2 I know it's more attractive to respond only to the guy with the flashy colour pictures, but I am still waiting for a proper response with mathematics to my last posts. May I remind you that the rules of this forum require this?

I don't want to pre-emp what Marcus has to say, but if he means what I think he means then the correct term is 'patches' not small frames. And yes that would correspond to his comment about local since patches are locally flat and thus locally SR can be e.mployed. But then that begs the question How small is local or when is the extent too large?

Small frames. Interesting thought about frames - care to expand a bit? How about elastic (as in stretchy) frames?

It would be perfectly possible, perhaps even desirable at the outset, to discuss your idea in general terms before moving on to fine detail. You particularly mention use for jet fighters. What particular new features would your innovation bring? Would these be compatible with the extreme requiremets of jet engine fighters? Don't forget these meet have a much wider range of operating conditions (eg high altitude, low pressure) than ordinary jets. This rules out many conventionally known solutions. Do you know that jet engines are tested agains bird strike by firing forzen chickens at them with a cannon? Would your engine withstand the impact?

But it is not itself moving as a whole. Moving in this case means translating (as a whole) not that different parts of it are in motion relative to each other. Inerterial frames are abstract objects. It is a matter of opinion whether you count them as part of the universe or not.

Janus said most of it, but U238 is fissionable by means of (fast) neutrons. Does this help or do you want to expand on what you were thinking of?

This is ill founded. The universe is not 'in motion' nor yet 'at rest'. Where do you think the universe might be going to or have come from, or alternatively staying put at?

Whether time has a beginning or not black holes come and go. So what was in 'our universe' before this black hole? And no I'm not discussing any sort of universe, infinite or otherwise. I was discussing the inescapable circularlity of the logic of your proposition. Something you seem remarkably keen to avoid. I can posit a pot of gold at the bottom of my garden, buried by the faries who live there. But however hard I dig I just can't seem to find it.

Not all waves follow the inverse square law. In particular waves on ropes don't. How about answering my previous comment ?

This is not something you can set aside - for now or any time. For instance it is not like a discussion about the temperature field in my house where for that purpose it is immaterial whether I use coal fires, electric or gas heaters or whatever. There I can posit a heat source go on to discuss the resultant temperature distribution. The problem, as I have already indicated is that you are offereing a circular argument. Mass is a disturbance in the field. But the field is created by mass, which is a disturbance in the field which is created by ....Oh my my head hurts in fact in the words of the song I'm so dizzy My head is spinning. (Perhaps that is why swansont says spin is not energy )

Of course it matters. Why is it there? And why is the black hole not part of it? What, by the way is the black hole a hole in? At least be realistic.

I would have thought both the first two of my examples were purely electronic and the third could be modelled electronically with suitable digital optical equipment.

PubChem has both a classic 2D structural formula and an animated 3D ball and stick picture. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/N-Phenethylacetamide#section=Top

I suppose there are many ways you can call up a 'pseudo' something. The false radar images of invasion fleets in Operation Taxable and Operation Window were one such. False sonar images off thermal layers are another. Here is one you can try yourself. Hold your two hands about 400mm in fornt of your face with the tips of your index fingers pointing at each other about 50mm apart. Watch carefully while you bring the fingers closer to your face. At some point a pseudo 'double ended' finger appears to hover in space between them. Or we could get more mathematical and talk about 'pseudovectors'.

As Mordred said ( + 1 ) a tensor is a mathematical construct designed to save a page or even several pages of writing and paper. This is further complicated by the fact that there is more than one notation in use. The very compactness of the notation tends to hide some of the properties /relationships so I caution care in deploying them. Note swansont's questions demonstrate my own thoughts that as soon as you want to calculate/extract one of these you have to bust the tensor wide open. The idea of an overall tensor peak is meaningless, but can be applied to one of the many properties/relations denoted by the tensor. If you want to learn more about tensors, I suggest you start a new thread asking just that.

Similar to the rubber sheet analogy we have discussed before. The problem underlying all universal field theories is the question " what is the source of the basic field (AKA the rubber sheet ?)" Stating that a particle is a potential well implies that there is some sort of basic underlying field even in the absence of any and all particles. A potential well. A potential of what exactly?

You seem to have several versions of the molecule in different pics! So far as I can tell it is a six carbon main chain with two methyl side groups emanating from C3 and C4. In that case the molecule is symmetrical about the C3-C4 bond. Here is a pic of a model of what I mean. The main chain is shown in grey and the side methyls are blue and red.

Hello, Neil and welcome. Don't know anything about your background, but steel also has it's share of problems. I remember a 380 metre viaduct set on twin continuous welded steel girders that the erectors failed to make a proper dimensional weld allowance for. They were 115mm short when the girders reached the far abutment. That would have been a more spectacular failure if I hadn't come up with a solution.

The moderator has already told you that you should not discuss your hypothesis in this thread. Are you asking to be banned? If you really want to discuss your hypothesis why don't you simply start your own thread with the info/postulations that appear in your link? I note you attribute inertia to photons as one of your postulates, I suggest you rethink this as it is one of the known/observed characteristics of photons that they are without inertia.

Yup you should start to teach them 'value' +1

You are much more likely to obtain a (sensible) discussion if you reply to participants in your threads.

Well perhaps the leprachauns have been infilling holes in my yard, but I was thinking more of that famous observation by A. Puddle. "You know this hole exactly fits my shape requirements!" That would certainly be more in line with my yard. The point I was making (indirectly) is that the oft quoted holes move in the opposite direcftion to electrons is bullshit. Holes are vacant levels in a (quantum) energy level spectrum and there whether they are filled or not ( eg by suitable dopants). But they do not actually move, although it is convenient to assign them an effective mass and a mobility coefficient. Pseudo objects? I still don't know. What is an object to be pseudo? We already have pseudo vectors in Physics, which are vectors that swing the other way.

Don't know how many photons the lasers and subsequent collimators / shutters etc were actually delivering so perhaps an increase in brightness. But then again perhaps not because of YaDinghuss' pseudo object shadow effect? +1 for noting the grainyness of pictures.