Strange

! Moderator Note This is an interesting story about reactions to the current disease outbreak. However, posts about the OP's personal experience playing the game seem to have little relevance and have been split off.

Indeed. And that is easily explained by the fact that there is no increase in relativistic mass (kinetic energy) in the object's own frame of reference. But it isn't so obvious why the extra kinetic energy / relativistic-mass seen by a "stationary" observer as the object passes by does not increase the gravitational effect of the object.

In terms of managing the probabilities of payouts, the show can also adjust the number and amounts of the prizes in the "bins" at the bottoms of the wall.

So this seems to contradict the comment from Mordred, above (although that was brief, verging on cryptic, so I am have misunderstood what was intended!) But what you are saying is that "relativistic mass" (which is observer dependent) does not contribute to the gravitational effect of an object?

I would say that is quite a good description of what physics attempts to do. Mathematics can be completely abstracted and independent of reality.

Interesting question. I just watched a video of the ball falling. It looks like it is very light (foam?) and bounces quite a lot. So little jets of air at each pin might be a better method. The bouncing could hide an extra unexpected movement. The interesting thing is that you would not need to successfully deviate the path at every pin - the angle it falls in some places would make that too difficult. Instead a computer could track its path and redirect it in the right general direction at the next pin. I don't know if you could always get it in the same place, but you could skew the odds massively. Another approach that might work is spinning the pins to give some extra impetus one way or the other.

Why are the only references to this on the blogs of conspiracy theorists? No scientific reports? No actual skeletons? Just faked photos and made up stories. Come on, you are not falling for this, are you? That's what we need: an ophthalmologist. None of these so-called "archeologists". Well, there you go then. Any remaining plausibility don the drain.

It is a bit bizarre of the NYT to put a 1902 article behind a paywall. I wonder if they still have copyright on it? It is incredible that the conspiracy is so powerful, and runs so deep, that all the evidence has been destroyed or concealed and yet a few sad guys on Youtube know all about it. Fascinating.

I'm on it. Ouch Ouch

From that link: "Graham Hancock explains it pretty well in his book..." So, complete unadulterated nonsense then. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/giant-human-skeleton-photographs/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/skeleton-giant-photo-hoax/

! Moderator Note I have not read your document (I am not involved in this discussion) but I don't see the relevance of "transition processes". The problem would seem to be one of creating a charged particle from an uncharged one. So please address the objections raised. ! Moderator Note What "new experimental data"? Please be more specific and provide references to support your answers.

! Moderator Note You need to avoid making assertions. If your theory does not violate conservation of charge then you need to explain how it does it, not just assert that it does.

! Moderator Note You might want to spend some time addressing the fact different people, at different times, have had different opinions of what natural rights were. For example, for Zoroastrians the most important natural right was to enlightened leadership (arguably the opposite of freedom). Locke said "life, liberty and property." Many others have said that natural rights only apply to certain people, or are secondary to the public good. So you need to provide a reason why we should take the opinions of Jefferson so seriously. So far your soapboxing shows a lack of awareness of the subject or how to convincingly present an argument.

! Moderator Note Repeating the same assertions, word for word, does nothing to improve the quality of discussion. I can't see this thread staying open for much longer on that basis.

! Moderator Note I am getting rather tired of you repeatedly linking to the same sources with no attempt to properly answer questions or provide any deeper explanation of their relevance. You have not established that there are inalienable rights, apart from quoting some claims by a dead, foreign politician. Just because Jefferson believed that doesn't make it true. ! Moderator Note This is a truly appalling attempt to use metaphor as evidence. It is the linguistic equivalent to numerology. You need to do better.

Also, I wonder if the balls are dropped from the same point every time. There are those penny in the slot machines where you drop coins in, hoping to displace an accumulating pile of previous coins. The mechanism swings backwards and forwards so coins never go quite where expected. The Wall might do a similar thing, just to add to the randomness. Or maybe it isn't a machine at all but some guy up a ladder, throwing balls through the holes!

! Moderator Note Questions like this are off-topic and irrelevant. Whether existing theories can answer a question or not says nothing about the validity of your idea. No one here has to defend existing physical theories. Stick to providing answers to the questions and objections raised by others. ! Moderator Note The objections raised by the other members are soundly based in physics. As such they are overwhelmingly supported by mathematics and evidence. No one needs to provide that mathematics or evidence here, because it is widely available in textbooks, etc. If you are not familiar with the science behind the various objections raised, it suggests you are not ready to present an alternative theory.

No. My understanding is that an object moving (at relativistic speeds) will have increased gravitational effect (in the frame of reference of the "stationary" observer) but this is nowhere near as simple as substituting the relativistic mass into the Newtonian equation, for example. Factors such as momentum flow complicate the calculation. And I have no idea what the net result would be - maybe it all cancels out (which would address the gravitational collapse "paradox"; but I think that is simply explained by the fact that in its own frame of reference there is no relativistic mass increase). Let us hope so!

Yes, but not a straightforward way because it affects more components of the stress-energy tensor than rest mass.

I think that should have been "What forum section do you most often find your posts being wrongly moved to?"

Great minds, eh.

Good question. This is an example of "chaos theory" (popularly known as the butterfly effect) in action. This tells us that very tiny changes in initial conditions can lead to very different outcomes, even in completely deterministic systems like the wall. If every ball were perfectly spherical and perfectly smooth, and if every one were exactly the same mass and dropped at exactly the same position and exactly the same speed, and there were absolutely no outside influences (vibration, changes in temperature, noise, etc.) then they should follow the path every time. But none of those things are true. The balls are not perfect, they are not completely identical, they will drop from very slightly different positions at very slightly different speeds, etc. So they will bounce off the first pin at very slightly different angles. Then with each subsequent bounce the difference is magnified (because any tiny change in the angle the ball hits a pin will cause a larger deviation in the direction it bounces off). More here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/02/13/chaos-theory-the-butterfly-effect-and-the-computer-glitch-that-started-it-all/#7f140cc069f6 Unless there was a vacuum behind the glass, there will still be air resistance. But there won't be effects from external air movement (competitors blowing at it!) Incidentally, the original design of this thing is well over 100 years old and was designed to demonstrate a different mathematical principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bean_machine

I would have thought it is highly relevant. One way of encouraging consumers (and house builders) to move from gas to electric heating is to show that it is competitive economically. One way of making electric heating more efficient is to move to heat pumps rather than heaters. Can you explain why you consider it irrelevant? (Once again, you seem to have decided what the "right answer" is and everything else is dismissed as wrong or irrelevant.)

This is a great article (it could fit in Physics, Computer Science or Mathematics better than here but...) It starts off with some cool animations of how colliding blocks behave, then reveals how the value of pi emerges from that, and then explains how that is equivalent to a quantum search algorithm. It is the closest I have come to understanding how quantum computing actually works! https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-pi-connects-colliding-blocks-to-a-quantum-search-algorithm-20200121/ (I have posted quite a few articles from Quanta Magazine. If you don't already subscribe / follow them then I suggest you do. Excellent source.)

! Moderator Note That is not how a rail gun works (the rails form a cold and generate a force along the barrel, which propels the projectile; and there is obviously an equal and opposite reaction force back along the length of the barrel). With this and your other comments, you appear to have gone from asking for help to asserting a number of things that are not supported by the mathematics or physics. This thread is closed. Feel free to ask questions in the appropriate section. But keep any claims that contradict physics to the Speculations forum.