Recent content by Adeste

My model does not predict any trajectory sorry if I presented it in a way such that you think it did I apologise. I specifically said it does not apply to moving particles. Again thanks :smile:

As I am sure you have noticed I have finished my enquires my model is complete. Can I thank you also for your thoughts and time. I wish you well :smile: I really enjoyed it ps great signature

Hi my model is not wrong it needs no information on moving or stationary objects as it makes no difference to the accepted model except when a particle is not moving. It makes no new prediction for moving particles it does not interfere in any way with excepted observable models. It only...

Can I say how much I have enjoyed this tread and all the input from contributors. If as you say I predict things that at this moment in time can not be observed makes my theory wrong so be it. I am not, as I am sure you guess, a professional physicist . I am not trying to create a new model...

My model does absolutely describe the motion of a general moving particle. I apologise if Lagrangian mechanics shows this. I leave you to judge. However I conclude that gravitaional force is not equal to mg but ma where a is the actual acceleration of the actual particle not a theoretical...

I agree work done is done as there is a change in energy. and I agree mechanics use F.X=Work Done To answer your second question what is new. First I do not know if what I suggest is new. However it seems mechanics has been built on theories which are then proved true or false by observation...

Yes I agree as mechanics is based on observation this not possible. The particle in my model has I believe never been observed and possibly can never be observed. Not sure if I am allowed to do this but there is a thread which although it is inconclusive indicates that conservation of energy...

Many thanks for your efforts particularly if I am frustrating you. My apology my opening statement is misleading I agree 100% with what you say I am not trying to replace mechanics (forces) with potential changes for moving objects. Therefore I am not trying to prove a path or trajectory...

I do not think all the information is contained in the two equations when \dot{q} =0 It works well if \dot{q}>0

Please can you explain Zeno's paradox in terms of this problem

I have been warned by the moderator, So can I apologize I have " introduced a number of off-the-wall concepts that I probably made up on my own. Yet, I am USING them as if these are unambiguous physics concepts that are well-defined" and for trying can I apologize for trying " to educate...

I think it will fall while in the process of bouncing back as it cannot do this instantaneously without an infinite force. During bouncing back it will have a velocity less than required to maintain orbit

There are two explanations of the movement of objects by fields. I am only talking about energy and potential field differences. As under certain conditions it disagrees with force and interaction with field movement. I am trying to explain motion from energy only and it works for every...

Only because it is moving ie Δx>0. An electron to be not moving would have to be at absolute zero as if not it will be moving by the momentum change caused by infrared photons hitting it a little like brownian motion. sorry if that sounds a little patronizing it was not meant to be Is...

Heisenberg uncertainty relation. ΔE.ΔT <h/2∏ Surely this allows causality as I suggest as Δt can be made as small as you wish