Jump to content
Science Forums

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 04/04/2021 in all areas

  1. 1. With motion of any sort, there is friction. 2. If by 'reactionless', you mean that there is no NUCLEAR reaction, then I'll give you that. But a true reactionless drive would have no 2 parts which would 'react' to each other. Thus, no moving parts, no transference of energetic particles, no magnetism, no graviton technology, and a host of other examples. 3. There is no such thing as perpetual motion. That's like saying you can see past infinity. No, you Can't. 4. MY EYES ARE BLEEDING FROM READING YOUR WALLS OF TEXT WHICH HAVE ***ZERO*** ACADEMIC CITATIONS. NO PROOF!!! JUST STO
    2 points
  2. That's nice dear. But let's forget about feeding animals and talk about other human beings, shall we? Now tell me what your wonderful loving prophet thinks about flying commercial jetliners, full of innocent people, into office buildings, also full of innocent people? What does your Koran say about that? While you are at it, please explain why infidels deserve to be beheaded and their deaths recorded on video? As far as I am concerned, most organized religions are a form of insanity, but yours is absolutely the worst and the world would be better off without it.
    2 points
  3. This is very similar to a heat pump. You are inputting 38232 J of energy in order to extract a total of 51646 J of energy, which includes 14200 J of energy provided by the burning of hydrogen, an external input! This is exactly the way a classical heat pump works! In fact, a COP greater than one is the rule, rather than the exception and your COP of 1.35 is very low! A classical heat pump routinely achieves a COP of around 4.5 This is more nonsense and I will move it to where it belongs, in Silly Claims. This is your last warning for posting nonsense and annoying other members.
    1 point
  4. Okay, whatever I have disrupted your lectures now continue it, I wonder sometimes what happens in the alternate universes I am not here in. I have significantly altered the timeline of the scienceforums.com, did I have the right?
    1 point
  5. Ya, i know , link = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'Alembert_operator
    1 point
  6. One way to calculate the precession of the planets is by averaging the interplanetary gravitational interactions over the orbits of the other planets. It is reasonable to do this, since the precession period in question is very much longer than the orbital period of any planet in the Solar System. Thus, by treating the other planets as rings, we can calculate the mean gravitational perturbation due to these planets, and, thereby, determine the desired precession rate. However, since Venus rotates much more slowly than any other planet, its precession period cannot be accurately cal
    1 point
  7. You are talking about my favorite operator!, *Gets Excited*
    1 point
  8. I don't think time exists in reality either. I think time is same idea with lenth and weight, it is created by human, it is kind of concept exists in our mind. But it is NOT a fact that can be dilated.
    1 point
  9. He's not talking to either of us, he is talking to the OP.
    1 point
  10. Success, I got one of the cranks to leave the forums, Victory is MINE! I guess you couldn't handle having to learn "Real Physics".
    1 point
  11. "String field theory was to be the theory of interacting strings. To describe interacting objects, you need a quantity called the Lagrangian (that's L in Kaku's equation). ... Now Michio Kaku's equation is clear. It is the Lagrangian describing the interaction of strings." I hope this has humbled you, maybe you don't know as much as you think you know, now watch the lectures.
    1 point
  12. Write4u..... YouTube videos, without any academic citation, are just conjecture. /discussion
    1 point
  13. Dubbel, This dude PeterAX, is a flaming crank just ignore his stupid bullshit and move along.
    1 point
  14. And organised religion is really the organisation of hate rather than a belief structure of love. Religion is destructive on the whole because fanaticism breeds it like wildfire.
    1 point
  15. Huh? The precession of planets are well understood, Mercury was the first planet to have its precession accurately explained by Gravity, what precession are you talking about, and why are you talking about it? The posts I've read in my time today are so unclear, I am wondering what it is half the time the OP's are trying to articulate? If I cannot understand, that is not a good start. I only wonder, if a system of questions are not articulated properly, what are others thinking outside of my own reading of trying to understand.
    1 point
  16. I agree a craft with interstellar capability seems almost impossible when you consider we seem to be struggling to invent a craft that can take us to another planet in our Solar system; but what if such spacecraft had already been invented else-where?: My imagination was sparked by Chess President Alien Encounter. Alien Abduction President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFfebW7K1vw My interest in chess swayed me to include these associated, but off topic youtube videos ROBOT vs Kirsan Ilyumzhinov Moscow 2013 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v
    1 point
  17. Dubbel is always right because he studies real science listen to Dubbel, Polymath.
    1 point
  18. That would be Sigmund Freud, according to this link. I agree that normally posters should provide the source for their references and quotes, but we don’t apply the rules strictly for an 11-year-old.
    1 point
  19. "The theory states that dreams don't actually mean anything. Instead they're merely electrical brain impulses that pull random thoughts and imagery from our memories. The theory suggests that humans construct dream stories after they wake up. ... He believed that dreams revealed unconsciously repressed conflicts or wishes." When you say "he" please state who you mean!
    1 point
  20. This lecture by Anil Seth may be of interest. He explains how and why our brain experiences "controlled hallucinations" .
    1 point
  21. Theory: I have three chickens, Using nothing but a strobe light, they will change into a woman, because of my math equations which I am still sorting out a bit. Now please don't be critical of my theory till you master it.
    1 point
  22. Well, I'm probably not the right guy to follow your math, as I am just interested in Physics. There, that will get a bunch of guys shouting out that Physics IS MATH. But I don' buy that claim. You don't need any math to know that if you go around a corner too fast in your car, it will spin out, or to follow the reasons why that will occur. You only need to employ mathematics if you want to calculate the difference between the point of spinout if you use 30 psi in the tires instead of the current 25psi. And I doubt that you will be banned from this forum for explaining the details of your "
    1 point
  23. So your not using any of Einstein's assumptions or terminology, or postulates, but are going to develop practically the same results as SR and or GR? Any chance that you can explain your theory in plain English before you delve into some maths? I don't agree that Mathematics is the language of the universe, or that it can prove anything. It may be able to support an hypothesis, but it can also be made to support a competing and contradictory hypothesis at the same time. So please explain your hypothesis in simple English, as even Einstein said, "If you cant explain your theory to a barmai
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...