Go Back   Physics Help Forum > High School and Pre-University Physics Help > Kinematics and Dynamics

Kinematics and Dynamics Kinematics and Dynamics Physics Help Forum

Like Tree4Likes
Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Apr 24th 2019, 12:21 AM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 34
These new scientific discoveries will affect the world dramatically.

The point in short

Recently I have made big scientific discoveries. These new discoveries completely change our understanding of the universe and give us access to new clean inexhaustible Energy that in turn will cardinally accelerate the advent of sustainable Energy on the planet.

Also, I have found the biggest logical errors in the very fundamentals of physics that makes the whole modern physics (incl. quantum) irrelevant and wrong. So for now, the fact is that all children around the world are taught wrong science.

The science authorities in my country (Russia) completely agreed with these discoveries but are against an announcement of these discoveries.

So in personal conversations, the physics academicians of the Russian Academy of Sciences (who have completely agreed with these discoveries) have said that, in their opinion, not a single acting physics scientist in the world will ever help an announcement of these discoveries, — and even more than that, — all the professional physicists of the world will be against me.

It looks like perhaps each physics scientist in the world (incl. each Nobel laureate) is at least not interested in an announcement of the discoveries.

This all is described in more detail in my Open Letters.

Here is the main article on Medium,
“The Revolution in Science. The New Biggest Ever Fundamental Discoveries in Physics. The experimental discovery of New Clean Renewable (Inexhaustible) Energy.”

https://medium.com/p/d8919d784567

________


The Open Letter to each smart person on the planet
https://medium.com/p/61f32251f152

The Open Letter to Elon Musk
https://medium.com/p/3b93a815aa9b

________

Please say out only your reasonable (sensible) opinion after reading.

Last edited by OlegGor; Apr 25th 2019 at 09:48 PM.
OlegGor is offline  
Old Apr 24th 2019, 01:01 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: cosmos
Posts: 195
Talking hawthorn

The Russian song "Hawthorn" is known almost by all Chinese. Haha...
The foundmental physics is inadequate, maybe something "wrong" in certain field, I think.
History is just that kind.
neila9876 is offline  
Old Apr 24th 2019, 02:58 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 341
I await your publication in Nature then. I'm not going to hold my breath.
topsquark likes this.

Last edited by benit13; Apr 24th 2019 at 03:34 AM. Reason: Indecision
benit13 is offline  
Old Apr 24th 2019, 04:30 PM   #4
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,616
Originally Posted by OlegGor View Post
The point in short

Recently I have made big scientific discoveries. These new discoveries completely change our understanding of the universe and give us access to new clean inexhaustible Energy that in turn will cardinally accelerate the advent of sustainable Energy on the planet.

Also, I have found the biggest logical errors in the very fundamentals of physics that makes the whole modern physics (incl. quantum) irrelevant and wrong. So for now, the fact is that all children around the world are taught wrong science.

The science authorities in my country (Russia) completely agreed with these discoveries but are against an announcement of these discoveries.
It looks like perhaps each physics scientist in the world (incl. each Nobel laureate) is not interested in an announcement of the discoveries.
Please read more on it in my Open Letters.

Here is the main article on Medium,
“The Revolution in Science. The New Biggest Ever Fundamental Discoveries in Physics. The experimental discovery of New Clean Renewable (Inexhaustible) Energy.”

https://medium.com/p/d8919d784567

________


The Open Letter to each smart person on the planet
https://medium.com/p/61f32251f152

The Open Letter to Elon Musk
https://medium.com/p/3b93a815aa9b

________

Please say out only your reasonable (sensible) opinion after reading.
I'm not going to wade through a set of pages where I'm expecting Billy Mays to jump out in favor of your ideas.

Renewable, inexhaustible energy: Nope. Think Second Law of Thermodynamics.

But, if you want a discussion with a bit more along the lines of things to ponder: Some time ago we had a discussion here (or on another site) that amounts to the comment "You aren't defining work the same way everyone else is, so you can't compare the concepts." It doesn't seem that you have taken this comment at face value.

Please take it at face value.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline  
Old Apr 24th 2019, 05:32 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: cosmos
Posts: 195
Talking between yes or no, between authority and folk

I read some material: it tells that an article about configuration of magnetic monopole was published in Nature many years ago.
The material is in guokr.com. It's :
nature这篇讲磁单极子模拟的新论文是怎么回事啊?
neila9876 is offline  
Old Apr 24th 2019, 08:09 PM   #6
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 34
Although I wrote

Originally Posted by OlegGor View Post
Please say out only your reasonable (sensible) opinion after reading.
You were
Originally Posted by topsquark View Post
I'm not going to wade through a set of pages
It is just once again saying a lot about your manner of leading the discussion.
But I have to work with what is.

Since you say out about any thing before you read about it,
you were
Originally Posted by topsquark View Post
Renewable, inexhaustible energy: Nope. Think Second Law of Thermodynamics.
What does the second law of thermodynamics have to do with this?

Do you deny the existence of solar and wind energies? Since both these energies are renewable (inexhaustible).

So
I say that I have discovered some new Energy which is also renewable (inexhaustible).
I say that I've found out electromagnets can take this Energy from the surrounding space.

From my Open Letter:

It’s important to note that in this work of Electromagnets there is no violation of the existing Law of Conservation of Energy.
So it is not any form of perpetual motion machine.

Using Electromagnets this way we just again take the universe’s Energy just like we do it, using wind, hydro and sun stations.


Then you also were

Originally Posted by topsquark View Post
But, if you want a discussion with a bit more along the lines of things to ponder: Some time ago we had a discussion here (or on another site) that amounts to the comment "You aren't defining work the same way everyone else is, so you can't compare the concepts." It doesn't seem that you have taken this comment at face value.

Please take it at face value.
"Your" definition of Work is just totally wrong
since in current physics the concept of Static Mechanical Work is mistakenly missing (which is the prime mistake of current physics).
Because of this, you have the wrong concept of Work and do not understand the obvious things.

So you (all physics textbooks) consider that
the person, lifting the 2 kg object, is doing Mechanical Work and is spending their Energy on it; (which is okay)

but you (all existing physics textbooks), for now, wrongly consider that
the person, holding the 20 kg object motionless in the air, is NOT DOING Mechanical Work and is NOT SPENDING their Energy on it!

[IMG]https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*F7z_p2YHRoxuDxkJSOFqoA.png[/IMG]

Since in current physics (as said before) there the concept of Static Mechanical Work is mistakenly missing
you do not understand the obvious things one of which is that pushing an object and heating up an object are 2 totally different Works and that in both these cases the person is DOING (at least) both these Works:

1. Mechanical Work ( pushing upwards the object ) and
2. heating up the object (heating up their own human body).
OlegGor is offline  
Old Apr 25th 2019, 12:01 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: cosmos
Posts: 195
Hawthorn山楂树

Would you please speak in Russian language so that less people know that you are shouting at the American captain. Try again?

Last edited by neila9876; Apr 25th 2019 at 12:05 AM. Reason: correct word
neila9876 is offline  
Old Apr 25th 2019, 03:45 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by OlegGor View Post
So you (all physics textbooks) consider that
the person, lifting the 2 kg object, is doing Mechanical Work and is spending their Energy on it; (which is okay)

but you (all existing physics textbooks), for now, wrongly consider that
the person, holding the 20 kg object motionless in the air, is NOT DOING Mechanical Work and is NOT SPENDING their Energy on it!
Muscles are able to exert a pushing force based on the transfer of chemical energy to mechanical energy, like an engine. That's why it takes effort (energy) for a person to hold a heavy object in space... the force that combats gravity to keep the object stationary doesn't come for free.

However, if the force comes from some other source, then you don't have to spend energy. For example, balance the object on your head. The force that keeps the object stationary is the same force that keeps you stationary... the pushing force of the Earth on your feet (which has a magnitude equal to the combined weight of you and the object).

You might then ask "is the Earth spending energy to keep you and the object in place?". The answer is definitely no, but I'm still wondering if you're too far gone or not to bother giving you an explanation.
topsquark likes this.
benit13 is offline  
Old Apr 25th 2019, 07:59 AM   #9
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,616
Originally Posted by OlegGor View Post
"Your" definition of Work is just totally wrong
And again, this is where the true problem lies. If you are defining work as something different from what I'm defining work as then we aren't talking using the same language.

For example, mechanical work can usually be defined using the standard definition $\displaystyle W = \vec{F} \cdot \vec{d}$. This definition gives work done by a force acting over a displacement. But if you want to define the same term, work, to be something else then how can my results and your results be compatible?

It is true that, if I want to really make an intelligible response to you that I should read the articles you posted here. On the other hand I did skim them and I don't see any substantial changes between now and when you first posted these ideas in another thread, where you made similar claims.

Hey, if you want to reboot Physics with a new set of definitions, go for it. But you have to be more careful of comparing two systems that use the same terms differently.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline  
Old Apr 25th 2019, 08:26 AM   #10
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 34
Originally Posted by benit13 View Post
Muscles are able to exert a pushing force based on the transfer of chemical energy to mechanical energy, like an engine. That's why it takes effort (energy) for a person to hold a heavy object in space... the force that combats gravity to keep the object stationary doesn't come for free.
About the transfer of chemical energy to mechanical energy

In order to understand the whole thing you need to first learn about

• Force;
• Target Acceleration for each Force;
• Blind Pushing;
• Work and Energy in the most general sense


and then, depending on this knowledge, learn about

• The New Concept of Work and the New Concept of Energy
.

https://medium.com/p/d8919d784567


So consider 2 cases:

(Image: https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/...cYAX8Qe4OvHumW)

1. You start lifting upwards the 10 kg object with your Force (F1) equal to 100 Newtons.

2. You start holding the 20 kg object motionless in the air. Suppose it is necessary for some reasons.


It is important to understand that
the same processes happen in both these cases.


So in both the cases,
you start spending your Energy (your resources) on doing at least 2 new Works:

1. The Target Work: pushing upwards the object during some time with your nonzero Force (F1), 100 Newtons and 196 Newtons respectively.
(Of course, in each of these cases the pushing upwards the object during some time with your nonzero Force (F1), 100 Newtons and 196 Newtons respectively, reduces resources of your organism.)

So it is importantl to understand that in both the cases
the pushing upwards the object during some time with your nonzero Force (F1) is your Target Work.


2. The Non-Target (but inevitable) Work: additional heating up your body.
(Of course, there are also other additional Works that you are also inevitably doing linked to chemical, biological, electrical and muscular processes in your organism, but these all also are just the additional Non-Target Works (versus the Target Work) and for the sake of simplicity I will refer to them all as “the additional heating of your body”.)

So the transfer of chemical energy to mechanical energy happens IN BOTH THESE CASES
and it is just a part of NON-Target (but inevitable) Works that your organism is doing IN BOTH THESE CASES.

But I am saying in the first place about the The Target Work:
Mechanical Work ( pushing upwards the object during some time with your nonzero Force (F1)). Got it?

And the most important thing for you:
The NON-Target Works are inevitable and Energy which is being spent on these NON-Target Works (in both these cases), is just the ADDITIONAL energy price that your organism is INEVITABLY paying (spending) in order to do the Target Work: pushing upwards the object during some time with your nonzero Force (F1).

Last edited by OlegGor; Apr 25th 2019 at 06:23 PM.
OlegGor is offline  
Closed Thread

  Physics Help Forum > High School and Pre-University Physics Help > Kinematics and Dynamics

Tags
affect, discoveries, dramatically, scientific, world



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Physics Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How do different angle bends in pipes affect flow? LeftRightGoodnight Kinematics and Dynamics 5 Apr 10th 2018 02:09 AM
A creative android calculator : Blocks Scientific Calculator CoarxFlow Physics Software 0 Aug 2nd 2016 03:43 AM
How does the mass of a trolley affect its acceleration going down a slope? conspicuous Kinematics and Dynamics 2 Feb 4th 2011 03:14 PM
Does surface area affect the force of friction? s3a Kinematics and Dynamics 21 Apr 26th 2009 07:46 AM
Scientific investigation. Laika General Physics 1 Dec 29th 2008 07:04 PM


Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed