Klaynos

If the displacement is 0 then there is no movement. I don't see how that could be interesting. Any symmetrically changing magnetic field inducing the forces is now a force from nothing it's magnetism... The car example, I can't picture what you're trying to explain.

Force and energy are not independent concepts. Your cars system doesn't seem to make sense. I wouldn't muddy the waters with it but stick to your initial oscillator proposal.

It can seem to some that people are not even bothering to take the time to read and think about the responses. That can be quite upsetting for the people spending the time writing the replies.

The forces are all magnetic. You're just building an inefficient magnetic oscillator.

While it might oscillate for a while (depending on the specifics) it will eventually stop in the lowest energy state. Ideal springs and frictionless surfaces don't exist, there's always losses.

It can be very difficult when people are trying to cope with complex situations when the foundations are missing. Often the best advise can be to take time to learn the foundations.

Being wrong isn't against the rules, I'm wondering if being consistently wrong after 100 posts of corrections should be though. Often the soapboxing rules can be used but that doesn't always apply. We have introduced some stricter policies in the speculations section. They seem to have reduced the number and frequency of very long but worthless threads.

Google the title? It covers the maths nicely.

http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9120/18/5/312/pdf/pev18i5p234.pdf I used to teach this experiment. If you modify it a bit you can show that roulette is predictable and measure the corollas effect. The physics is well understood and tested. There are a few people who seem resilient to learning the physics required. I don't think we can realy help that. Yes I've followed the whole thread and cannot believe frustration hasn't shown earlier.

You still have angular velocity though. You would need to accelerate sideways as well to get half way around the earth in 12 hours.

Sorry a little off topic. Try and find a local gliding club. My experience is that they're very friendly and it's normally the cheapest way to fly.

If an airline thought it could save fuel they'd be ding doing it already.

Linear accelerators use straight lines, you could put two at an angle to each other. The reason circles are often used is that you can send the particles around and around building up more energy.

But it was changed to be more accurate. Your method is less accurate and therefore a step backwards.

! Moderator Note Closed pending review.

He really doesn't. Our understanding of light has moved on a lot side newton.

A diffraction grating would show gaps if the source was made of three colours, is out was not 3 it would show a continuous spectrum. Sunlight and incandescent light bulbs produce a continuous spectrum with energies consistent with our understanding. The current theory explains it, second order dispersion as explained above. The seven colours is a historical artifact, it's a continuous spectrum.

Your post is very long. It's unlikely anyone will read it all. I do have a few comments though. You've shown that light exhibits wavelike properties. Well done, young did that a few hundred years ago. Now you need to mathematically explain the photoelectric effect. You've massive of fundamental flaws. For example you say you don't need maths as you have a new model. In physics model means maths. This completely undermines any integrity you had.

RGB colour space. Physiology of colour perception.

Yep. The technology was developed to allow a wide range of colour perception to humans. My point is that we have other experiments other then prisms which work better and are easier to understand in terms of wavelength. You can even remove the overlapping bands that John talks about, the maths shows you where the bands exist and where they come from.

Monochromatic light will not split. I've conducted that experiment countless times. You've completely ignored my last post.

The prism splitting of light isn't heat pretty but the dispersion fits a mathematical model. This is also true for sunlight on diffraction gratings where the grating equation is found to be true. To have any hope of a counter argument you would need an equally (or more) accurate mathematical model to explain the observations. Do you have such a model?

Could the same not have been said in late 1829?

Research additive and subtractive colours. We have more subtle ways to measure the wavelength of light and it can be shown that white light incandescent sources are a continuous spectrum of wavelength/frequency/energy. There is of course the added complication that human eyes are not good measuring devices. They're nonlinear and only have 3 colour sensors, with overlapping frequency response.

! Moderator Note Thread closed. By your own admission you have no maths, thus no theory or quantitative predictions. You may not reintroduce this topic. If after some time you have formulated a mathematical model you may petition a moderator to reopen this thread please do so by private message or by reporting this post.