Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Motion vs Momentum and time
183 views
Skip to first unread message
Y
Sep 28, 2012, 4:14:15 AM9/28/12
to
Regarding p=mv
"Momentum" although a form of motion, is clearly something quite
different to motion itself. Momentum is not only a form of motion, it
is also the the impetus of an object that can be transferred to other
objects. Motion alone is not necessarily a quantity that is conserved
or transferable. With motion, what we observe is an object moving
through space. There are two more observations which can be made to
qualify this moving thing. The first thing is that the object has
mass, the second thing is that the object has moved by a distance or
length of space.
The purpose of my investigation is to show that motion occurs
independently of time. If I can prove this, I can disprove spacetime
as a naturally corresponding model of the universe. While "time" is
useful for setting a benchmark for speed, I intend to show that "time"
is not something that is necessarily required of motion.
Time may be useful in mathematics when we are comparing speeds or
acceleration of objects as trends, but not necessarily useful for
describing motion in general. It is possible and useful to use time in
describing trends and behaviors of motion, but not necessary. It is
possible that the motion of all objects occurs independently of time.
I have changed my opinion on the first equation Motion = mass-Energy /
distance. I now think that motion can be broken down into two
categories, and it is interesting because the result are two equations
which are reciprocals, and can be used to describe all motion. This
motion happens regardless of velocity, displacement or acceleration.
1.
The first equation is that Motion = mass-Energy x distance. In other
words, motion is the movement of a mass by a certain distance.
M= mEd
2.
The second equation relates to motion, how it arises from force. Force
= mass-Energy/distance. In practice, when we apply this equation to a
car (which moves) we can see the Joules used per meter to "move" a
car. So in a way, it can be used as an equation for fuel consumption,
or "kinetic force". The second equation is also a form of motion, in
the sense of the "outthrow", or "metabolism" required to move an
object. Consider, when you move, your body "moves" energy out of
itself. Richard Dawkins says "Matter flows from place to place, and
momentarily comes together to be you"
F=mE/d
Together..
If you move your hand across space, you're
1. Moving mass-Energy "across" or "by" a distance. kg m
2. Metabolizing mass-Energy to make this movement. kg/m
If my arm weighs 5kg, and moves for 1 meter, and I lose .00008kg of my
bodies mass-energy moving it, then the motion can be described as..
5kgm @ .00008kg/m
If my arm weighs 5kg, and moves for 2 meters, and I lose .00016 kg of
my bodies mass-energy moving it, then the motion can be described as..
10kgm @ .00016kg/m
What we can further ascertain from this information is a Motion to
Kinetic Force ratio. When we think of an ant that carries 100 times
it's body weight, we find this ratio quite remarkable. Think then
also, the tiny amount of mass-Energy, which it uses to carry this load
over a certain distance. It can only be a small fraction of the ant's
overall mass-Energy which is converting mass-Energy into a force which
can move much larger masses.
The same principle can be applied when we look at our cars. Just 80
grams of fuel is all that is required to move a 1.5 tonne car, and it
is able to sustain this motion for a certain distance.
-y
"Momentum" although a form of motion, is clearly something quite
different to motion itself. Momentum is not only a form of motion, it
is also the the impetus of an object that can be transferred to other
objects. Motion alone is not necessarily a quantity that is conserved
or transferable. With motion, what we observe is an object moving
through space. There are two more observations which can be made to
qualify this moving thing. The first thing is that the object has
mass, the second thing is that the object has moved by a distance or
length of space.
The purpose of my investigation is to show that motion occurs
independently of time. If I can prove this, I can disprove spacetime
as a naturally corresponding model of the universe. While "time" is
useful for setting a benchmark for speed, I intend to show that "time"
is not something that is necessarily required of motion.
Time may be useful in mathematics when we are comparing speeds or
acceleration of objects as trends, but not necessarily useful for
describing motion in general. It is possible and useful to use time in
describing trends and behaviors of motion, but not necessary. It is
possible that the motion of all objects occurs independently of time.
I have changed my opinion on the first equation Motion = mass-Energy /
distance. I now think that motion can be broken down into two
categories, and it is interesting because the result are two equations
which are reciprocals, and can be used to describe all motion. This
motion happens regardless of velocity, displacement or acceleration.
1.
The first equation is that Motion = mass-Energy x distance. In other
words, motion is the movement of a mass by a certain distance.
M= mEd
2.
The second equation relates to motion, how it arises from force. Force
= mass-Energy/distance. In practice, when we apply this equation to a
car (which moves) we can see the Joules used per meter to "move" a
car. So in a way, it can be used as an equation for fuel consumption,
or "kinetic force". The second equation is also a form of motion, in
the sense of the "outthrow", or "metabolism" required to move an
object. Consider, when you move, your body "moves" energy out of
itself. Richard Dawkins says "Matter flows from place to place, and
momentarily comes together to be you"
F=mE/d
Together..
If you move your hand across space, you're
1. Moving mass-Energy "across" or "by" a distance. kg m
2. Metabolizing mass-Energy to make this movement. kg/m
If my arm weighs 5kg, and moves for 1 meter, and I lose .00008kg of my
bodies mass-energy moving it, then the motion can be described as..
5kgm @ .00008kg/m
If my arm weighs 5kg, and moves for 2 meters, and I lose .00016 kg of
my bodies mass-energy moving it, then the motion can be described as..
10kgm @ .00016kg/m
What we can further ascertain from this information is a Motion to
Kinetic Force ratio. When we think of an ant that carries 100 times
it's body weight, we find this ratio quite remarkable. Think then
also, the tiny amount of mass-Energy, which it uses to carry this load
over a certain distance. It can only be a small fraction of the ant's
overall mass-Energy which is converting mass-Energy into a force which
can move much larger masses.
The same principle can be applied when we look at our cars. Just 80
grams of fuel is all that is required to move a 1.5 tonne car, and it
is able to sustain this motion for a certain distance.
-y
Dirk Van de moortel
Sep 28, 2012, 6:39:37 AM9/28/12
to
Y <yana...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Regarding p=mv
>
> "Momentum" although a form of motion, is clearly something quite
> different to motion itself. Momentum is not only a form of motion, it
> is also the the impetus of an object that can be transferred to other
> objects. Motion alone is not necessarily a quantity that is conserved
> or transferable. With motion, what we observe is an object moving
> through space. There are two more observations which can be made to
> qualify this moving thing. The first thing is that the object has
> mass, the second thing is that the object has moved by a distance or
> length of space.
>
> The purpose of my investigation is to show that motion occurs
> independently of time. If I can prove this, I can disprove spacetime
> as a naturally corresponding model of the universe.
Yes. And if you define an oven as an object that produces
> Regarding p=mv
>
> "Momentum" although a form of motion, is clearly something quite
> different to motion itself. Momentum is not only a form of motion, it
> is also the the impetus of an object that can be transferred to other
> objects. Motion alone is not necessarily a quantity that is conserved
> or transferable. With motion, what we observe is an object moving
> through space. There are two more observations which can be made to
> qualify this moving thing. The first thing is that the object has
> mass, the second thing is that the object has moved by a distance or
> length of space.
>
> The purpose of my investigation is to show that motion occurs
> independently of time. If I can prove this, I can disprove spacetime
> as a naturally corresponding model of the universe.
ice cubes, then you can disprove that a kitchen is a proper
place to prepare food.
Dirk Vdm
Big Dog
Sep 28, 2012, 9:10:55 AM9/28/12
to
On 9/28/2012 3:14 AM, Y wrote:
> Regarding p=mv
>
> "Momentum" although a form of motion, is clearly something quite
> different to motion itself. Momentum is not only a form of motion, it
> is also the the impetus of an object that can be transferred to other
> objects. Motion alone is not necessarily a quantity that is conserved
> or transferable. With motion, what we observe is an object moving
> through space. There are two more observations which can be made to
> qualify this moving thing. The first thing is that the object has
> mass, the second thing is that the object has moved by a distance or
> length of space.
>
What do you think "motion" means to a physicist?
> Regarding p=mv
>
> "Momentum" although a form of motion, is clearly something quite
> different to motion itself. Momentum is not only a form of motion, it
> is also the the impetus of an object that can be transferred to other
> objects. Motion alone is not necessarily a quantity that is conserved
> or transferable. With motion, what we observe is an object moving
> through space. There are two more observations which can be made to
> qualify this moving thing. The first thing is that the object has
> mass, the second thing is that the object has moved by a distance or
> length of space.
>
Y
Sep 28, 2012, 9:53:44 AM9/28/12
to
" Motion is typically described in terms of velocity, acceleration,
displacement, and time "
I'll go through these now, and highlight why I think that motion is
separate but together from velocity, acceleration, displacement, and
time. Mathematics is the language of physics.
1. Velocity is a very specific concept, and we are looking at a trend
or behavior of motion.
2. Acceleration is a very specific concept, and is another trend or
behavior of motion.
3. Displacement is the shortest distance (in space) between the
starting point and finishing point of an object.
4. Time actually moves. It's not some cosmic stuff of the universe you
know. The reason time moves has more to do with the fact that clocks
move. Time exists because clocks exist. Think about looking at a
pretty cup cake. Some people say that's a pretty cup cake, others say
that's just flour sugar and color. Some people say that there are
these clocks and the measure time. Others say that there are these
devices that oscillate regularly, others say there are these devices
which move around in circles.
Motion is interesting and also very specific because it is "all" of
these things.
When something has speed, it is a mass moving by a distance
when something is accelerating, it is a mass moving by a distance
when something is displacing, it is a mass moving by a distance
When a secondhand or a pendulum moves, it is a mass moving by a
distance
-y
Big Dog
Sep 28, 2012, 10:06:49 AM9/28/12
to
On 9/28/2012 8:53 AM, Y wrote:
> On Sep 28, 11:10 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/28/2012 3:14 AM, Y wrote:
>>
>>> Regarding p=mv
>>
>>> "Momentum" although a form of motion, is clearly something quite
>>> different to motion itself. Momentum is not only a form of motion, it
>>> is also the the impetus of an object that can be transferred to other
>>> objects. Motion alone is not necessarily a quantity that is conserved
>>> or transferable. With motion, what we observe is an object moving
>>> through space. There are two more observations which can be made to
>>> qualify this moving thing. The first thing is that the object has
>>> mass, the second thing is that the object has moved by a distance or
>>> length of space.
>>
>> What do you think "motion" means to a physicist?
>
> Wiki defines motion as any movement or change in position or time.
>
> " Motion is typically described in terms of velocity, acceleration,
> displacement, and time "
That is, motion is a broad, vague term that does not describe anything
> On Sep 28, 11:10 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/28/2012 3:14 AM, Y wrote:
>>
>>> Regarding p=mv
>>
>>> "Momentum" although a form of motion, is clearly something quite
>>> different to motion itself. Momentum is not only a form of motion, it
>>> is also the the impetus of an object that can be transferred to other
>>> objects. Motion alone is not necessarily a quantity that is conserved
>>> or transferable. With motion, what we observe is an object moving
>>> through space. There are two more observations which can be made to
>>> qualify this moving thing. The first thing is that the object has
>>> mass, the second thing is that the object has moved by a distance or
>>> length of space.
>>
>> What do you think "motion" means to a physicist?
>
> Wiki defines motion as any movement or change in position or time.
>
> " Motion is typically described in terms of velocity, acceleration,
> displacement, and time "
in particular, but is instead a *category* of concepts, those being
velocity, acceleration, displacement, and time. I would add to that list
pathlength, momentum, kinetic energy.
In this sense it makes no sense to distinguish motion from these terms,
any more than it makes sense to distinguish "animals" from "vertebrates"
or "mammals", because "animals" is a category containing the latter
concepts.
>
> I'll go through these now, and highlight why I think that motion is
> separate but together from velocity, acceleration, displacement, and
> time. Mathematics is the language of physics.
>
> 1. Velocity is a very specific concept, and we are looking at a trend
> or behavior of motion.
> 2. Acceleration is a very specific concept, and is another trend or
> behavior of motion.
> 3. Displacement is the shortest distance (in space) between the
> starting point and finishing point of an object.
> 4. Time actually moves. It's not some cosmic stuff of the universe you
> know. The reason time moves has more to do with the fact that clocks
> move. Time exists because clocks exist. Think about looking at a
> pretty cup cake. Some people say that's a pretty cup cake, others say
> that's just flour sugar and color. Some people say that there are
> these clocks and the measure time. Others say that there are these
> devices that oscillate regularly, others say there are these devices
> which move around in circles.
of velocity, acceleration, displacement, and time, and then made up your
own definitions of those concepts, rather than looking up what
displacement, velocity, acceleration, and time mean to a physicist. It
would help enormously if you would bother to investigate what these
concepts mean to physicists.
For example, below you say that the concept of speed necessarily
involves the mass of a body, which is simply not the case. Light, for
example, has a speed, though there is no mass involved at all. The
propagation of a sound pulse in an iron bar also has a speed, though
there is no mass moving from one end of the bar to the other (the bar
has mass, but that mass is not moving with that speed).
Start from the basics, and first understand what the difference is
between pathlength and displacement, and how to *connect* the two. That
is, how do you get pathlength from displacement, and vice versa? Then
understand what velocity and acceleration MEAN. Then you'll start to
understand the particular concepts in the *category* "motion".
Dirk Van de moortel
Sep 28, 2012, 10:48:56 AM9/28/12
to
Y <yana...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Regarding p=mv
>
> "Momentum" although a form of motion, is clearly something quite
> different to motion itself. Momentum is not only a form of motion, it
> is also the the impetus of an object that can be transferred to other
> objects. Motion alone is not necessarily a quantity that is conserved
> or transferable. With motion, what we observe is an object moving
> through space. There are two more observations which can be made to
> qualify this moving thing. The first thing is that the object has
> mass, the second thing is that the object has moved by a distance or
> length of space.
>
> The purpose of my investigation is to show that motion occurs
> independently of time. If I can prove this, I can disprove spacetime
> as a naturally corresponding model of the universe.
To stay closer to your example, if you define cooking as
> Regarding p=mv
>
> "Momentum" although a form of motion, is clearly something quite
> different to motion itself. Momentum is not only a form of motion, it
> is also the the impetus of an object that can be transferred to other
> objects. Motion alone is not necessarily a quantity that is conserved
> or transferable. With motion, what we observe is an object moving
> through space. There are two more observations which can be made to
> qualify this moving thing. The first thing is that the object has
> mass, the second thing is that the object has moved by a distance or
> length of space.
>
> The purpose of my investigation is to show that motion occurs
> independently of time. If I can prove this, I can disprove spacetime
> as a naturally corresponding model of the universe.
raising an ingredient's temperature from one value to an
higher value independently of time, then you can disprove
that a cookbook is a useful tool to help prepare food.
Dirk Vdm
Big Dog
Sep 28, 2012, 10:57:56 AM9/28/12
to
On 9/28/2012 3:14 AM, Y wrote:
>
>
> The purpose of my investigation is to show that motion occurs
> independently of time. If I can prove this, I can disprove spacetime
> as a naturally corresponding model of the universe. While "time" is
> useful for setting a benchmark for speed, I intend to show that "time"
> is not something that is necessarily required of motion.
>
I don't understand this motivation-based examination.
> independently of time. If I can prove this, I can disprove spacetime
> as a naturally corresponding model of the universe. While "time" is
> useful for setting a benchmark for speed, I intend to show that "time"
> is not something that is necessarily required of motion.
>
It seems you want to eliminate time as a physical concept, though it
seems to be part and parcel of not only modern physics but physics from
time immemorial, and it definitely is a well-defined concept in human
experience. So I'm curious WHY you are motivated to do that.
It seems one compelling reason is that you need to eliminate time as a
physical concept in order to remove spacetime as a concept. It's as
though you can embrace space easily but spacetime you cannot, and so you
want to put everything in terms of space without time involved at all,
just so you don't have to wrestle with spacetime. So then of course I am
curious WHY you are motivated to not deal with spacetime.
Big Dog
Sep 28, 2012, 11:38:11 AM9/28/12
to
On 9/28/2012 8:53 AM, Y wrote:
> 4. Time actually moves. It's not some cosmic stuff of the universe you
> know. The reason time moves has more to do with the fact that clocks
> move. Time exists because clocks exist. Think about looking at a
> pretty cup cake. Some people say that's a pretty cup cake, others say
> that's just flour sugar and color. Some people say that there are
> these clocks and the measure time. Others say that there are these
> devices that oscillate regularly, others say there are these devices
> which move around in circles.
Be careful about talking about oscillations as just being motion in circles.
> know. The reason time moves has more to do with the fact that clocks
> move. Time exists because clocks exist. Think about looking at a
> pretty cup cake. Some people say that's a pretty cup cake, others say
> that's just flour sugar and color. Some people say that there are
> these clocks and the measure time. Others say that there are these
> devices that oscillate regularly, others say there are these devices
> which move around in circles.
I'd like for you try to identify the circular motion that is directly
related to some of these oscillations:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iuv24zcc5kI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdscFBvdTLg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBA32xnhE1Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpEevfOU4Z8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubRlaCCQfDk
Secondly, I'd like you to consider time in a non-oscillatory sense.
- Half-life of nuclear decay
- Chemical reaction rate
- Accumulation of interest in a bank account
- Non-reversible processes, such as the breaking of an egg or the
crumpling of metal
Big Dog
Sep 28, 2012, 2:39:45 PM9/28/12
to
On 9/28/2012 8:53 AM, Y wrote:
>
>
> I'll go through these now, and highlight why I think that motion is
> separate but together from velocity, acceleration, displacement, and
> time. Mathematics is the language of physics.
>
> 1. Velocity is a very specific concept, and we are looking at a trend
> or behavior of motion.
> 2. Acceleration is a very specific concept, and is another trend or
> behavior of motion.
> 3. Displacement is the shortest distance (in space) between the
> starting point and finishing point of an object.
> 4. Time actually moves. It's not some cosmic stuff of the universe you
> know. The reason time moves has more to do with the fact that clocks
> move. Time exists because clocks exist. Think about looking at a
> pretty cup cake. Some people say that's a pretty cup cake, others say
> that's just flour sugar and color. Some people say that there are
> these clocks and the measure time. Others say that there are these
> devices that oscillate regularly, others say there are these devices
> which move around in circles.
>
>
> Motion is interesting and also very specific because it is "all" of
> these things.
>
Following up on this, we can narrow down the problem.
> separate but together from velocity, acceleration, displacement, and
> time. Mathematics is the language of physics.
>
> 1. Velocity is a very specific concept, and we are looking at a trend
> or behavior of motion.
> 2. Acceleration is a very specific concept, and is another trend or
> behavior of motion.
> 3. Displacement is the shortest distance (in space) between the
> starting point and finishing point of an object.
> 4. Time actually moves. It's not some cosmic stuff of the universe you
> know. The reason time moves has more to do with the fact that clocks
> move. Time exists because clocks exist. Think about looking at a
> pretty cup cake. Some people say that's a pretty cup cake, others say
> that's just flour sugar and color. Some people say that there are
> these clocks and the measure time. Others say that there are these
> devices that oscillate regularly, others say there are these devices
> which move around in circles.
>
>
> Motion is interesting and also very specific because it is "all" of
> these things.
>
As you've described it above, motion is indeed all of these things,
because "motion" is a vague term that denotes a *category* of concepts,
while displacement, velocity, acceleration, time, momentum, pathlength,
are all *specific* concepts with clear and unambiguous definitions and
which have quantitative relationships with each other.
For example, velocity is *unambiguously* defined as the time-rate of
change of displacement. Acceleration is the time-rate of change of velocity.
You're on the hunt for a quantity that would fall under the *category*
of motion that is independent of time. There are such quantities
already, by the way: displacement and pathlength fall under the category
of motion (when we observe something displaced, then we say it has been
moved). But you are looking for another.
Because "motion" as you've described it is a *category* however, you
will not find an expression that can quantify it by a formula. As soon
as you try to make it specific, it can no longer be a category.
Remember, velocity (time-rate of change of displacement) IS a kind of
motion. You can't have motion be redefined in such a way that velocity
is no longer motion -- or you will cease to communicate with people who
have some mental image of what motion means.
Hence, once again, the problem is loose language. You want to find a
quantity that is related to either mass/distance or mass x distance or
distance / energy or something like that. Fine. Give it a new name, like
"ranginess" or "burnosity" or something, and put it under the category
of motion along with the other terms. But as it is, you've gotten
yourself in trouble trying to make the general specific.
Pete Weber
Sep 28, 2012, 3:21:06 PM9/28/12
to
He want to eliminate entropy and cause-effect, which is nonsense
Y
Sep 28, 2012, 8:46:50 PM9/28/12
to
motion in it.
-y
space...@gmail.com
Sep 28, 2012, 9:37:10 PM9/28/12
to
On Friday, September 28, 2012 1:14:16 AM UTC-7, Y wrote:
> Regarding p=mv
>
Speed in slow time is a contracted metric.
Mitchell Raemsch
> Regarding p=mv
>
Speed in slow time is a contracted metric.
Mitchell Raemsch
Y
Sep 28, 2012, 10:21:52 PM9/28/12
to
On Sep 29, 12:57 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/28/2012 3:14 AM, Y wrote:
> It seems you want to eliminate time as a physical concept
Exactly. Because time is not universal, rather it is either something
> On 9/28/2012 3:14 AM, Y wrote:
> It seems you want to eliminate time as a physical concept
that is produced by clocks, or something that appears in an equation.
> So I'm curious WHY you are motivated to do that.
mathematical language, which is only a way of describing things. It is
a massive leap in logic to use a mathematical model, and then claim
that what is being described is a natural thing.
Time does not even really describe change, it is an epistemological
artificial backdrop by which changes can be measured. This does not
entail that time is some physical part of the universe. And yet,
especially with ideas such as spacetime, time becomes this "stuff"
that is part of the universe.
> It seems one compelling reason is that you need to eliminate time as a
> physical concept in order to remove spacetime as a concept. It's as
> though you can embrace space easily but spacetime you cannot, and so you
> want to put everything in terms of space without time involved at all,
> just so you don't have to wrestle with spacetime. So then of course I am
> curious WHY you are motivated to not deal with spacetime.
is a well corresponding model of natural space.
I might be wrong, but I feel (considering the artificial nature of
time) that a more naturally corresponding model of physics can be
built without time. You've probably read it from me before, when I
create speed with my car, I am not decreasing t in an equation, I am
increasing the balance between the mass of fuel I use per meter, vs
the mass of the car. I believe that a model for speed can be arrived
at without using time. The resulting model would correspond naturally
to what is really going on.
-y
Y
Sep 28, 2012, 10:31:44 PM9/28/12
to
LIGHTWEIGHT chasis. When I lived in Europe I used to work for
pininfarina.. This is how a FAST car is designed.
-y
Y
Sep 28, 2012, 11:28:23 PM9/28/12
to
On Sep 29, 12:06 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Wiki defines motion as any movement or change in position or time.
>
> > " Motion is typically described in terms of velocity, acceleration,
> > displacement, and time "
>
> That is, motion is a broad, vague term that does not describe anything
> in particular, but is instead a *category* of concepts, those being
> velocity, acceleration, displacement, and time.
No, that is, motion is a "movement" OR "change in position" OR a
> > Wiki defines motion as any movement or change in position or time.
>
> > " Motion is typically described in terms of velocity, acceleration,
> > displacement, and time "
>
> That is, motion is a broad, vague term that does not describe anything
> in particular, but is instead a *category* of concepts, those being
> velocity, acceleration, displacement, and time.
"change in time".
TYPICALLY, described in terms of...
In other words, when describing the behavior or trends of motion ...
we can use velocity, acceleration, displacement and time.
-y
Y
Sep 28, 2012, 11:35:37 PM9/28/12
to
On Sep 29, 12:48 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
I'm not seeking to get rid of time Dirk, I am seeking to have it
appropriately defined...
Time is NOT natural.
-y
<dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
appropriately defined...
Time is NOT natural.
-y
Dirk Van de moortel
Sep 29, 2012, 5:57:45 AM9/29/12
to
"Pete Weber" <p4g...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:k44tb2$1n6$3...@speranza.aioe.org
Cookbooks tell you *how long* your pizza should stay in a 200
degrees oven.
Dirk Vdm
news:k44tb2$1n6$3...@speranza.aioe.org
degrees oven.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
Sep 29, 2012, 6:00:09 AM9/29/12
to
"Y" <yana...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ed3ad958-5462-4cc6...@kg10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com
Trousers are not natural either.
Dirk Vdm
news:ed3ad958-5462-4cc6...@kg10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com
Dirk Vdm
Y
Sep 29, 2012, 7:26:37 AM9/29/12
to
On Sep 29, 7:57 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
-y
<dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> "Pete Weber" <p4g...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:k44tb2$1n6$3...@speranza.aioe.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 16:48:56 +0200, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> "Pete Weber" <p4g...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:k44tb2$1n6$3...@speranza.aioe.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 16:48:56 +0200, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> >> Y <yanar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Regarding p=mv
>
> >>> "Momentum" although a form of motion, is clearly something quite
> >>> different to motion itself. Momentum is not only a form of motion,
> >>> it is also the the impetus of an object that can be transferred to
> >>> other objects. Motion alone is not necessarily a quantity that is
> >>> conserved or transferable. With motion, what we observe is an
> >>> object moving through space. There are two more observations which
> >>> can be made to qualify this moving thing. The first thing is that
> >>> the object has mass, the second thing is that the object has moved
> >>> by a distance or length of space.
>
> >>> The purpose of my investigation is to show that motion occurs
> >>> independently of time. If I can prove this, I can disprove
> >>> spacetime as a naturally corresponding model of the universe.
>
> >> To stay closer to your example, if you define cooking as raising an
> >> ingredient's temperature from one value to an higher value
> >> independently of time, then you can disprove that a cookbook is a
> >> useful tool to help prepare food.
>
> >> Dirk Vdm
>
> > Temperature flow and cookbooks are unrelated, what are you trying to
> > say
>
> Cookbooks tell you *how long* your pizza should stay in a 200
> degrees oven.
>
> Dirk Vdm
Or until the crust is golden brown... ;)
> >>> Regarding p=mv
>
> >>> "Momentum" although a form of motion, is clearly something quite
> >>> different to motion itself. Momentum is not only a form of motion,
> >>> it is also the the impetus of an object that can be transferred to
> >>> other objects. Motion alone is not necessarily a quantity that is
> >>> conserved or transferable. With motion, what we observe is an
> >>> object moving through space. There are two more observations which
> >>> can be made to qualify this moving thing. The first thing is that
> >>> the object has mass, the second thing is that the object has moved
> >>> by a distance or length of space.
>
> >>> The purpose of my investigation is to show that motion occurs
> >>> independently of time. If I can prove this, I can disprove
> >>> spacetime as a naturally corresponding model of the universe.
>
> >> To stay closer to your example, if you define cooking as raising an
> >> ingredient's temperature from one value to an higher value
> >> independently of time, then you can disprove that a cookbook is a
> >> useful tool to help prepare food.
>
> >> Dirk Vdm
>
> > Temperature flow and cookbooks are unrelated, what are you trying to
> > say
>
> Cookbooks tell you *how long* your pizza should stay in a 200
> degrees oven.
>
> Dirk Vdm
-y
Pete Weber
Sep 29, 2012, 7:49:17 AM9/29/12
to
Time is an ordered passage of events
Pete Weber
Sep 29, 2012, 8:02:57 AM9/29/12
to
Y
Sep 29, 2012, 8:41:08 AM9/29/12
to
sequences of these flows exist only in memory, or notes. Memories are
psychological. Categorizing memory into, "before" and "after" is just
categorization.
-y
Pete Weber
Sep 29, 2012, 9:08:55 AM9/29/12
to
[crap snipped]
Y
Sep 29, 2012, 8:26:01 PM9/29/12
to
-y
Y
Sep 29, 2012, 8:30:41 PM9/29/12
to
time, and rather that things simply move. ?
Cause and effect still exist in this universe. When something moves,
it causes a memory in the brain. The brain would then interpret this
motion as an event that has occurred before...
-y
Y
Sep 29, 2012, 11:21:03 PM9/29/12
to
Whether it is the universe that generates this ordered passage, or
your thinking that generates it, is partially what the debate is
about.
BTW, you bring up one of the hardest nuts to crack, because it relates
to psychology and perception of "an ordered passage of events"
-y
Poutnik
Sep 30, 2012, 9:04:28 AM9/30/12
to
Y from yana...@hotmail.com
posted Sat, 29 Sep 2012 17:30:41 -0700 (PDT)
>
> Do you think it is possible that your memory creates an illusion of
> time, and rather that things simply move. ?
>
> Cause and effect still exist in this universe. When something moves, it
> causes a memory in the brain. The brain would then interpret this
> motion as an event that has occurred before...
>
It is nothing but variability of space coordinates on time,
like x = x(t), where x are coordinates generally in n-dimensional space.
Quantified it is equal to time derivative of x.
Still pure math.
Even massless, size-less and energy-less abstract point can move.
Applied to physics, physical movement/motion
is time variability of object coordinates,
related to used frame of reference and system of coordinates.
--
Poutnik
Current way of spaced quoting by GoogleGroups is disaster,
if combined with no quoting by some GG users.
JT
Oct 1, 2012, 3:12:49 AM10/1/12
to
basicly the PE it inhabits within the measurement frame.
JT
Oct 1, 2012, 3:25:59 AM10/1/12
to
basicly given a bow or spring transfering all the stored energy no
(KE) waisted via an elastic collision transfering the stored PE, the
same amount of PE relative the stationary system is carried by the
object.
Y
Oct 1, 2012, 4:31:26 AM10/1/12
to
-y
JT
Oct 1, 2012, 5:00:54 AM10/1/12
to
The action of stretching the spring or lifting the mass is performed
by an external force that works against the force field of the
potential. This work is stored in the force field, which is said to be
stored as potential energy.
Big Dog
Oct 1, 2012, 8:34:14 AM10/1/12
to
On 9/28/2012 9:21 PM, Y wrote:
> On Sep 29, 12:57 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/28/2012 3:14 AM, Y wrote:
>
>> It seems you want to eliminate time as a physical concept
>
> Exactly. Because time is not universal, rather it is either something
> that is produced by clocks, or something that appears in an equation.
>
Why is time less universal to you than space?
> On Sep 29, 12:57 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/28/2012 3:14 AM, Y wrote:
>
>> It seems you want to eliminate time as a physical concept
>
> Exactly. Because time is not universal, rather it is either something
> that is produced by clocks, or something that appears in an equation.
>
Give examples.
Big Dog
Oct 1, 2012, 9:24:10 AM10/1/12
to
On 9/28/2012 9:31 PM, Y wrote:
> This is why FAST cars are usually built around LARGE engines, and
> LIGHTWEIGHT chasis. When I lived in Europe I used to work for
> pininfarina.. This is how a FAST car is designed.
You confuse several things.
> This is why FAST cars are usually built around LARGE engines, and
> LIGHTWEIGHT chasis. When I lived in Europe I used to work for
> pininfarina.. This is how a FAST car is designed.
A light chassis lowers mass, and a large engine can generate a large
force. The result is high *acceleration*, not high speed.
The high *speed* comes from gear ratios in the transmission. It also has
to do with lowering the *opposing* force from air resistance and tire
friction that the force of the engine has to match just to maintain
speed. This lowering of the resistance has to do with aerodynamic body
shape and suspension.
It would help, as I've said repeatedly, if you looked at how ordinary
freshman physics shows how to understand cars, you might find that
you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist.
paparios
Oct 1, 2012, 9:44:16 AM10/1/12
to
El lunes, 1 de octubre de 2012 09:24:07 UTC-4, Big Dog escribió:
> On 9/28/2012 9:31 PM, Y wrote:
>
>
>
> > This is why FAST cars are usually built around LARGE engines, and
>
> > LIGHTWEIGHT chasis. When I lived in Europe I used to work for
>
> > pininfarina.. This is how a FAST car is designed.
>
>
>
> You confuse several things.
>
>
>
> A light chassis lowers mass, and a large engine can generate a large
>
> force. The result is high *acceleration*, not high speed.
>
>
>
> The high *speed* comes from gear ratios in the transmission. It also has
>
> to do with lowering the *opposing* force from air resistance and tire
>
> friction that the force of the engine has to match just to maintain
>
> speed. This lowering of the resistance has to do with aerodynamic body
>
> shape and suspension.
>
>
This is quite true. The Citroen CX is a classical example of a heavy car with a low power engine, which thanks to a low drag coefficient (The name CX is the French equivalent abbreviation of Cd for drag coefficient in English) was able to reach 200 km/hr.
> On 9/28/2012 9:31 PM, Y wrote:
>
>
>
> > This is why FAST cars are usually built around LARGE engines, and
>
> > LIGHTWEIGHT chasis. When I lived in Europe I used to work for
>
> > pininfarina.. This is how a FAST car is designed.
>
>
>
> You confuse several things.
>
>
>
> A light chassis lowers mass, and a large engine can generate a large
>
> force. The result is high *acceleration*, not high speed.
>
>
>
> The high *speed* comes from gear ratios in the transmission. It also has
>
> to do with lowering the *opposing* force from air resistance and tire
>
> friction that the force of the engine has to match just to maintain
>
> speed. This lowering of the resistance has to do with aerodynamic body
>
> shape and suspension.
>
>
Big Dog
Oct 1, 2012, 10:58:14 AM10/1/12
to
On 9/29/2012 7:41 AM, Y wrote:
>
> Things move sequentially. Matter flows through the universe. The
> sequences of these flows exist only in memory, or notes. Memories are
> psychological. Categorizing memory into, "before" and "after" is just
> categorization.
Do you believe that physical prior cause and subsequent effect happened
>
> Things move sequentially. Matter flows through the universe. The
> sequences of these flows exist only in memory, or notes. Memories are
> psychological. Categorizing memory into, "before" and "after" is just
> categorization.
before there were any conscious entities to have memory?
Y
Oct 1, 2012, 9:08:20 PM10/1/12
to
you have cause and effect without silly time. "before" and "after" are
silly ideas that *YOU* apply to these events.
-y
Y
Oct 1, 2012, 9:11:27 PM10/1/12
to
artificial timeline...
-y
David Fuller
Oct 1, 2012, 9:30:48 PM10/1/12
to
Why does it take a certain amount of
Time
For the magnet to fall through the pipe?
http://youtu.be/E97CYWlALEs
Time
For the magnet to fall through the pipe?
http://youtu.be/E97CYWlALEs
Big Dog
Oct 2, 2012, 7:50:23 AM10/2/12
to
biochemical reactions could produce DNA.
Big Dog
Oct 2, 2012, 7:51:16 AM10/2/12
to
sense occupation in one case and not in the other?
Y
Oct 2, 2012, 6:25:48 PM10/2/12
to
-y
Y
Oct 2, 2012, 6:27:27 PM10/2/12
to
course, we call that sequence time, but the axis by which you plot
these events is artificial.
-y
Poutnik
Oct 3, 2012, 1:21:05 AM10/3/12
to
Y from yana...@hotmail.com
posted Tue, 2 Oct 2012 15:25:48 -0700 (PDT)
a car has no speed and therefore
manifests no motion.
Poutnik
Oct 3, 2012, 1:24:05 AM10/3/12
to
Y from yana...@hotmail.com
posted Tue, 2 Oct 2012 15:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
>
> Sure I believe that since things move there can be a sequence. Of
> course, we call that sequence time, but the axis by which you plot
> these events is artificial.
>
OTOH time sequence axis line make sense even without motion,
for time changes being in rest.
JT
Oct 3, 2012, 3:21:34 AM10/3/12
to
existence, of course time is motion at some metalevel time can not
exist outside motion and causal logic, no more then matter can exist
without energy. Motion and matter is simply configurations of energy
at the most basic level. What would be interesting to know is how
these charge like things making up ->matter and causing ->motion looks
within their original configuration. The day before time and i think
it was probably perfect symmetrical aligned charges and therefor no
forces within a flat filament. But once a charge flip occured there
was no netforce to resist the following wave of charge flips spreading
as a wave all over filament, so it started to create charge
configurations positive/negative konkave/konvex regions that finally
enclosed themself and matter was created. Matter is the ultimate
source of time, the movement of matter and the oscillating waves
emanating from spinning matter. Einsteins corpulusces is simply charge
flipping within the grid emanating from oscilatting matter in the
filament.
JT
Oct 3, 2012, 3:41:15 AM10/3/12
to
Y
Oct 4, 2012, 8:19:14 AM10/4/12
to
On 3 Oct, 17:21, JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 Okt, 00:27, Y <yanar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> An event with start and end manifest time and is proof of time
> existence, of course time is motion at some metalevel time can not
> exist outside motion and causal logic, no more then matter can exist
> without energy.
Not necessarily. An event can be defined as having a beginning and an
> On 3 Okt, 00:27, Y <yanar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> An event with start and end manifest time and is proof of time
> existence, of course time is motion at some metalevel time can not
> exist outside motion and causal logic, no more then matter can exist
> without energy.
end, sure.. The question is, what is this stuff between a beginning
and an end ? In a purely natural sense, I think that there is motion
from the beginning to the end of an event. In terms of measurement, I
could arbitrarily call this duration a 'time', but this would not be
talking with reference to any natural thing. If anything I have said
to date regarding time best alludes to my point of view, it is in this
paragraph.
-y
Y
Oct 4, 2012, 8:23:39 AM10/4/12
to
> Matter is the ultimate source of time, the movement of matter and the oscillating waves
> emanating from spinning matter.
Source of time ? So not only is time natural stuff to you, it has a
> emanating from spinning matter.
source ?
You will find that time is more or less a reference system. This is in
contrast to the idea that time is a natural part of the universe. When
we refer to time, we refer to this reference system. When we refer to
time, we are not referring to any part of the universe, other than the
reference system which is used to represent motion, as well as make
motion mathematical.
-y
Y
Oct 4, 2012, 8:44:25 AM10/4/12
to
terms of behaviours or trends. I have not seen any physics that
explains what motion actually is. Surely, in this day and age motion
is not just an abstract concept. Surely we ought to know what motion
is.
-y
Big Dog
Oct 4, 2012, 10:49:19 AM10/4/12
to
On 10/2/2012 5:27 PM, Y wrote:
>>
>> So, you don't believe, for example, that the earth had to cool *before*
>> biochemical reactions could produce DNA.
>
> Sure I believe that since things move there can be a sequence. Of
> course, we call that sequence time, but the axis by which you plot
> these events is artificial.
So you have a clear understanding of preceding and following in a sequence.
>>
>> So, you don't believe, for example, that the earth had to cool *before*
>> biochemical reactions could produce DNA.
>
> Sure I believe that since things move there can be a sequence. Of
> course, we call that sequence time, but the axis by which you plot
> these events is artificial.
So let's suppose A is observed to precede B.
Let's also suppose that A is observed to precede C, and we also can see
that B precedes C.
Then we have a clear sequence of A --> B --> C.
Now, we can certainly say that there is then SOME quality which is
greater between A and C than it is between A and B.
Do you agree with that?
And we can also suppose that there are certain REPEATING sequences that
we can observe
A precedes B, and then there is another instance of the same thing
happening again, so that A is observed to precede B again.
So we can say that there is SOME quality that is the same in both
instances of A --> B
Do you agree with that?
Poutnik
Oct 4, 2012, 1:10:28 PM10/4/12
to
Y from yana...@hotmail.com posted Thu, 4 Oct 2012 05:19:14 -0700 (PDT)
>
> On 3 Oct, 17:21, JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3 Okt, 00:27, Y <yanar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > An event with start and end manifest time and is proof of time
> > existence, of course time is motion at some metalevel time can not
> > exist outside motion and causal logic, no more then matter can exist
> > without energy.
>
> Not necessarily. An event can be defined as having a beginning and an
> end, sure.. The question is, what is this stuff between a beginning and
> an end ? In a purely natural sense, I think that there is motion from
> the beginning to the end of an event.
as there are events of state changes.
> In terms of measurement, I could
> arbitrarily call this duration a 'time', but this would not be talking
> with reference to any natural thing. If anything I have said to date
> regarding time best alludes to my point of view, it is in this
> paragraph.
>
> -y
JT
Oct 6, 2012, 4:17:19 AM10/6/12
to
the oscillations or movement, this is not hard to understand.
Y
Oct 6, 2012, 4:18:54 AM10/6/12
to
wit.
-y
Big Dog
Oct 6, 2012, 10:19:27 AM10/6/12
to
On 10/6/2012 3:18 AM, Y wrote:
>
> The only thing that can move matter are other things with mass you nit
> wit.
Do you base that statement (which is wrong) on the back of some
>
> The only thing that can move matter are other things with mass you nit
> wit.
argument, or is it simply the case that in every case you're familiar
with that statement is true and therefore you assume it is true in general?
Y
Oct 6, 2012, 9:28:14 PM10/6/12
to
-y
Y
Oct 7, 2012, 1:46:16 AM10/7/12
to
mass ?
-y
JT
Oct 7, 2012, 1:53:31 AM10/7/12
to
On 4 Okt, 14:19, Y <yanar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 Oct, 17:21, JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 3 Okt, 00:27, Y <yanar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > An event with start and end manifest time and is proof of time
> > existence, of course time is motion at some metalevel time can not
> > exist outside motion and causal logic, no more then matter can exist
> > without energy.
>
> Not necessarily. An event can be defined as having a beginning and an
> end, sure.. The question is, what is this stuff between a beginning
> and an end ? In a purely natural sense, I think that there is motion
> from the beginning to the end of an event.
The stuff between is oscillation and motion, on either the observer
> On 3 Oct, 17:21, JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 3 Okt, 00:27, Y <yanar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > An event with start and end manifest time and is proof of time
> > existence, of course time is motion at some metalevel time can not
> > exist outside motion and causal logic, no more then matter can exist
> > without energy.
>
> Not necessarily. An event can be defined as having a beginning and an
> end, sure.. The question is, what is this stuff between a beginning
> and an end ? In a purely natural sense, I think that there is motion
> from the beginning to the end of an event.
side or on the event side.
> In terms of measurement, I
> could arbitrarily call this duration a 'time', but this would not be
> talking with reference to any natural thing. If anything I have said
> to date regarding time best alludes to my point of view, it is in this
> paragraph.
either inertial or gravitation, that could be used for universal time.
>
> -y
Poutnik
Oct 7, 2012, 1:57:04 AM10/7/12
to
Y from yana...@hotmail.com
posted Sat, 6 Oct 2012 22:46:16 -0700 (PDT)
and it does not have mass. :-)
Sure, force is done by mass objects, but not necessarily
with rest mass, as in case of photons.
Once moving, things are moving themselves
and there is nothing what moves them.
JT
Oct 7, 2012, 1:59:14 AM10/7/12
to
waves emanating from oscillating and moving matter is time.
Y
Oct 7, 2012, 2:00:29 AM10/7/12
to
On Oct 7, 3:57 pm, Poutnik <poutnik4n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Y from yanar...@hotmail.com
-y
> Y from yanar...@hotmail.com
> posted Sat, 6 Oct 2012 22:46:16 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 7, 12:19 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 10/6/2012 3:18 AM, Y wrote:
>
> > > > The only thing that can move matter are other things with mass you nit
> > > > wit.
>
> > > Do you base that statement (which is wrong) on the back of some
> > > argument, or is it simply the case that in every case you're familiar
> > > with that statement is true and therefore you assume it is true in general?
>
> > Ok.. name me one thing that can move something which does not have
> > mass ?
>
> > -y
>
> Taking literally, only force can start moving things
> and it does not have mass. :-)
Bollocks. Force is "mass" x acceleration.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 7, 12:19 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 10/6/2012 3:18 AM, Y wrote:
>
> > > > The only thing that can move matter are other things with mass you nit
> > > > wit.
>
> > > Do you base that statement (which is wrong) on the back of some
> > > argument, or is it simply the case that in every case you're familiar
> > > with that statement is true and therefore you assume it is true in general?
>
> > Ok.. name me one thing that can move something which does not have
> > mass ?
>
> > -y
>
> Taking literally, only force can start moving things
> and it does not have mass. :-)
-y
Poutnik
Oct 7, 2012, 2:05:45 AM10/7/12
to
JT from jonas.t...@gmail.com
posted Sat, 6 Oct 2012 22:53:31 -0700 (PDT)
>
> On 4 Okt, 14:19, Y <yanar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3 Oct, 17:21, JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Not necessarily. An event can be defined as having a beginning and an
> > end, sure.. The question is, what is this stuff between a beginning
> > and an end ? In a purely natural sense, I think that there is motion
> > from the beginning to the end of an event.
If end and beginning of the event have the same space coordinates,
> On 4 Okt, 14:19, Y <yanar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3 Oct, 17:21, JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Not necessarily. An event can be defined as having a beginning and an
> > end, sure.. The question is, what is this stuff between a beginning
> > and an end ? In a purely natural sense, I think that there is motion
> > from the beginning to the end of an event.
and if these are kept constant also during the event,
then there is no motion.
Motion is by definition related to change of space coordinates.
>
> The stuff between is oscillation and motion, on either the observer
> side or on the event side.
>
> > In terms of measurement, I
> > could arbitrarily call this duration a 'time', but this would not be
> > talking with reference to any natural thing. If anything I have said
> > to date regarding time best alludes to my point of view, it is in this
> > paragraph.
>
> There possibly could be a type of oscillation that is not affected by
> either inertial or gravitation, that could be used for universal time.
> >
> > -y
> The stuff between is oscillation and motion, on either the observer
> side or on the event side.
>
> > In terms of measurement, I
> > could arbitrarily call this duration a 'time', but this would not be
> > talking with reference to any natural thing. If anything I have said
> > to date regarding time best alludes to my point of view, it is in this
> > paragraph.
>
> There possibly could be a type of oscillation that is not affected by
> either inertial or gravitation, that could be used for universal time.
> >
> > -y
Poutnik
Oct 7, 2012, 2:10:50 AM10/7/12
to
Y from yana...@hotmail.com
posted Sat, 6 Oct 2012 23:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
> > > Ok.. name me one thing that can move something which does not have
> > > mass ?
> >
> > Taking literally, only force can start moving things
> > and it does not have mass. :-)
>
> Bollocks. Force is "mass" x acceleration.
>
You have no clue what you have written down.
> > and it does not have mass. :-)
>
> Bollocks. Force is "mass" x acceleration.
>
Force has no mass and no energy.
What is mass and energy of 1 Newton ?
F = ma
just tells you what force has to by applied to m
to get acceleration a.
Tom Roberts
Oct 7, 2012, 11:26:44 AM10/7/12
to
On 10/7/12 10/7/12 12:46 AM, Y wrote:
> Ok.. name me one thing that can move something which does not have
> mass ?
Shine an intense light beam on a small, very low-mass object. The object will
> Ok.. name me one thing that can move something which does not have
> mass ?
move, but light has no mass.
Do not confuse this with the cheap radiometers sold in museum
shops. They have insufficient vacuum and it is differential
heating of the air inside that makes them rotate. But a radiometer
with good vacuum does rotate properly due to the momentum
transferred to its blades by the light.
Tom Roberts
Y
Oct 7, 2012, 7:59:31 PM10/7/12
to
-y
space...@gmail.com
Oct 7, 2012, 8:38:08 PM10/7/12
to
Light's mass wouldn't be kinetic for there
would be only one colour...
Mitchell Raemsch
>
>
>
> -y
Tom Roberts
Oct 7, 2012, 11:11:04 PM10/7/12
to
On 10/7/12 10/7/12 6:59 PM, Y wrote:
> On Oct 8, 1:26 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 10/7/12 10/7/12 12:46 AM, Y wrote:
>>> Ok.. name me one thing that can move something which does not have
>>> mass ?
>> Shine an intense light beam on a small, very low-mass object. The object will
>> move, but light has no mass.
>
> Light has relativistic mass
> On Oct 8, 1:26 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 10/7/12 10/7/12 12:46 AM, Y wrote:
>>> Ok.. name me one thing that can move something which does not have
>>> mass ?
>> Shine an intense light beam on a small, very low-mass object. The object will
>> move, but light has no mass.
>
But "relativistic mass" is not mass, it is ENERGY. The inappropriate name is an
historical anachronism, a relic from before SR was well understood.
Tom Roberts
Poutnik
Oct 8, 2012, 12:59:15 AM10/8/12
to
Tom Roberts from tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net posted Sun, 07 Oct 2012
22:11:04 -0500
>
> But "relativistic mass" is not mass, it is ENERGY. The inappropriate
> name is an historical anachronism, a relic from before SR was well
> understood.
>
>
> Tom Roberts
Uwe Hayek
Oct 8, 2012, 7:50:03 AM10/8/12
to
On 9/28/2012 3:10 PM, Big Dog wrote:
> On 9/28/2012 3:14 AM, Y wrote:
>> Regarding p=mv
>>
>> "Momentum" although a form of motion, is clearly something quite
>> different to motion itself. Momentum is not only a form of motion, it
>> is also the the impetus of an object that can be transferred to other
>> objects. Motion alone is not necessarily a quantity that is conserved
>> or transferable. With motion, what we observe is an object moving
>> through space. There are two more observations which can be made to
>> qualify this moving thing. The first thing is that the object has
>> mass, the second thing is that the object has moved by a distance or
>> length of space.
>>
>
> What do you think "motion" means to a physicist?
>
Something you do not need to have a collision ?
Something that is absent in chemistry ?
Why don't you make like a tree, Big Dog ?
Why don't you start analyzing your huge misgivings, and do something
about it ?
Uwe Hayek.
> On 9/28/2012 3:14 AM, Y wrote:
>> Regarding p=mv
>>
>> "Momentum" although a form of motion, is clearly something quite
>> different to motion itself. Momentum is not only a form of motion, it
>> is also the the impetus of an object that can be transferred to other
>> objects. Motion alone is not necessarily a quantity that is conserved
>> or transferable. With motion, what we observe is an object moving
>> through space. There are two more observations which can be made to
>> qualify this moving thing. The first thing is that the object has
>> mass, the second thing is that the object has moved by a distance or
>> length of space.
>>
>
> What do you think "motion" means to a physicist?
>
Something you do not need to have a collision ?
Something that is absent in chemistry ?
Why don't you make like a tree, Big Dog ?
Why don't you start analyzing your huge misgivings, and do something
about it ?
Uwe Hayek.
Big Dog
Oct 8, 2012, 9:25:07 AM10/8/12
to
Are you assuming that the only putative candidates for what might be
moving things are massive things and time?
Are there not other possibilities you haven't considered?
Big Dog
Oct 8, 2012, 11:02:34 AM10/8/12
to
Big Dog
Oct 8, 2012, 11:07:02 AM10/8/12
to
On 10/7/2012 1:00 AM, Y wrote:
>>
>>>>> The only thing that can move matter are other things with mass you nit
>>>>> wit.
>>
>>>> Do you base that statement (which is wrong) on the back of some
>>>> argument, or is it simply the case that in every case you're familiar
>>>> with that statement is true and therefore you assume it is true in general?
>>
>>> Ok.. name me one thing that can move something which does not have
>>> mass ?
>>
>>> -y
>>
>> Taking literally, only force can start moving things
>> and it does not have mass. :-)
>
> Bollocks. Force is "mass" x acceleration.
>
>
This is a common mistake, confusing cause and effect.
>>
>>>>> The only thing that can move matter are other things with mass you nit
>>>>> wit.
>>
>>>> Do you base that statement (which is wrong) on the back of some
>>>> argument, or is it simply the case that in every case you're familiar
>>>> with that statement is true and therefore you assume it is true in general?
>>
>>> Ok.. name me one thing that can move something which does not have
>>> mass ?
>>
>>> -y
>>
>> Taking literally, only force can start moving things
>> and it does not have mass. :-)
>
> Bollocks. Force is "mass" x acceleration.
>
>
Force is the cause, acceleration the effect. The ratio of the two is
this thing we label mass.
It is not the case that the force IS the acceleration (scaled by mass).
It *produces* the acceleration.
The equal sign in F=ma indicates the NUMERICAL equivalence of the size
of the cause and the size of the effect (scaled by mass). It does not
mean "IS THE SAME AS".
The same mistake is often made in E=mc^2, where people say this means
that energy is mass and mass is energy. It does not mean that at all. It
means that energy can be *converted* to mass and mass *converted* to
energy, and the equality tells you *how much* of one you get from the other.
Big Dog
Oct 8, 2012, 11:31:21 AM10/8/12
to
it is not a mass as that term is presently understood. The ONLY reason
the term was ever invented was to make a bridge concept that could
connect to an analogous role from classical physics.
I'm sorry that you have read crap and drawn incorrect conclusions from
the crap you've read.
Tom Roberts
Oct 8, 2012, 12:34:56 PM10/8/12
to
On 10/7/12 10/7/12 - 11:59 PM, Poutnik wrote:
> Tom Roberts from tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net posted Sun, 07 Oct 2012
> 22:11:04 -0500
> Tom Roberts from tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net posted Sun, 07 Oct 2012
> 22:11:04 -0500
>> "relativistic mass" is not mass, it is ENERGY.
>
>
> But does not have any form of energy equivalent mass ?
But "equivalent" is not the same as "is".
Start from the definitions:
An object's energy in a given inertial frame is the time component
of its 4-momentum projected onto the frame's coordinates.
An object's mass is the norm of its 4-momentum. (No need to mention
any frame, as this is invariant.)
The "equivalence of mass and energy" comes from the fact that in an object's
rest frame these two quantities have the same value (historically they used
different units, but in units with c=1 that is not the case).
For instance, if one has a closed system consisting of several constituents
moving around inside, the 4-momentum of the system is the sum of the 4-momenta
of its constituents. In the rest frame of the system, the mass of the system
equals the energy of the system, which is the sum of the energies of its
constituents, and the energy of each constituent is the same as its
"relativistic mass" in this frame.
But the context of my remarks was light, which is not bound in a closed system.
So this "equivalence" does not apply. Nor does it apply to a free particle. It
ONLY applies to the constituents of a bound system, where the energy of each
constituent contributes to the mass of the system.
Tom Roberts
Big Dog
Oct 8, 2012, 12:49:47 PM10/8/12
to
On 10/4/2012 9:49 AM, Big Dog wrote:
>
> So you have a clear understanding of preceding and following in a sequence.
>
> So let's suppose A is observed to precede B.
> Let's also suppose that A is observed to precede C, and we also can see
> that B precedes C.
> Then we have a clear sequence of A --> B --> C.
>
> Now, we can certainly say that there is then SOME quality which is
> greater between A and C than it is between A and B.
>
> Do you agree with that?
>
> And we can also suppose that there are certain REPEATING sequences that
> we can observe
> A precedes B, and then there is another instance of the same thing
> happening again, so that A is observed to precede B again.
>
> So we can say that there is SOME quality that is the same in both
> instances of A --> B
>
> Do you agree with that?
You have not answered this. Care to discuss?
>
> So you have a clear understanding of preceding and following in a sequence.
>
> So let's suppose A is observed to precede B.
> Let's also suppose that A is observed to precede C, and we also can see
> that B precedes C.
> Then we have a clear sequence of A --> B --> C.
>
> Now, we can certainly say that there is then SOME quality which is
> greater between A and C than it is between A and B.
>
> Do you agree with that?
>
> And we can also suppose that there are certain REPEATING sequences that
> we can observe
> A precedes B, and then there is another instance of the same thing
> happening again, so that A is observed to precede B again.
>
> So we can say that there is SOME quality that is the same in both
> instances of A --> B
>
> Do you agree with that?
JT
Oct 9, 2012, 1:10:15 AM10/9/12
to
On 7 Okt, 08:05, Poutnik <poutnik4n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> JT from jonas.thornv...@gmail.com
Oh there is motion at the subatomic level even if you do not admit
that the electrons around the nucleus actually moving, any radiation
given from a particle system is basicly aether waves.
> JT from jonas.thornv...@gmail.com
that the electrons around the nucleus actually moving, any radiation
given from a particle system is basicly aether waves.
Poutnik
Oct 9, 2012, 1:22:56 AM10/9/12
to
JT from jonas.t...@gmail.com
posted Mon, 8 Oct 2012 22:10:15 -0700 (PDT)
>
> On 7 Okt, 08:05, Poutnik <poutnik4n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > If end and beginning of the event have the same space coordinates,
> > and if these are kept constant also during the event,
> > then there is no motion.
> >
> > Motion is by definition related to change of space coordinates.
>
> Oh there is motion at the subatomic level even if you do not admit
> that the electrons around the nucleus actually moving,
If I join reference frame to electron, electron does not move.
> that the electrons around the nucleus actually moving,
Do not mix acceleration and motion.
Motion is nonzero first time derivative of space coordinates.
Acceleration nonzero the second one.
> any radiation
> given from a particle system is basicly aether waves.
Let us not to discuss it here.
Koobee Wublee
Oct 9, 2012, 2:41:08 AM10/9/12
to
Boo! When Koobee Wublee talks, self-styled physicists have their
hearts stopped. :-)
Tom, don’t worry. Please relax. Koobee Wublee will go easy on this
one for you. <shrug>
On Oct 8, 9:34 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 10/7/12 10/7/12 - 11:59 PM, Poutnik wrote:
go wrong in any circumstances. If disagreed, please name such a case
where equating the relativistic mass as the observed mass would turn
haywire. <shrug>
> > But does not have any form of energy equivalent mass ?
>
> But "equivalent" is not the same as "is".
In a straight forward discussion of science, “equivalence” ought to be
interpreted as “is”. Don’t tell us that the self-styled physicists
are turning science into a useless game of interpreting what tall
words mean. Gee! Are physicists equivalent to lawyers nowadays?
<shrug>
> Start from the definitions:
>
> An object's energy in a given inertial frame is the time component
> of its 4-momentum projected onto the frame's coordinates.
>
> An object's mass is the norm of its 4-momentum. (No need to mention
> any frame, as this is invariant.)
But you have to allow another and more practical interpretations to
the relationship between mass and energy. That is to allow an
observer to decide what the mass and the energy are. In doing so, you
will never screw up. <shrug>
> The "equivalence of mass and energy" comes from the fact that in an object's
> rest frame these two quantities have the same value (historically they used
> different units, but in units with c=1 that is not the case).
Although it is necessary to identify what is intrinsic and what is not
sometimes, in the case of mass and energy, it is best to say both the
mass and the energy are observer dependent. Observed mass =
relativistic mass, and observed energy = “relativistic” energy
including the effect from GR. Don’t you think it would be so much
simpler to describe a quantity of something from a certain observer’s
point of view? This would allow an observer to conduct experiments in
a more straight forward fashion to conclude what the gathered
experimental data mean. <shrug>
Isn’t it the case that the concept of relativistic mass as the
observed mass finds more popularity among engineers? Not that
engineers have to apply relativity in any circumstances, engineers,
with better foresight, better analytic capabilities, and better
understanding of forming mathematical models to describe what the
observed represents, are better at making a problem less conceptually
complicated at any stages of resolving issues whenever they may turn
up. <shrug>
hearts stopped. :-)
Tom, don’t worry. Please relax. Koobee Wublee will go easy on this
one for you. <shrug>
On Oct 8, 9:34 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 10/7/12 10/7/12 - 11:59 PM, Poutnik wrote:
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > "relativistic mass" is not mass, it is ENERGY.
If interpreting relativistic mass as the observed mass, one can never
> > > "relativistic mass" is not mass, it is ENERGY.
go wrong in any circumstances. If disagreed, please name such a case
where equating the relativistic mass as the observed mass would turn
haywire. <shrug>
> > But does not have any form of energy equivalent mass ?
>
> But "equivalent" is not the same as "is".
interpreted as “is”. Don’t tell us that the self-styled physicists
are turning science into a useless game of interpreting what tall
words mean. Gee! Are physicists equivalent to lawyers nowadays?
<shrug>
> Start from the definitions:
>
> An object's energy in a given inertial frame is the time component
> of its 4-momentum projected onto the frame's coordinates.
>
> An object's mass is the norm of its 4-momentum. (No need to mention
> any frame, as this is invariant.)
the relationship between mass and energy. That is to allow an
observer to decide what the mass and the energy are. In doing so, you
will never screw up. <shrug>
> The "equivalence of mass and energy" comes from the fact that in an object's
> rest frame these two quantities have the same value (historically they used
> different units, but in units with c=1 that is not the case).
sometimes, in the case of mass and energy, it is best to say both the
mass and the energy are observer dependent. Observed mass =
relativistic mass, and observed energy = “relativistic” energy
including the effect from GR. Don’t you think it would be so much
simpler to describe a quantity of something from a certain observer’s
point of view? This would allow an observer to conduct experiments in
a more straight forward fashion to conclude what the gathered
experimental data mean. <shrug>
Isn’t it the case that the concept of relativistic mass as the
observed mass finds more popularity among engineers? Not that
engineers have to apply relativity in any circumstances, engineers,
with better foresight, better analytic capabilities, and better
understanding of forming mathematical models to describe what the
observed represents, are better at making a problem less conceptually
complicated at any stages of resolving issues whenever they may turn
up. <shrug>
Y
Oct 9, 2012, 7:04:20 AM10/9/12
to
-y
Big Dog
Oct 9, 2012, 8:59:59 AM10/9/12
to
On 10/9/2012 1:41 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> Isn’t it the case that the concept of relativistic mass as the
> observed mass finds more popularity among engineers?
Who the fuck cares what finds more popularity among engineers?
>
> Isn’t it the case that the concept of relativistic mass as the
> observed mass finds more popularity among engineers?
Big Dog
Oct 9, 2012, 9:03:24 AM10/9/12
to
simply energy, scaled by a number. If you meant to say that the only
things that can move matter are other things that have energy, then I
might agree with you. But having mass and having energy are two
different things in the minds of physicists.
hanson
Oct 9, 2012, 2:17:54 PM10/9/12
to
The wrinkled, scrawny assed little bitch with the bark &
fat loud-mouth of a "Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com>
hence "Fatso", cranked itself, weaseled & wrote:
>
because
Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> Isn�t it the case that the concept of relativistic mass as the
Fatso, let me state what KW said in different words:
___ Engineers say: "1+1 = 2. MEASURE IT", ____
but
Fatso & Einstein Dingleberries say:
"1+1 may not be 2" since one can produce Gedanken
farts and assert that "1+1+ (1-1)x - (1+1-1-1)y =/= 2"
because when complicated enough drifting & blurring
occurs, on which one can argue endlessly about the
"value" of the border conditions that one can ascribe
to "1"...
So, listen Fatso, let me help you and point out that
physics in the real world happens to be 99.9+ %
ENGINEERING... & only perhaps 0.0001 % that is
GUESS or intuition that there maybe something
new to measure... which REQUIRES Engineering.
>
You however appear to be a sorry, laid off teacher
who apparently, due to Zio-brainwashing, became
an Einstein Dingleberry and damaged goods that
now proselytizes for Einstein who said that:
|||AE:: "they are NOT conditions in which we live;
|||AE:: they are simply modes in which we think."
>
That then is the "popularity" that YOU, Fatso, do
subscribe to despite the fact that even
>
_ Einstein himself was a SR/GR Relativity denier _
>
Here, for your benefit, is Einstein's intellectual evolution,
which started with his 1905 paper, wherein ||AE|| wrote:
>
|||AE||| "the velocity of light 'c' in our theory (SR) plays
|||AE||| the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity."
>
From 1905 on, & during the next 3 decades when
Einstein was riding high on his Zionist financed wake
that put & kept him in the lime light, it became clearer
that
>
== Einstein & his contributions to physics is/are what
== Picasso's contributions are to the world of fine art,
== namely mental aberrations, Gedanken farts and
== his lunacies like:
>
||| AE:: "People like us, who _BELIEVE_ in physics,
||| AE:: know that the distinction between the
||| AE:: past, resent, and future is only a stubbornly
||| AE:: persistent illusion."
||| AE:: "Space & time are NOT conditions in which we
||| AE:: live; they are simply modes in which we think."
>
That then was the Weltbild of these 2 Fartist kikes.
<http://tinyurl.com/2-Jewish-Fartists> ... yet Einstein
never had the guts to prove his SR/GR, by him simply
jumping out of a 5th story window & manipulating the
curvature of space & handling space-time, to avoid him
being splattered on the side walk, and thereby proving
his insistence that Gravity is not a force like Newton said.
>
But towards the end of his life, Einstein came clean &
__ Einstein himself became a relativity DENIER ____
& he changed his mind by 1954 when he declared that
>
||AE|| All these 50 years of conscious brooding have
||AE|| brought me [= Einstein] NO nearer to the answer
||AE|| to the question, 'What are light quanta?' aka photons.
>
And furthermore Einstein saw the handwriting on the wall,
when in 1954, a year before he died, he wrote to his
Jewish friend Besso:
>
|||AE:||| "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to
|||AE:||| reality, they are not certain; and as far as they
|||AE:||| are certain, they do not refer to reality."
>
|||AE:||| "why would anyone be interested in getting exact
|||AE:||| solutions from such an ephemeral set of equations?"
>
|AE:||| "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
|||AE:||| based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous
|||AE:||| structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire
|||AE:||| castle in the air, my gravitation theory included."
|||AE:||| "If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber".
|||AE:||| ... [and I would make blouses instead (see link)]
<http://tinyurl.com/Blouse-Plumber-Einstein> & so, ergo:
>
. ____ SR is short for STUPID RANT _____ and
. ____ GR stands for GULLIBLE RECITAL _____.
>
or as expressed rather civilized by poster Tom Roberts
[TR], who, when he had a flash of lucidity, wrote:
>
[TR:] ___ "SR/GR happen to be "META-Theories"__, iow:
. ____ Relativity is a theory about a theory.____, iow:
. ______ SR & GR is Physics by "Hear-say"______.
>
Up-shot:
Why then is SR/GR still so popular?
People hang on to & fanatically believe in all kind of shit,
which they do OBSERVE & MEASURE, like in "UFO's",
"Crop circles", the "Bible", the "Koran", "SR&GR" & etc,
etc., etc.... The list is long and like Einstein said:
>
|||AE:: "they are NOT conditions in which we live;
|||AE:: they are simply modes in which we think."
>
Once indoctrinated by any of these esoteric gags,
which are escapes from harsh reality, people do
build that into their Weltbild, proselytize for it and
defend it with their lives!!!.....
___ It is far easier to believe then to think! _____
>
Take care, Fatso, and thanks for the laughs...
ahahaha... ahahaahahanson
fat loud-mouth of a "Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com>
hence "Fatso", cranked itself, weaseled & wrote:
>
because
Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> Isn�t it the case that the concept of relativistic mass as the
>> observed mass finds more popularity among engineers?
>
>
>> Not that engineers have to apply relativity in any circumstances,
>> engineers, with better foresight, better analytic capabilities, and
>> better
>> understanding of forming mathematical models to describe what the
>> observed represents, are better at making a problem less conceptually
>> complicated at any stages of resolving issues whenever they may turn
>> up. <shrug>
>>
>> engineers, with better foresight, better analytic capabilities, and
>> better
>> understanding of forming mathematical models to describe what the
>> observed represents, are better at making a problem less conceptually
>> complicated at any stages of resolving issues whenever they may turn
>> up. <shrug>
>>
Fatso wrote:
> Who the fuck cares what finds more popularity among engineers?
>
hanson wrote:
> Who the fuck cares what finds more popularity among engineers?
>
Fatso, let me state what KW said in different words:
___ Engineers say: "1+1 = 2. MEASURE IT", ____
but
Fatso & Einstein Dingleberries say:
"1+1 may not be 2" since one can produce Gedanken
farts and assert that "1+1+ (1-1)x - (1+1-1-1)y =/= 2"
because when complicated enough drifting & blurring
occurs, on which one can argue endlessly about the
"value" of the border conditions that one can ascribe
to "1"...
So, listen Fatso, let me help you and point out that
physics in the real world happens to be 99.9+ %
ENGINEERING... & only perhaps 0.0001 % that is
GUESS or intuition that there maybe something
new to measure... which REQUIRES Engineering.
>
You however appear to be a sorry, laid off teacher
who apparently, due to Zio-brainwashing, became
an Einstein Dingleberry and damaged goods that
now proselytizes for Einstein who said that:
|||AE:: "they are NOT conditions in which we live;
|||AE:: they are simply modes in which we think."
>
That then is the "popularity" that YOU, Fatso, do
subscribe to despite the fact that even
>
_ Einstein himself was a SR/GR Relativity denier _
>
Here, for your benefit, is Einstein's intellectual evolution,
which started with his 1905 paper, wherein ||AE|| wrote:
>
|||AE||| "the velocity of light 'c' in our theory (SR) plays
|||AE||| the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity."
>
From 1905 on, & during the next 3 decades when
Einstein was riding high on his Zionist financed wake
that put & kept him in the lime light, it became clearer
that
>
== Einstein & his contributions to physics is/are what
== Picasso's contributions are to the world of fine art,
== namely mental aberrations, Gedanken farts and
== his lunacies like:
>
||| AE:: "People like us, who _BELIEVE_ in physics,
||| AE:: know that the distinction between the
||| AE:: past, resent, and future is only a stubbornly
||| AE:: persistent illusion."
||| AE:: "Space & time are NOT conditions in which we
||| AE:: live; they are simply modes in which we think."
>
That then was the Weltbild of these 2 Fartist kikes.
<http://tinyurl.com/2-Jewish-Fartists> ... yet Einstein
never had the guts to prove his SR/GR, by him simply
jumping out of a 5th story window & manipulating the
curvature of space & handling space-time, to avoid him
being splattered on the side walk, and thereby proving
his insistence that Gravity is not a force like Newton said.
>
But towards the end of his life, Einstein came clean &
__ Einstein himself became a relativity DENIER ____
& he changed his mind by 1954 when he declared that
>
||AE|| All these 50 years of conscious brooding have
||AE|| brought me [= Einstein] NO nearer to the answer
||AE|| to the question, 'What are light quanta?' aka photons.
>
And furthermore Einstein saw the handwriting on the wall,
when in 1954, a year before he died, he wrote to his
Jewish friend Besso:
>
|||AE:||| "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to
|||AE:||| reality, they are not certain; and as far as they
|||AE:||| are certain, they do not refer to reality."
>
|||AE:||| "why would anyone be interested in getting exact
|||AE:||| solutions from such an ephemeral set of equations?"
>
|AE:||| "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
|||AE:||| based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous
|||AE:||| structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire
|||AE:||| castle in the air, my gravitation theory included."
|||AE:||| "If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber".
|||AE:||| ... [and I would make blouses instead (see link)]
<http://tinyurl.com/Blouse-Plumber-Einstein> & so, ergo:
>
. ____ SR is short for STUPID RANT _____ and
. ____ GR stands for GULLIBLE RECITAL _____.
>
or as expressed rather civilized by poster Tom Roberts
[TR], who, when he had a flash of lucidity, wrote:
>
[TR:] ___ "SR/GR happen to be "META-Theories"__, iow:
. ____ Relativity is a theory about a theory.____, iow:
. ______ SR & GR is Physics by "Hear-say"______.
>
Up-shot:
Why then is SR/GR still so popular?
People hang on to & fanatically believe in all kind of shit,
which they do OBSERVE & MEASURE, like in "UFO's",
"Crop circles", the "Bible", the "Koran", "SR&GR" & etc,
etc., etc.... The list is long and like Einstein said:
>
|||AE:: "they are NOT conditions in which we live;
|||AE:: they are simply modes in which we think."
>
Once indoctrinated by any of these esoteric gags,
which are escapes from harsh reality, people do
build that into their Weltbild, proselytize for it and
defend it with their lives!!!.....
___ It is far easier to believe then to think! _____
>
Take care, Fatso, and thanks for the laughs...
ahahaha... ahahaahahanson
Big Dog
Oct 9, 2012, 2:44:25 PM10/9/12
to
On 10/9/2012 1:17 PM, hanson wrote:
>
> So, listen Fatso, let me help you and point out that
> physics in the real world happens to be 99.9+ %
> ENGINEERING... & only perhaps 0.0001 % that is
> GUESS or intuition that there maybe something
> new to measure... which REQUIRES Engineering.
<giggle> hanson, you rarely have anything to offer but peanut gallery
>
> So, listen Fatso, let me help you and point out that
> physics in the real world happens to be 99.9+ %
> ENGINEERING... & only perhaps 0.0001 % that is
> GUESS or intuition that there maybe something
> new to measure... which REQUIRES Engineering.
comments, but when you do, you sure do put your foot in it.
I shouldn't be surprised that you can't distinguish physics from
engineering. That would explain why you have lost your way and stumbled
into the wrong newsgroup.
But let's see what else you're confused about.
Do you know the difference between geology and mining?
Between architecture and interior design?
Between mathematics and bookkeeping?
Between biology and medicine?
Between chemistry and cooking?
Between research and development?
No? Well, I didn't think so.
Thanks for the highly amusing moment, hanson. I see now why you laugh
more than you talk. Safer that way for you.
>>
> You however appear to be a sorry, laid off teacher
> who apparently, due to Zio-brainwashing, became
> an Einstein Dingleberry and damaged goods that
> now proselytizes for Einstein who said that:
>
difference between science and engineering.
hanson
Oct 9, 2012, 3:07:25 PM10/9/12
to
ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA.... ROTFLMAO.... Fatso,
>
the wrinkled, scrawny assed little bitch with the bark &
hoped that his sidestep-tango would get him off the hook....
and argue with Einstein, your idol, instead of me.
ahahaha... ahahahahahanson
>
the wrinkled, scrawny assed little bitch with the bark &
fat loud-mouth of a "Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com>
hence "Fatso", cranked itself, fantasized, weaseled and
hoped that his sidestep-tango would get him off the hook....
>
because
Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> Isn�t it the case that the concept of relativistic mass as the
>> observed mass finds more popularity among engineers?
>
>> Not that engineers have to apply relativity in any circumstances,
>> engineers, with better foresight, better analytic capabilities, and
>> better
>> understanding of forming mathematical models to describe what the
>> observed represents, are better at making a problem less conceptually
>> complicated at any stages of resolving issues whenever they may turn
>> up. <shrug>
>>
Fatso wrote:
> Who the fuck cares what finds more popularity among engineers?
>
hanson wrote:
Fatso, let me state what KW said in different words:
___ Engineers say: "1+1 = 2. MEASURE IT", ____
but
Fatso & Einstein Dingleberries say:
"1+1 may not be 2" since one can produce Gedanken
farts and assert that "1+1+ (1-1)x - (1+1-1-1)y =/= 2"
because when complicated enough drifting & blurring
occurs, on which one can argue endlessly about the
"value" of the border conditions that one can ascribe
to "1"...
because
Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> Isn�t it the case that the concept of relativistic mass as the
>> observed mass finds more popularity among engineers?
>
>> Not that engineers have to apply relativity in any circumstances,
>> engineers, with better foresight, better analytic capabilities, and
>> better
>> understanding of forming mathematical models to describe what the
>> observed represents, are better at making a problem less conceptually
>> complicated at any stages of resolving issues whenever they may turn
>> up. <shrug>
>>
Fatso wrote:
> Who the fuck cares what finds more popularity among engineers?
>
hanson wrote:
Fatso, let me state what KW said in different words:
___ Engineers say: "1+1 = 2. MEASURE IT", ____
but
Fatso & Einstein Dingleberries say:
"1+1 may not be 2" since one can produce Gedanken
farts and assert that "1+1+ (1-1)x - (1+1-1-1)y =/= 2"
because when complicated enough drifting & blurring
occurs, on which one can argue endlessly about the
"value" of the border conditions that one can ascribe
to "1"...
So, listen Fatso, let me help you and point out that
physics in the real world happens to be 99.9+ %
ENGINEERING... & only perhaps 0.0001 % that is
GUESS or intuition that there maybe something
new to measure... which REQUIRES Engineering.
>
physics in the real world happens to be 99.9+ %
ENGINEERING... & only perhaps 0.0001 % that is
GUESS or intuition that there maybe something
new to measure... which REQUIRES Engineering.
>
You however appear to be a sorry, laid off teacher
who apparently, due to Zio-brainwashing, became
an Einstein Dingleberry and damaged goods that
now proselytizes for Einstein who said that:
who apparently, due to Zio-brainwashing, became
an Einstein Dingleberry and damaged goods that
now proselytizes for Einstein who said that:
ahahaha... ahahahahahanson
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Oct 9, 2012, 4:22:35 PM10/9/12
to
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:k51pou$cjd$1...@dont-email.me...
The
wrinkled, scrawny assed little bitch with the bark &
fat loud-mouth of a "Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com>
hence "Fatso", cranked itself, weaseled & wrote:
>
because
Koobee Wublee wrote:
fat loud-mouth of a "Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com>
hence "Fatso", cranked itself, weaseled & wrote:
>
because
Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>
Isn’t it the case that the concept of relativistic mass as the
>> observed mass finds more popularity among engineers?
>
>> Not that engineers have to apply relativity in any circumstances,
>> engineers, with better foresight, better analytic capabilities, and
>> better
>> understanding of forming mathematical models to describe what the
>> observed represents, are better at making a problem less conceptually
>> complicated at any stages of resolving issues whenever they may turn
>> up. <shrug>
>>
Fatso wrote:
> Who the fuck cares what finds more popularity among engineers?
>
hanson wrote:
Fatso, let me state what KW said in different words:
___ Engineers say: "1+1 = 2. MEASURE IT", ____
but
Fatso & Einstein Dingleberries say:
"1+1 may not be 2" since one can produce Gedanken
farts and assert that "1+1+ (1-1)x - (1+1-1-1)y =/= 2"
because when complicated enough drifting & blurring
occurs, on which one can argue endlessly about the
"value" of the border conditions that one can ascribe
to "1"...
============================================
But chacha, (1+1)/(1+ 1/1^2) = 1, not 2, as Einstein taught us
But chacha, (1+1)/(1+ 1/1^2) = 1, not 2, as Einstein taught us
in
his epic and monumental discovery:
and
indeed,
(1+2)/(1
+ 2/1^2) = 1, and
(1+3)/(1 + 3/1^2) = 1,
and...
...
(1+99)/(1+99/1^2) = 1 and glory be to
Einstein in the highest, the speed of
light is 1 and the winner, for nothing is faster than 1
which comes first and
is top of the pops, number 1.
Did you ever hear of the SECOND mideast
bank of the Alleghenys?
Did you ever hear of the mideast, for that
matter?
It’s in the shallow north, not the deep
south.
Only Avis is second, they try
harder.
--
This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
hanson
Oct 10, 2012, 8:14:33 AM10/10/12
to
ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA... ROTFLMOA...
>
-- [[ Virdy 1 -:- Fatso 0, zilch, null, nil & nada ]]---
>
"Mahipal Virdy", a man of wisom, <mahip...@gmail.com> routed
>
the wrinkled, scrawny assed little bitch with the bark &
sidestep-tango would get him off Koobee Wublee's hook
.... after....
<snip Fatso's pitiful tripe to save Fatso embarrassment>
>
Wiseman Virdy admonished Fatso & wrote:
Engineers produce that which Physicists only dream about.
Physics... aka Science, without Engineering, is Religion.
>
``Who the fuck cares what finds more popularity among
engineers?'' -- Big Dog
>
Expectation: If you, Fatso, had a real human name, you'd behave.
Enjo(y)...
Mahipal
http://mahipal7638.files.wordpress.com/
The last thing Society wants is another Religion to compete against.
Numbers of Sheep with tax free-able, toss-able change still finite.
>
hanson wrote:
Virdy, your "expectation" will not materialize
since, like with all Einstein Dingleberries, Fatso's
handle indicates that he is damaged goods
ever since he got brainwashed by the Zios.
>
Elsewise Fatso is hilarious since he can be made
to dance at the drop of a hat... AHAHAHAHA...
Thanks for the laughs, Virdy.. and to Fatso too.
.... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
>
-- [[ Virdy 1 -:- Fatso 0, zilch, null, nil & nada ]]---
>
"Mahipal Virdy", a man of wisom, <mahip...@gmail.com> routed
>
the wrinkled, scrawny assed little bitch with the bark &
fat loud-mouth of a "Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com>
hence "Fatso", when it weaseled and hoped that its
sidestep-tango would get him off Koobee Wublee's hook
.... after....
>
hanson wrote:
So, listen Fatso, let me help you and point out that
physics in the real world happens to be 99.9+ %
ENGINEERING... & only perhaps 0.0001 % that is
GUESS or intuition that there maybe something
new to measure... which REQUIRES Engineering.
>>
Fatso wrote:
hanson wrote:
So, listen Fatso, let me help you and point out that
physics in the real world happens to be 99.9+ %
ENGINEERING... & only perhaps 0.0001 % that is
GUESS or intuition that there maybe something
new to measure... which REQUIRES Engineering.
>>
<snip Fatso's pitiful tripe to save Fatso embarrassment>
>
Wiseman Virdy admonished Fatso & wrote:
Engineers produce that which Physicists only dream about.
Physics... aka Science, without Engineering, is Religion.
>
``Who the fuck cares what finds more popularity among
engineers?'' -- Big Dog
>
Expectation: If you, Fatso, had a real human name, you'd behave.
Enjo(y)...
Mahipal
http://mahipal7638.files.wordpress.com/
The last thing Society wants is another Religion to compete against.
Numbers of Sheep with tax free-able, toss-able change still finite.
>
hanson wrote:
Virdy, your "expectation" will not materialize
since, like with all Einstein Dingleberries, Fatso's
handle indicates that he is damaged goods
ever since he got brainwashed by the Zios.
>
Elsewise Fatso is hilarious since he can be made
to dance at the drop of a hat... AHAHAHAHA...
Thanks for the laughs, Virdy.. and to Fatso too.
.... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
hanson
Oct 10, 2012, 3:22:10 PM10/10/12
to
ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA.... ROTFLMAO.... "Fatso",
the wrinkled, scrawny assed little bitch with the bark &
But Mahipal Virdy routed Fatso with poise and elegance,
after....
>
Koobee Wublee wrote:
[edited for brevity] engineers have better foresight, better
analytic capabilities, and never apply relativity in any
circumstances. Engineers have a better understanding
[Fatso, listen up]
Bullshit!
Nice position you have there. If it weren't for engineering,
all these other subjects would have no intellectual or
practical value at all.
>
hanson wrote:
Fatso, get a hold of yourself. Not your desperate 3-liner
nor your sidestep-tango will get you off the hook, not
even your phony 180-turn you just advocated.
>
Of course all subjects do have intellectual value, be they
Religion or Relativity, as is exampled by Islamists or
Einstein Dingleberries, the former of which see its
practicality in their suicide missions while the latter one
have NO practical use at all, save worshipping of Albert's
sphincter like you do, Fatso.
>
So, Fatso, do come clean and admit that you are kike
or a brainwashed Goyim (= cattle for kikes) and in either
case a devout Einstein Dingleberry that loves to worship
Albert's sphincter and has raptures in the sway, basking
and dangling in the warm breeze of Einstein Gedanken-
farts DESPITE the fact that....
>
Einstein, your idol.... who unlike you, after 50 years
of "brooding" was honest enough to become
>
_ Einstein, the SR/GR Relativity denier _
the wrinkled, scrawny assed little bitch with the bark &
fat loud-mouth of a "Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com>
hence "Fatso", cranked itself, fantasized, weaseled and
hoped that his sidestep-tango would get him off the hook,
But Mahipal Virdy routed Fatso with poise and elegance,
after....
>
Koobee Wublee wrote:
[edited for brevity] engineers have better foresight, better
analytic capabilities, and never apply relativity in any
circumstances. Engineers have a better understanding
of forming mathematical models to describe what the
observed represents, are better at making a problem
less conceptually complicated at any stages of resolving
issues whenever they may turn up. <shrug>
>
Fatso wrote:.
observed represents, are better at making a problem
less conceptually complicated at any stages of resolving
issues whenever they may turn up. <shrug>
>
Who the fuck cares what finds more popularity among engineers?
>
>
hanson wrote:
So, listen Fatso, let me help you and point out that
physics in the real world happens to be 99.9+ %
ENGINEERING... & only perhaps 0.0001 % that is
GUESS or intuition that there maybe something
new to measure... which REQUIRES Engineering.
>
Mahipal wrote:
So, listen Fatso, let me help you and point out that
physics in the real world happens to be 99.9+ %
ENGINEERING... & only perhaps 0.0001 % that is
GUESS or intuition that there maybe something
new to measure... which REQUIRES Engineering.
>
[Fatso, listen up]
Physics... aka Science, without Engineering, is Religion.
>
Fatso wrote:
>
Bullshit!
Nice position you have there. If it weren't for engineering,
all these other subjects would have no intellectual or
practical value at all.
>
hanson wrote:
Fatso, get a hold of yourself. Not your desperate 3-liner
nor your sidestep-tango will get you off the hook, not
even your phony 180-turn you just advocated.
>
Of course all subjects do have intellectual value, be they
Religion or Relativity, as is exampled by Islamists or
Einstein Dingleberries, the former of which see its
practicality in their suicide missions while the latter one
have NO practical use at all, save worshipping of Albert's
sphincter like you do, Fatso.
>
So, Fatso, do come clean and admit that you are kike
or a brainwashed Goyim (= cattle for kikes) and in either
case a devout Einstein Dingleberry that loves to worship
Albert's sphincter and has raptures in the sway, basking
and dangling in the warm breeze of Einstein Gedanken-
farts DESPITE the fact that....
>
Einstein, your idol.... who unlike you, after 50 years
of "brooding" was honest enough to become
>
_ Einstein, the SR/GR Relativity denier _
and argue with Einstein, your idol, instead of me.
ahahaha... ahahahahahanson
ahahaha... ahahahahahanson
0 new messages