Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum The law of conservation and transformation energy

Kirby

thanks for the link.

I just finished making a spreadsheet to do it , and it shows
the exact numbers you get.

using
90% c 167400 mps and 90% c 167400 mps

I use mph because Im an old fart thats used to it.

still it gives s = 184972.37569060800000000000
which is as you posted
0.994475138121547000000000000000 c

that doesnt mean that it is correct however.

it just means that its deliberate.

let me try it out on some more numbers to check the consistancy.

ok , when I use two velocities higher than c I get a constant
reduction in s


186,001 and 186,001 = 0.999999999985547000000000000000 % c

so by increasing the two velocities by 1 mile per second
you slow the speed down to below c !!!

190,000 and 190,000 = 0.999773678850289000000000000000 % c

so by increasing the 2 velocities by 4000 miles per second
you slow the speed down even further below c


if I use 100000000000.00 mps for each velocity then s goes
to 0.69191999999760600000
and the % of c = 0.000003719999999987130000000000

it's an obvious fallasy , that will probably kill us all.

especially when its believed to be correct by people that work
with this type of thing at the LHC.





so it can roll?

You get a hold of some cool graphics. Glad to see that you maintain a sense of humor under a hail of fire.

I don’t want to digress too much from the OP.

Do you think that we’re all of the opinion that the laws of conservation is the best bet?

Hi, Kirby, good to see you posting again. You are absolutely right, of course. I really should consult my notes, and possibly even think before posting, but sometines it's a matter of rushing in a quick post between other things. I thought I would have time to do things in a relaxed way when I retired. Now I wonder how I had time to work.

“You are absolutely right, of course.”

That’s debatable even in this context…just didn’t want to waste our previous investments on the speed of C in alternate mediums thread. I hope that I didn’t come off as authoritive and an opportunist.

Although I can’t contribute much due to time constraints, I am still learning from these boards by staying on top of it.

Perhaps someday I can regain the crown of #1 crackpot.

I hope that when the opportunity arises that we can revisit the important issues of infinity and the nature of time.

I wish you luck with that; the competition is stiff.



At present I'm struggling with the QM concept of time. Trouble is, our resident Orac-le is off doing his "bad boy" stuff.

is that a fact , you know you cant just come waltzing in here
expecting to tumble the throne like its just some kind of personal
prize to you , people work really hard on these
forum's to gain that recognition and believe me you can
expect a tooth and nail , knock down and drag out fight buddy.



see , stiff competition.

Kirby , where were you born anyway?
do you have a birth certificate to prove it.

for all we know you might be from some other planet...

Kirby



I can only speak for myself.

I haven't found where it has been broken , unless I look
at what the QM folk say.

but you see the kind of bogus math they use to make things work
out in their favor.

I have read where someone on the forum uses the term snake oil
while defending QM , maybe he was trying to
point something out , or maybe he believes
that what he is selling is the real
deal , but to me it is only snake oil , dream land , fantasy world stuff.

lets do this , why don't we find a correct way to account for
the time differential in space travel.

lets start with this...

do you think it could be the division in the formula we have been using is simply dropping values?

ie...c^2 starts with a 3 ( 34596000000 ) using 186,000 mps

maybe physics could use a good calculator that uses binary vs decimal while calculating.

something like I posted a few weeks ago to correct the issue.

we all know you cant divide 1 by 3 and then get a 1 again by multiplying by 3

but you can divide the binary of 100 by 3
and then get a 100 again by multiplying by 3
then converting back to decimal you get 100 again.

100 decimal = 01100100 binary
01100100 / 3 = 366700
366700 x 3 = 01100100 binary
01100100 binary = 100 decimal

how many issues could be corrected that way.

Lies ... just not much to discuss about some whacked out junk that a 10 year old can see is wrong no comment neccessary from me.

I asked one question which for the life of me I can't work out for those who believe in the crazy Bohr atom which is what is elementary charge ... how does an electron and proton get charge. I tried net searching but so many crazy whackjobs I can't find any sort of consensus what they think just more crazy on crazy.

Waiting for you to catch up with the QM stuff so infinity can meet uncertainty should be interesting :-)

Edit: Mind you even the uncertainty principle came under challenge last week so perhaps we will have to get more wild

http://phys.org/news/2012-09-scientists-renowned-uncertainty-principle.html

Did you get crazy brave and try the postulates I am sure you will be able to read around the mathematics?

That wouldn't work with 101 decimal would it?

I'm prepping for an important job interview tomorrow...reality calls.

101 / 3 = 33.666666666666666666666666666667

it gives a number that I don't trust.

it will go back to 101 but its rounded by the calculator.

33.666666666666666666666666666667 x 3 = 101

I like using the binary 01100100 for a decimal 1 better because
the result when dividing by 3 = 366700
theres no messy decimal to deal with.

maybe all thats needed right away is a replacement
for c^2 just for use in the special relativity formulas.



good luck

"for all we know you might be from some other planet..."

Very perceptive...I'm from New Jersey.

Is that in our Solar System?

It's probably too late now to wish you luck with your interview, and my time machine is playing up, but good luck, anyway.



Yes!?!?! I've just posted in the other thread.

this is some whacked out junk , some would say its da bomb!

Im sure if you keep looking in the forum you will find something
that is wrong , dont give up , eventually you'll find something
that is wrong and then you can comment on it.

orac , I had no idea you were only 10 years old , you seem to be older than that , I was thinking your age was around 15 - 16 judging from your reactions to post.

now it all makes sense.



the bohr atom is an imaginary atom , so it has imaginary charges.

so you can use QM to let it borrow its charges whenever it needs a charge.

I'm almost certain that you can find the correct formula in one
of the special theories , they have a formula for everything you can think of.

if you cant find one , just make one up yourself , that seems to
be the norm among the special circles.

No special people are religious people

Fact for the day:

Gene Abel and Nora Harlow in there 2001 study that found 93% of nearly 4,000 convicted child molesters described themselves as ‘religious’ or ‘extremely religious. 77% of offender were or had been married and 79% are caucasian. There was no particular religion that was dominate.

So white married religious people who apparently believe in GOD have in their midst the most messed up special there is.

I am atheist, not white and never been married so I rest my defence on my mental stability.

I am also in high demand as a babysitter and as proof I present a youtube proof in typical Paul fashion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRi7RmCrcag

Google search it ... rather funny.

Please don't bother complaining you were given fair warning you start trolling me or science like in your above post that I would not pull punches based on your GOD sensitivity.

86% of the worlds population is religious.

2.3% are anti religious or atheist

that makes atheist people special and religious people common.
http://richleebruce.com/mystat.html

Current Population Clock
World 7,038,456,464
15:28 UTC (EST+5) Sep 10, 2012

http://www.prisonstudies.org/info/worldbrief/wpb_stats.php?area=all&category=wb_poptotal

WORLD POPULATION TOTAL 7038456464.00
WORLD PRISON TOTAL 10142368.00

WORLD RELIGIOUS PERCENTAGE 86% of world population
WORLD RELIGIOUS TOTAL 6053072559
WORLD RELIGIOUS CRIMINALS 0.001675574 as percentage of world population

WORLD ATHIEST PERCENTAGE 2.3% of world population
WORLD ATHIEST TOTAL 161884498.7
WORLD ATHIEST CRIMINALS 0.062651879 as percentage of world population



athiest 0.062651879%
religious 0.001675574%

the chances are higher for a athiest being a criminal than they
are for a religious person being a criminal.

here's one of my favorite scenes from The Invasion.




there are a lot of videos on you tube made by people with biased
opinions concerning religion , they love to cherry pick through the data that is easily available on the internet and the result is the type of video that you posted.

You can try all the stats you like it does not change the fact the religious are an artificially high number of child molesters even off your own figures 86% religious and yet we have 93% representation in child molesters.

You will also note that numbers of caucasian child molesters is massively high compared to there representation even if you limited the representation to that of race and ethnicity mix of USA.

You can't hide from the fact there is something going on in the caucasian religious community that sees them overrepresented and infact there are studies underway to look at that.

So your statement from above is actually incorrect in the specific case of caucasian religious males.

The question you have avoided and the thing that hit me when I first saw the figures if religion is all about being a better more moral just person why aren't their representation numbers lower than the average.

It is also why I question your religious morality because on this forum you are one of the most opionated, egotistical and aggressive and yet you are supposedly a pillar of religious virtue. You will say the same of me I am sure but the difference is I AM DELIBERATELY TRYING TO BE THAT TOWARDS YOU TO MAKE A POINT so if you aren't trying then you have serious issues.

Rev K is very religious and interacts in a normal civil way with people on the forum so being religious does not preclude being civil on science forums a lesson perhaps Rev K could teach you.

Once again I give you a blunt warning you start trolling science or people with insults and I will react and you won't enjoy it.

your the only troll here orac , I'm only defending my religion , this isnt a religion forum , every time you troll
about someones religion just shows what a troll you are.

we know that the reason you troll about religion is because your an athiest , you have already stated that.

the next time I read anything in any of your post that is directed against my religion , I will ask that you be banned
from the forum due to abuse.

why?

You may go ahead and appeal to the moderators I have been very specific how you can stop it .. improve your behaviour.

Intersting that everyone else is abusive but never you ... perhaps you may want to go back and read what you posted above.

My warning stands I will not hesitate if that results in my being banned so be it.

Now having dealt with that lets get back to our little electron and perhaps you can answer the question of what elementary charge is in your Paul physics.

You will note in our QM world we test our theories to extreme precision and check that the charge value we predict for an electron matches the theory we have a good reason for the charge to exist and it's value

http://phys.org/news/2012-09-electron-magnetic-moment-precisely.html

So perhaps you could give us how Paul physics predicts and confirms the elementary charge of its Bohr atom model.

Simple question there should be no need to get involved in silly side issues and heated exchanges I really only interested in that answer because it's not clear to me.

So lets see if you can answer a straight forward question.

Paul Physics states that after everything was created the first time
it never goes away.

it never will go away , it will always be somewhere in some form.

so therefore , thus , and hitherto , the bohr atom model is a mirror of atoms that exist naturally throughout the galactic plains inside the cosmos.

given to interactions with and between other entities that naturally exist through the exchange of energy , furthermore
Paul Physics also states that nothing natural shall be construed
as having a set of properties that cannot be changed.

to answer your question



was created.