Re: Negative quantities
Sanforized
> cusanic...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>They don't exist. A negative can only be a subtraction of the same or
>>lesser absolute value.
>>1-2 doesn't simply does not exist as a physical quantity.
>
>
> Neither does sqrt(2) or googleplexplex, and they're positive.
>
> Let us know when you decide to leave the 16th century.
He has started recycling discussions he initiated
some time back. He's run out of "ideas."
gabydewilde
Why does it look crazy to inject operators into variables?
What is so useful about it?
Is there any valid negative real world quality?
cusan...@gmail.com
No they exist only relative to positive real world qualities as a
subtraction from them that doesn't lead to a negative physical
quantity. Zero and above is ok only.
Mitch Raemsch
Sanforized
Is it cold outside?
cusan...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
It can be a completely arbitrary scale. The one beginning at Absolute
Zero is smarter.
Mitch Raemsch
gabydewilde
Yes, I wouldn't call it smarter, it wouldn't exist without the other
scale. The Kelvin scale does show there is no real need to use
negative temperatures.
The most shocking example is perhaps where negative fields don't
really subtract from positive one's.
We sum up positive and negative fields then assume nothing remains but
both fields are still present because the 2 overlapping fields can not
originate from exactly the same point.
It's 5 min to twelve.
http://www.thebulletin.org/content/doomsday-clock/overview
We know this represents 55 min past 12 but it is no more than a short
hand to call it -5.
It's interesting because it raises doubt about the whole negative
mindset.
To make a small philosophical jump.
If his environment allows a person to do something he will first take
care of himself, when his own situation is taken care of sufficiently
there will be room in the mindset to do things for others.
Greed and hate are not negative values but when sufficiently applied
they will actually lead to loving and caring. Even George Bush cares
about his daughter. He is just to unhappy to expand this to the whole
globe. Even the satanists in the bohemian grove, they just want to be
part of something.
Perhaps this example is a bridge to far. :-)
Take positive and negative charges in elements.
Sure they tend to oppose but they are just different qualities or 2
states of the same.
A vacuum is not a negative pressure field, that would suggest it
doesn't have a limit. We don't call woman negative and men positive.
Because negative suggests a lack of something. Arbitrary use tends to
cause failure of the imagination.
Values below zero can be useful to clarify things but at some stage it
starts cluttering up things that are already hard to understand
without it.
DAVID GREENE
>Is there any valid negative real world quality?
Yes, for example, the electrical charge of an electron.
Dave Greene
cusan...@gmail.com
> "gabydewilde" <fotot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Is there any valid negative real world quality?
>
> Yes, for example, the electrical charge of an electron.
>
> Dave Greene
Dave? That is rediculous. What do you think the difference between a
negative charge and a positive is?
If you can define it for us it would be appreciated.
Mitch Raemsch
DAVID GREENE
>On Dec 7, 12:50 pm, "DAVID GREENE" <david_b_gre...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> "gabydewilde" <fotot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >Is there any valid negative real world quality?
>>
>> Yes, for example, the electrical charge of an electron.
>
>negative charge and a positive is?
>
>If you can define it for us it would be appreciated.
Who is "us," Mitch? Is *anyone* on your side?
Why don't you pick up a textbook? Criminy, you
are the guy who thinks a spring cannot be compressed
because there is a force against compression.
Dave Greene
gabydewilde
> "gabydewilde" <fotot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Is there any valid negative real world quality?
>
> Yes, for example, the electrical charge of an electron.
>
> Dave Greene
Yeah, one would think that but negative charges don't really subtract
from positive one's.
If we sum up positive and negative magnetic fields it appears as if
nothing remains but both fields are still present because the 2
overlapping fields do not originate from exactly the same point.
You can observe the "horrible" consequences here:
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor-theory
The flux pictures are photographs. Indeed it allows for self powered
engines it's not beyond the scope of this topic.
Electric charge we call a negative when it is below the background
level. It works just like Cecilius and Kelvin.
I did say negative _quality_ but the real *trick* question is of
course to show a negative _quantity_. We want a real world example of
something like
-10 * -10
I cant imagine finding anything in negative quantity.
To be honest it sounds like the whole concept originates in banking.
It doesn't lend it much credibility to say the least. Bankers omitting
perpetual motion sounds much like things bankers would do.
But ok, what if we have -10 people with -100 euro debt?
Or say -100 euro worth of negative charge at 10 charge per euro.
Does this really make sense or is it intended to be confusing?
The negative charge travels from the - to the +.
The north pole is the magnetic south pole.
At what stage would you begin to wonder who writes this stuff?
Howard Johnson only got a patent after elaborate demonstration of
permanent magnets doing work. His prototype made a dime worth of
energy per year and cost many thousands of dollars to build.
He did however get his patent.
But if physicists keep subtracting the fields.... yeah..... what shall
remain to say about it?
It is wrong... O_o
About the flux.
Here you have the weapons application
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9131480717071705781
here is the most recent motor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo6y2fwLZ_Q&feature=PlayList&p=5D2EA02EABD01947&index=0&playnext=1
Here is a crude video about the Newman motor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctWa_kMnEqg
Wesley Garry got his patent 3 October 1876
http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/wesley-gary/
Credibility is not truth, the observations show the fields do not
subtract.
Only the observations are truth.
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor-it-cant-be
The best part of this is where people observe it to be true then keep
repeating how "it cant be". Striking irony.
It doesn't prove it is wrong, no it shows exactly why they didn't know
it. Even if they do, no one would listen to them. God not real? How
dare you! lol
It goes without question people are willing to die to preserve their
believe system. Economic death, ecological death.... War in Iraq for
oil... you name it and they will die for it.
I really don't know of any negative quanta if that makes me a crank
then so be it!
The question seems honest enough to me.
What negative quanta? Where?
Or lets turn the question around. Perhaps that will make it more
obvious. Why do we only have one kind of negative quantity? It seems
to me there can be any number of different negative amounts of
something if there is any.
If a banana is -1 apple then surely that means a pear is also -1 apple
just like a kiwi.
If not, why?
cusan...@gmail.com
gabydewilde
> <cusanic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 7, 12:50 pm, "DAVID GREENE" <david_b_gre...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> "gabydewilde" <fotot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Is there any valid negative real world quality?
>
> >> Yes, for example, the electrical charge of an electron.
>
> >Dave? That is rediculous. What do you think the difference between a
> >negative charge and a positive is?
>
> >If you can define it for us it would be appreciated.
>
> Who is "us," Mitch? Is *anyone* on your side?
Yes, there really are people who want to know how the micro cosmos
works.
Antagonism isn't going to render such effort null.
> Why don't you pick up a textbook?
We want to learn how things work by figuring them out.
The text book is not the real world.
> Criminy, you
> are the guy who thinks a spring cannot be compressed
> because there is a force against compression.
I'm sure you think fields behave like springs.
It says so in the textbook so it has to be true.
But let me tell you something.
The text book is full of real discoveries from people outside
academia. In fact your far most scientific heroes got all the
opposition from academics their little flywheel effort could produce.
Honest review was never part of the review. For 5 long years
aeroplanes flew over the university. It was only then the phenomenon
was accepted in the text book. This was because the Professors started
to look like the lunatics they really are. Not because it was the
truth, it was merely to safe face.
Read all of this:
http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/water-fueled-car/1yrf1mzjtxzk5/2
If you don't have time see this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt3smrXkVpE (10:00)
If you have an even shorter attention span - see this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7M6S2brhFE (1:21)
What is the text book explanation for this one? Constant symmetry
perhaps? That doesn't explain the observation at all, in fact the
observations contradict it.
When will it be in the text book if you will never look into it? Could
that be "Never?" Well o well, what does that tell us about the text
book?
In stead you have censors and systems of surveillance. The truth is
not an author, it's not a person, it's not a heap of paper, it is not
some one's credentials.
The truth is out there!
No really!
DAVID GREENE
>On Dec 7, 9:50 pm, "DAVID GREENE" <david_b_gre...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> "gabydewilde" <fotot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Is there any valid negative real world quality?
>>
>> Yes, for example, the electrical charge of an electron.
>
>Yeah, one would think that but negative charges don't really subtract
>from positive one's.
They can subtract form each other affecting the net electric charge.
>If we sum up positive and negative magnetic fields...[snip crapola]
nutcase alert ...
>Electric charge we call a negative when it is below the background
>level. It works just like Cecilius and Kelvin.
No, it is unlike Kelvin, the reference is zero charge. There is no
electrical
charge equivalent to absolute zero.
>I did say negative _quality_ but the real *trick* question is of
>course to show a negative _quantity_. We want a real world
>example of something like
So now that you have been shown to be wrong you want
to change the question?
>Only the observations are truth.
So, there were no microbes until the microscope was invented?
I think gabydewilde is probably Mitch/BURT in drag.
Dave Greene
gabydewilde
> "gabydewilde" <fotot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 7, 9:50 pm, "DAVID GREENE" <david_b_gre...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> "gabydewilde" <fotot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >Is there any valid negative real world quality?
>
> >> Yes, for example, the electrical charge of an electron.
>
> >Yeah, one would think that but negative charges don't really subtract
> >from positive one's.
>
> They can subtract form each other affecting the net electric charge.
>
This doesn't make the operator part of the number.
You loose either way.
Show me negative quality and negative quantity.
Make it evident that -10 * -10 = 20
you poetically tried the truth by insult thing.
Insult is always the last resort.
Your statement doesn't prove that what you learn to be right, in stead
it shows exactly why you never bothered to think about it.
Show me negative quality and negative quantity. Stop telling me that
eating 1 apple reduces the number of apples from 10 to 9. Show me -10
times 10 negative apples equals 100 apples.
If we sum up positive and negative magnetic fields it appears as if
nothing remains but both fields are still present because the 2
overlapping fields do not originate from exactly the same point.
You can observe the consequences here:
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor-theory
The flux pictures are photographs.
IT ARE PHOTOGRAPHS DAVID GREENE.
Talking to Galileo after looking at the moon the church censors
suggested they should agree the picture of the moon was an illusion.
The same thing happened around 1905 when Royal Rife invented a
microscope. In the case of his microscope the truth was never
accepted.
I posted 20 videos in sci.physics.research and they rejected it
because the microscope didn't follow established believe systems.
Is it not obvious to you the observation overrules the text book?
O MY GAWD!!
Indeed it allows for self powered engines it's not beyond the scope of
this topic. Electric charge we call negative when it is below the
background level or they are 2 different entities. Never is the one a
negative of the other. Things go mathmatically wrong that way.
You seem not to be looking for the truth but repeating that what you
want to be the truth. It's just like claiming Humans are the only life
form in the galaxy. I don't object to any claim if you just show them
to be true. Why would an opperator become part of a variable?
> No, it is unlike Kelvin, the reference is zero charge. There is no
> electrical charge equivalent to absolute zero.
Either they are 2 different things or they are both part of the same
scale. At no stage does it become a negative value.
I did say negative _quality_ but the real *trick* question is of
course to show a negative _quantity_. We want a real world example of
something like
-10 * -10
> So now that you have been shown to be wrong you want
> to change the question?
No, now that I failed to explain what the point is I further elaborate
the point in the hope you will now try to understand it.
You know? Repetition?
I cant imagine finding anything in negative quantity. It not just
sounds dumb, in fact it really is nonsense until you prove it. Yes, I
wrote I wanted to see a negative quantity of things. Indeed it sounds
rather weird but it was not my claim. Sure, you learn this to be the
truth. But why would you not question it before accepting it?
To be honest it sounds like the whole concept originates in banking.
It doesn't lend it much credibility to say the least. Bankers omitting
perpetual motion sounds much like things bankers would do.
But ok, what if we have -10 people with -100 euro debt?
Or say -100 euro worth of negative charge at 10 charge per euro.
Does this really make sense or is it intended to be confusing?
The negative charge travels from the - to the +.
The north pole is the magnetic south pole.
At what stage would you begin to wonder who writes this stuff?
Howard Johnson only got a patent after elaborate demonstration of
permanent magnets doing work. His prototype made a dime worth of
energy per year and cost many thousands of dollars to build.
He did however get his patent.
But if physicists keep subtracting the fields.... yeah..... what shall
remain to say about it?
Here you have the weapons application
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9131480717071705781
here is the most recent motor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo6y2fwLZ_Q&feature=PlayList&p=5D2EA02EABD01947&index=0&playnext=1
Here is a crude video about the Newman motor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctWa_kMnEqg
Wesley Garry got his patent 3 October 1876
http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/wesley-gary/
Credibility is not truth, the observations show the fields do not
subtract.
Only the observations are truth.
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor-it-cant-be
JEMebius
The electrical charge of an electron is negative by convention.
Please mind the distinction between extensive and intensive quantities.
Quantities like length, area, volume, mass, positive electrical charge, negative
electrical charge are extensive quantities.
Quantities like line density, surface density, volume density = specific mass are
intensive quantities.
Extensive quantities are represented by nature by positive numbers.
Please resolve for yourself the paradox on positive as well as negative electrical
charges: this involves physics (real sex; Richard Feynman), not only mathematics
(masturbation).
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensive_quantity for more.
A better place for discussions on physical quantities are news:sci.physics and some of its
relatives.
Good luck: Johan E. Mebius
DAVID GREENE
news:95eb9574-e621-4249...@j39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>On Dec 8, 1:33 am, "DAVID GREENE" <david_b_gre...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> "gabydewilde" <fotot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 7, 9:50 pm, "DAVID GREENE" <david_b_gre...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >> "gabydewilde" <fotot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >Is there any valid negative real world quality?
>>
>> >> Yes, for example, the electrical charge of an electron.
>>
>> >Yeah, one would think that but negative charges don't really subtract
>> >from positive one's.
>>
>> They can subtract form each other affecting the net electric charge.
>
>This doesn't make the operator part of the number.
1) The subtraction operator is not part of the number.
2) The negative of the charge is not the operator.
3) QED
>You loose either way.
Talking to yourself again!
>Show me negative quality and negative quantity.
You asked for negative quality and I showed you. Then you
admitted it, now you try to deny it. I never signed up to
show a negative quantity.
>Stop telling me that eating 1 apple reduces the
>number of apples from 10 to 9.
I never told you that. Why do you resort to lies?
>If we sum up positive and negative magnetic fields it appears as if
>nothing remains but both fields are still present because the 2
>overlapping fields do not originate from exactly the same point.
Nutcase alert... Magnetic fields do not come in positive and negative.
>> No, it is unlike Kelvin, the reference is zero charge. There is no
>> electrical charge equivalent to absolute zero.
>
>Either they are 2 different things or they are both part of the same
>scale. At no stage does it become a negative value.
Here is your logical fallacy. You have assumed the conclusion - By
implying "same scale" as a scale that cannot contain a true zero at the
center. The only scale you allow is one such as Kelvin with zero on
an endpoint. Well the scale of electric charges has a zero and not just
because of mathematical shift as with the Celsius scale of temperature.
Negative charges are on one side of the scale and positive charges
are on the other.
Dave Greene
DAVID GREENE
> DAVID GREENE wrote:
>> "gabydewilde" <foto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Is there any valid negative real world quality?
>>
>> Yes, for example, the electrical charge of an electron.
>
Yes, it could have been done the other way around. It
could have been chosen that the electrical charge on an
electron was positive. Then the negative quality would
have been the charge on a proton. The point is that in
spite of which way we want to call it one of them is the
negative of the other. So, to sum it up, there are real
world qualities that are negative to other real world
qualities.
Dave Greene
cusan...@gmail.com
>
> >>> Is there any valid negative real world quality?
>
> >> Yes, for example, the electrical charge of an electron.
>
> > The electrical charge of an electron is negative by convention.
>
> Yes, it could have been done the other way around. It
> could have been chosen that the electrical charge on an
> electron was positive. Then the negative quality would
> have been the charge on a proton. The point is that in
> spite of which way we want to call it one of them is the
> negative of the other. So, to sum it up, there are real
> world qualities that are negative to other real world
> qualities.
>
> Dave Greene
How do we know what pole of a magnetic is so called the north?
Mitch Raemsch
JEMebius
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_north and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole the magnetic field of the
Earth is in first approximation modelled as a magnetic dipole.
In our years (i.e. around AD 2000) one of the poles is situated in the Northern
hemisphere, the other in the Southern hemisphere.
According to the Wikipedia lemma the pole in the N hemisphere is named "magnetic North pole".
A consequence of this convention is that the pole of the compass needle pointing North
must be the South pole of that needle.
If I remember well the opposite naming convention was in wide use in my schoolboy and
student's times (1950s - 1960s).
Happy navigating: Johan E. Mebius
JEMebius
Electrical charges happen to come in two kinds, commonly known as positive and negative.
Let us name the two kinds of electrical charge in this newsgroup post just A and B.
Each and any electrical charge is accompanied by an electrical field.
Physical facts:
Electrical fields of type A can be superimposed.
Electrical fields of type B can be superimposed.
Both types of electrical field are conveniently modelled as vector fields in 3D Euclidean
space. These fields are free of singularities and nowhere zero in the exterior of the room
taken by the electrical charges (assuming that the charges occupy a finite spatial extent).
It is a physical fact, not a mathematical fact, that electrical fields of mixed types can
be superimposed too. A most curious fact, given that on a subatomic scale electrical
charges of different types cannot occupy the same space without exploding into pure
energy. BTW, this is also true of charges of the same type.
In the mathematical model the superposition of electrical fields of different types
happens to be faithfully represented by pointwise vector subtraction. Assuming again a
finite extent of the electrical charges, the general field is free of singularities in the
exterior of the room taken by the charges, but may be zero at isolated points. The
equilibrium at any zero-field point is unstable.
So far the masturbation in Feynman's sense. The =real sex= always occurs when an electron
and a positron, or whatever pair of anti-particles, attract each other, meet on one and
the same spot and explode into pure light!
The better part of this mini-essay is of course old hat (Michael Faraday, 1831, 1839,
1855; James Clerk Maxwell, 1873).
Ciao: Johan E. Mebius
Michael Press
"DAVID GREENE" <david_b...@verizon.net> wrote:
A gdewilde instructed rec.bicycles.tech on how
to use a turbine to harness the wind flowing past
a bicycle and turn it into motive energy, but
they were too benighted to understand.
<http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/wheel-cover-turbine>
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/f283c85a2cc665e8?hl=en&q=turbine+group:rec.bicycles.tech>
--
Michael Press
gabydewilde
> In article <HXZ_k.538$7I6....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
>
> --
> Michael Press
The point of this idea is that people are to stupid to look into back
emf generators, gravity engines, anti gravity, magnet motors, radiant
energy. The subjects are to complicated to suspend disbelieves.
Further than this I cant dumb it down:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7M6S2brhFE
So lets use the wind and the drag! Do feel free to forget about the
turbine, we are going to use propellers now. You do understand
propellers. There are no more excuses.
First a few points:
1 - heavier than air flying machines can really fly.
2 - Sailboats can sail close to the wind.
3 - Windmills have only a few blades to prevent the wind from flowing
around it.
4 - Wind energy grows at the cube of the speed.
5 - Vehicle drag grows at the cube of the speed.
So this means we have 20 mph combined drag moving at 10 mph up
against
10 mph wind.
If you understand point (2) you know the boat may sail up the wind.
If
you understand point (3) you should be able to understand the blades
are not moving backwards but they are moving sidewards.
Sticking a windmill onto a car does not cause the blades to move
backwards. Not moving backwards means the sailboat like blades can
"sail" up the drag.
The blades are not moving in the same direction as the vehicle but
they are moving sidewards. I have more elaborate visual documentation
but I put together this silly picture to keep this posting short and
to the point.
http://wind-car.go-here.nl/sci-math-wind-car-nl.jpg
Please laugh at it first, then do the math and see the problems of
windmills (3) are not there, of course the first thing that pops to
mind is the drag but the drag is not there per point (4)
The concept is very old in lots of different applications. The only
thing that is missing is good math. We can use wind energy at zero
mph, the idea it would be worse at 60 mph is fairly silly.
I also proposed to build giant drinking bird generators powered by e-
vaporation.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/2a70b3565f44b201?hl=en&q=disney+physics
Drinking birds are no mere veneer of vanity, a conversation lawyering
vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this
valorous physics visitation of a bygone perpetual motion vexation
stands vivified to be vindicated, law violations of vaporisation vow
to vanquish these ventures of venal virulent energy science vanguard
vermin vouchsafing their violent vicious and voracious vocabular
violation of volition. The capillarity vichyssoise, it's viral
vaporization and violent virtue of vessel pressure verily. Votive
verbiage, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one
day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. To veer the verbose from
vacuum to vortical let me quote Victor:
"Implosion is no invention in the conventional sense, but rather the
renaissance of ancient knowledge, lost over the course of time."
This drinking bird visitation verily begs to vision vessel volume,
velocity, vehicle validity and choice of vapor. Does it not?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8160773907297845029
More than "oh, ha-ha-ha" the victims of the energy monopoly can not
produce.
You really deserve to be lied to by Don Lancaster, Eeyore, Hairy C.,
George Bush, Dick Cheney and MC Billo Rally.
Look out a terrorist behind you!
ROFLMSO !!
http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/water-fueled-car/1yrf1mzjtxzk5/2#
DAVID GREENE
Dave Greene
"gabydewilde" <foto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e75c1582-43e1-4c8d...@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
gabydewilde
Uncle Al
>
idiot
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/htoo.htm
Make unlimited free energy and free hydrogen as byproduct. Power a
town from a spinning 2-liter bottle.
idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2