Two Errors In Relativity

a reply to: dragonridr

I found errors, which when fixed will explain the thrust on an EM drive. Something which current laws can not.

a reply to: graysquirrel

Certainly not. I have better things to do.

a reply to: graysquirrel

Thanks for this theory GS. Many are aware that the GTR is under strain in general. If you take a look at some of the circa. 1980s "whole egg" theories I like the etheron, gravity well, continuous creation theory. No black holes, just a Mother Star.

I don't pretend to understand all the math but I get the basics of photon anatomy and wonder a lot about the nature of our creation.

Cheers!

a reply to: Caroline13456


I myself am more interested in a response to dragonridr's query??


Can he or she elaborate....???

originally posted by: graysquirrel
a reply to: Astyanax

Please reread the OP carefully.

Id suggest the op needs to be re written it makes zero sense. But lets look aIm betting you used this equation E=moc2. This only works with matter at rest. In other words it never works but it is a basis we can use now we take our equation and add Kinetic energy. This is K = ½ mv2 = p2/2m now we accounted for your momentum in the form of kinetic energy.So adding this equation the one you need to use to give you the correct answer is E = [ mo2c4 + p2c2 ] ½ see by adding p into the equation we account for momentum. in other words your wrong. Though i see how you made the mistake since most of the time equations dont include momentum and even physics students are taught this after a couple of years. Meaning often just before graduation because you need to understand general relativity before you tackle special relativity.

To be honest if I was given $100 for everything I had figured out that had already been figured by others. I could buy me a 80 inch flatcreen TV for cash on the internet.

That's the good news.

a reply to: Kashai

I do not understand why you are bringing the Nuclear Munitions into this, I did not mention them?

They made Sub 1kt warheads and Megaton Warheads (VERY Small, however the nuclear treaty came in so they had to do a reduction in stockpiles) while designing Mirv systems, and Missiles designed to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles, ICBMs, and space bourne interceptors before the outer space treaty came in.

I do not care what secret programs they still have running, I am saying that already did this in the 50s and 60s (70s also, the Cold Ware brought in some INSANE weapons designs) in between the Missile Gap problem.

I am pretty familiar with US systems, I am a Rocket, Jet, Missile, Weapons, Nuclear freak - I have to know all of what they have.

Offtopic - The SM-64 Missile was so freaken cool.

Edit:

Also they decided the use of a Nuke in space is unwise...it would destroy there Sats aswell...hence the reason they do not need them any longer.

Creation of Artificial Radiation belts is uncool, they found that out during the High Atmosphere Nuke testing.

a reply to: MuonToGluon


So what about the development of tactical and defensive conventional weapons that result in kiloton yields.

To what extent has such technology been miniaturized?

GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast otherwise known as MOAB.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Plotus
Carry on..

Seriously. I mean really man. WTF OP.

a reply to: Kashai

I'm not going to go through and re-read and quote everything I have read through my life, but here is some reading for you, it's pretty cool.

Nuke Warheads - US
en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

As with anything on Wiki, a Link will take you to another link to another link to another link, it will show you through the history and designs of many weapons and Warheads.

A lot of Warhead designs I know of is because of going through all of the testing:

Nuke Testing - US

I like to read...a lot.

OP is trying to impress autistic screechers again.

a reply to: MuonToGluon


The SM-64 was really were really cool but...

a reply to: Kashai

I know of that, it was Designed for 100Mt, but the Uranium shell was replaced with lead to lower it to 50Mt and to prevent excessive fallout, making it a very clean Nuke.

We were talking real physics, not comic mouth boogie. I recanted my comments and left the conversation to more astute scientific minds. As I said, carry on.a reply to: Miracula2

a reply to: MuonToGluon


So in a conflict scenario what if I hit Pyongyang with 20 thousand MOAB
cruise missiles simultaneously?

a reply to: Kashai

Well...You'd have yourself a very big BBQ!

It would be unwise because of South Korea, Japan being in firing distance of NKs weapons so the human ife value outside of NK would be very high.

Would it work? China would see them coming and notify NK, and NK also have Radar installations so would already launch there weapons towards those countries.

So not very good.

Edit:

And remember, NK also has Bio weapons, you would only need a couple to get through and it would be very bad.

A missile shield cannot knock down 1000s of missiles.

originally posted by: Plotus
comic mouth boogie

Moi?

a reply to: MuonToGluon


Yes but technically we would still be responding with conventional weaponry.

No "radioactive emissions", as in the aftermath.

a reply to: Kashai

When War hits with unstable leaders, they will use whatever they need to strike back, nothing is off the table.

Pretty much if you have a ballistic missile that can mount a payload, you can mount anything to it.

EDIT:

I'm dropping out of this thread, it got very offtopic I forgot what the thread was about (No offense Kas, it was cool)

a reply to: MuonToGluon


WikiLeaks and North Korea...

www.theguardian.com...