Forum

Moderated: FLOOD in the message

Added 40 minutes ago
[/U]

Ariputra says that A. Smirnov says that Feynman says... ))))

Well, I hope Feynman has some weight in your eyes?

Richard Phillips Feynman is an outstanding American scientist. His main achievements are in the field of theoretical physics - he claims that "modern physics is a complete hoax".

But students claim that everything is very easily explained. :)

Ment
I didn't say that. On the contrary, I said that some things are not explained and gave examples and so on.
I won't post the calculations, you won't understand anyway. I didn't do it on a Boeing, I took wing models, which I adjusted manually, and calculated for them.

You didn't say that literally. But you are smoothly leading to the fact that in the theory of physics, contradictions with practice are very small, and that they are not so significant.

Are you sure that your model 100% reflects the situation with Boeing?
By studying an ant's leg, you extrapolate the experience gained to all other legs of that ant, to all other ants, to the entire anthill, to the entire forest, to all the legs of other living beings, to the entire planet, the universe, etc.

Once again, who is A. Smirnov?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDX380P1qh4
Once again, in that 40-minute video, as in this one, you can see that he is a scientist-physicist.

If a scientist-physicist is not currently an active employee of any institute, does he cease to be an authoritative source of information in the field he studies?

No, I can't )

Well, can you?

The question of the lift force of modern aircraft, as well as the other 4, remains open.

I agree with this, it is indeed a very interesting thing. This needs to be studied seriously, not just talked about on a forum.

And there are hundreds of such examples:

Spectra of electromagnetic radiation. Classical theory (see the Rayleigh-Jeans law) did not provide a satisfactory description of the spectra of radiation of an absolutely black body (see the ultraviolet catastrophe) and significantly deviated from the experimentally observed. Line spectra of the emission and absorption of light by gaseous substances also could not be explained within the framework of classical physics.

The source of energy of the Sun and stars. Hypotheses about the origin of the energy of stars, which classical physics could offer, gave negligible values of this energy, which clearly did not correspond to reality.

The phenomenon of radioactivity, discovered in 1896 by A. Becquerel, and studied at the end of the 19th century by Marie and Pierre Curie, testified to the fact that there is a huge amount of energy in the atoms of matter (compared to their size and mass), the origin of which could not be explained within the framework of classical physics.

The red boundary of the external photoelectric effect is the maximum (for a given cathode material) wavelength of electromagnetic radiation, above which the photoelectric effect is not observed at any intensity of irradiation, which also could not be explained in classical physics.
Experimental observations of the electron, a particle discovered at the end of the 19th century, showed that the ratio of its charge to mass is not constant, but depends on its velocity, which contradicted the theoretical provisions of classical physics.

By the end of the 19th century, more and more doubts arose about the concept of absolute space, which (in accordance with this concept) is unobservable. A contradiction arose: for physics (by definition) there are no things that are not detectable in any experiments, and yet, in all the theoretical constructions of classical physics, the existence of absolute space is explicitly or implicitly assumed. For some time, there was hope to resolve this contradiction by discovering the ether, a hypothetical material medium that fills absolute space, and in which (it was assumed) electromagnetic waves propagate, but the Michelson experiment, carried out in 1887 for this purpose, did not detect the existence of the ether.

The mismatch of these and other observed phenomena with classical theories gave rise to doubts about the universality of those fundamental principles on which these theories are built, including the laws of conservation of mass, energy, and momentum. The famous French mathematician and physicist Henri Poincaré called this situation the "crisis of physics".

But these classical theories are still taught in schools and institutes.
The Big Bang theory remains the dominant official hypothesis of the formation of the universe in academic science.

How could such a strictly regular, harmonious structure as the universe have arisen as a result of an explosion? An explosion destroys, not creates.
This is approximately the same as assuming that an airplane can be formed as a result of an explosion of an aircraft factory