Most STUPID conjecture by PHYSICIST
Strich 9
"The General Theory of Relativity renders it likely that the electrical
masses of an electron are held together by gravitational forces." *
[*Albert Einstein. RELATIVITY: The Special and General Theory. Henry
Holt and Company, New York, 1920. page 60.]
--
Strich 9
Sam Wormley
A foot note... 80 some years ago.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/16.html
Huang
> > "The General Theory of Relativity renders it likely that the electrical
> > masses of an electron are held together by gravitational forces." *
>
> > [*Albert Einstein. RELATIVITY: The Special and General Theory. Henry
> > Holt and Company, New York, 1920. page 60.]
I dont think that it is so stupid. In fact, with some very reasonable
tweaking you might be able to salvage the model of a gravity based
atom.
Spaceman
The statement is salvagable I agree, and could actually be true,
but of course it would have to toss SR so far away that it would
leave this universe completely.
It simply would mean electrons produce an "pressure" and the
cause for gravity is simply a coriolis effect (and i mean the liquid type
of coriolis effect, not the bad website definitions that have merry go
round effects which are actually centrifugal type of forces)
And it all occurs such in an electron filled sea that the Universe
and all space is filled with.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman
Huang
wrote:
Actually, I was thinking more along the lines that :
If you can explain planetary precession of perihelion by making space
"existentially rarified", thus contracting it .....
THEN - the argument over the Bohr, de Broglie, Rutherford and
Heisenberg can ALL be reconciled....
You simply contract space probabilistically, just enough to allow the
laws of gravitation to make sense for electrons orbiting the nucleus.
Spaceman
Contracting "space" is not possible physically since physically space
is "nothing", but if you have a "something" in that space that is getting
"compressed or contracted" then you have a space that can contract.
So. you still need "stuff" like I stated to physically describe the
ability to contract at all.
It does fall into an "aether/ether" or "dirac sea", but it actually would
make
much more sense for forces of gravity also.
:)
:)
PD
wrote:
> "The General Theory of Relativity renders it likely that the electrical
> masses of an electron are held together by gravitational forces." *
>
It's wrong, yes. Was it *stupid* 80 years ago? Not really.
Is something that turns out to be wrong then stupid, Strich9? If you
are shown to be wrong about something, will this demonstrate that you
are stupid?
PD
The Ghost In The Machine
<huangx...@yahoo.com>
wrote
on Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:40:21 -0700 (PDT)
<b9d05ac5-ec0b-4b96...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
F = G*m1*m2/d^2
If m1 = m_e = 9.10938188 * 10^-31 kg,
m2 = m_p = 1.67262171 * 10^-27 kg,
d = 2.5 * 10^-11 m,
and G = 6.674215 * 10^-11 m^3/(kg s^2),
then F = 1.6270722 * 10^-46 Newton, which makes
the weight of a butterfly's eyelash gigantic by comparison.
Even the Earthly weight of a proton -- which is simply
g * m_p = 1.64 * 10^-26 N, where g = 9.805 N/kg -- swamps
this effect by just over 10 orders of magnitude, despite
the fact that the Earth's center is on the order of
2.55 * 10^17 hydrogen radii away.
I don't see it.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #10239993:
char * f(char *p) {char *q = malloc(strlen(p)); strcpy(q,p); return q; }
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Uncle Al
Hey fucking stooopid - if there are compactified dimensions, how do
you know that it is wrong? A Kuratowski subgraph homeomorphic to K_5
or K_3,3 would do the trick, as would a knot - including fermion
chirality.
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Spaceman
> Hey fucking stooopid - if there are compactified dimensions, how do
> you know that it is wrong?
There goes Al again, adding the if in between the sc and the i of sci
creating scifi.
:)
If there were invisible imaginary unicorns how does Uncle Al know
they are wrong?
Darwin123
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> In sci.physics, Huang
> <huangxienc...@yahoo.com>
> wrote
> on Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:40:21 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>
> >> > "The General Theory of Relativity renders it likely that the electrical
> >> > masses of an electron are held together by gravitational forces." *
>
> >> > [*Albert Einstein. RELATIVITY: The Special and General Theory. Henry
> >> > Holt and Company, New York, 1920. page 60.]
>
> > I dont think that it is so stupid. In fact, with some very reasonable
> > tweaking you might be able to salvage the model of a gravity based
> > atom.
>
> F = G*m1*m2/d^2
>
> If m1 = m_e = 9.10938188 * 10^-31 kg,
> m2 = m_p = 1.67262171 * 10^-27 kg,
> d = 2.5 * 10^-11 m,
you are using the size of the electron usually given in
electrodynamics texts. In this derivation, the total rest energy of an
electron, mc^2, is set equal to the potential energy for a uniformly
distributed electrical charge, 0.5(ke^2/d^2) for a spherical shell.
This assumes that the rest mass of the electron comes entirely
from the interaction of the negative charge with itself. However, if
we add gravitational effects then we have to subtract the negative
potential energy of the gravitational mass interacting with itself.
Then the size of the electron, characterized by "d", can be much
smaller than the classical electron radius.
Your assumption is of "d" is rather stupid. Albert is at worse
wrong.
I suspect that there is a negative contribution from the
attractive force of the weak nuclear force, and just maybe a
contribution from the strong nuclear force. Also, there is no version
of quantum mechanics consistent with general relativity. So it gets
more complicated.
Of course, Albert was assuming that quantum mechanics is wrong.
As we all know, quantum mechanics is correct. Thus, no one has yet
been able to correlate the mass of an electron with any of the four
forces. Albert appears to have made a big mistake. However, stay tuned.
Igor
wrote:
Phlogiston and caloric were once viable theories too. No one
considered them stupid. Today, we know they were as wrong as could
ever be, but probably worthwhile attempts. Einstein's paper from all
those decades ago falls into that same category. Frankly, I'll take
an educated individual's mistakes over an uneducated idiot's successes
any day. They tend to be much more instructive.
Matthew Johnson
Igor says...
>
>On Aug 12, 1:46=A0pm, Strich 9 <Strich.9.2e7c...@physicsbanter.com>
>wrote:
>> "The General Theory of Relativity renders it likely that the electrical
>> masses of an electron are held together by gravitational forces." *
>>
>y
>> Holt and Company, New York, 1920. =A0page 60.]
>>
>> --
>> Strich 9
>
>Phlogiston and caloric were once viable theories too. No one
>considered them stupid. Today, we know they were as wrong as could
>ever be, but probably worthwhile attempts.
No, they weren't THAT far wrong. The Phlogiston theory allowed them to write the
correct differential equations for heat conduction. This was a major
breakthrough, we still use the math learned from that for lots ofother physics
today.
[snip]
Y.Porat
wrote:
--------------------
Think about some very basic particle
that moves * naturally** in a closed path
Y.P
----------------------------
Y.Porat
---------------
at out situation
advance in physics
can be done only by
**trial and error**
therefore - being wrong in trials
should not be condemned ...
Y.P
-------------------------------
Huang
> >> > "The General Theory of Relativity renders it likely that the electrical
> >> > masses of an electron are held together by gravitational forces." *
>
> >> > [*Albert Einstein. RELATIVITY: The Special and General Theory. Henry
> >> > Holt and Company, New York, 1920. page 60.]
>
> > I dont think that it is so stupid. In fact, with some very reasonable
> > tweaking you might be able to salvage the model of a gravity based
> > atom.
>
> F = G*m1*m2/d^2
>
> If m1 = m_e = 9.10938188 * 10^-31 kg,
> m2 = m_p = 1.67262171 * 10^-27 kg,
> d = 2.5 * 10^-11 m,
> and G = 6.674215 * 10^-11 m^3/(kg s^2),
> then F = 1.6270722 * 10^-46 Newton, which makes
> the weight of a butterfly's eyelash gigantic by comparison.
>
> Even the Earthly weight of a proton -- which is simply
> g * m_p = 1.64 * 10^-26 N, where g = 9.805 N/kg -- swamps
> this effect by just over 10 orders of magnitude, despite
> the fact that the Earth's center is on the order of
> 2.55 * 10^17 hydrogen radii away.
Unfortunately I dont have raw data for anomalous planetary precession.
I should work out some theoretical formulas and just see what the math
looks like without the data. But that would be the first problem to
solve.
One major argument against what I claimed is the configurations of s
and p orbitals, because they look nothing like planetary ellipses. But
you could look at the hydrogen atom just for the heck of it.
F = G*m1*m2/d^2
If m1 = m_e = 9.10938188 * 10^-31 kg,
m2 = m_p = 1.67262171 * 10^-27 kg,
d = 2.5 * 10^-11 m,
and G = 6.674215 * 10^-11 m^3/(kg s^2),
then F = 1.6270722 * 10^-46 Newton, which makes
the weight of a butterfly's eyelash gigantic by comparison.
True.
But if instead of d=2.5*10^-11 you use instead something like a
"probabilistically rarified (or enriched)" d, so that yo uare
calculating with an "expected d", then you might be able to get things
to match up a little better.
I have not worked through the problem at all really, I only see it as
a possible way of looking at things.
The Ghost In The Machine
<drose...@yahoo.com>
wrote
on Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:36:16 -0700 (PDT)
<ea76066e-957b-48ee...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:
> On Aug 13, 12:28 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
> <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>> In sci.physics, Huang
>> <huangxienc...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote
>> on Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:40:21 -0700 (PDT)
>> <b9d05ac5-ec0b-4b96-840e-fe454e91a...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > "The General Theory of Relativity renders it likely that the electrical
>> >> > masses of an electron are held together by gravitational forces." *
>>
>> >> > [*Albert Einstein. RELATIVITY: The Special and General Theory. Henry
>> >> > Holt and Company, New York, 1920. page 60.]
>>
>> > I dont think that it is so stupid. In fact, with some very reasonable
>> > tweaking you might be able to salvage the model of a gravity based
>> > atom.
>>
>> F = G*m1*m2/d^2
>>
>> If m1 = m_e = 9.10938188 * 10^-31 kg,
>> m2 = m_p = 1.67262171 * 10^-27 kg,
>> d = 2.5 * 10^-11 m,
> Your assumption about the size of "d" is incorrect. I think that
> you are using the size of the electron usually given in
> electrodynamics texts.
Actually, d is the empirical radius of the Hydrogen atom, if
I've done this correctly. Of course, I'm not exactly using QM here.
> In this derivation, the total rest energy of an
> electron, mc^2, is set equal to the potential energy for a uniformly
> distributed electrical charge, 0.5(ke^2/d^2) for a spherical shell.
> This assumes that the rest mass of the electron comes entirely
> from the interaction of the negative charge with itself. However, if
> we add gravitational effects then we have to subtract the negative
> potential energy of the gravitational mass interacting with itself.
> Then the size of the electron, characterized by "d", can be much
> smaller than the classical electron radius.
> Your assumption is of "d" is rather stupid. Albert is at worse
> wrong.
> I suspect that there is a negative contribution from the
> attractive force of the weak nuclear force, and just maybe a
> contribution from the strong nuclear force. Also, there is no version
> of quantum mechanics consistent with general relativity. So it gets
> more complicated.
> Of course, Albert was assuming that quantum mechanics is wrong.
> As we all know, quantum mechanics is correct. Thus, no one has yet
> been able to correlate the mass of an electron with any of the four
> forces. Albert appears to have made a big mistake. However, stay tuned.
Albert made several mistakes, though the most notable
one is arguably the cosmological constant. I also have
concerns about "dark energy", but then, we only know
about this damp little corner of the Universe anyway --
who knows what's really out there until we go look? :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
/dev/signature: No such file or directory
Spaceman
I can think of such but I can not think of any physical
cause for such to occur without adding in other particles
that force the curved motion so it would not actually be
natural alone but could be natural with surrounding
substances.
Sorry Y.
:(
Strich 9
Huang;1210348 Wrote:
> --
> "The General Theory of Relativity renders it likely that the
> electrical
> -
> [*Albert Einstein. *RELATIVITY: The Special and General Theory.
> *Henry
> Holt and Company, New York, 1920. *page 60.]--
>
> I dont think that it is so stupid. In fact, with some very reasonable
> tweaking you might be able to salvage the model of a gravity based
> atom.
Kindly show us this "reasonable tweak" you have in mind.
--
Strich 9
Darwin123
wrote:
> Huang;1210348 Wrote:
> > I dont think that it is so stupid. In fact, with some very reasonable
> > tweaking you might be able to salvage the model of a gravity based
> > atom.
>
> Kindly show us this "reasonable tweak" you have in mind.
Okay, change "d." To anything that fits. The criticism of Einstein was
based on a calculation where a parameter "d" was pulled out of
someones lower torso. It was never valid.
How's this? I won't calculate the numbers for you. However, the
idea is pretty easy.
1) The radius of the electron is determined by the Schwartfeld radius
of the electron, given that the mass of the electron is "m." I think
its:
mc^2=Gm^2/d
where d is the Schwartfeld radius and M is.
2) Set the electrostatic energy of the electron equal to mc^2.
mc^2=fkq^2/d
where f is a structure factor that depends on the probability
distribution of the charge. It changes with the shape of the electron.
I don't have to calculate f right now, but it can be anything
depending on the actual shape of the electron which is unknown.
So, substituting 1 into 2 we get:
Gm^2=fkq^2
We got ourselves a constraint on the shape of the electron in
addition to getting the exact radius of the electron.
Hey, I know this model is BS. It doesn't include quantum
mechanics, spin, or general relativity. You wanted a model that may
have seemed plausible in 1900.
Einstein wasn't stupid, he was just cautious. He didn't want to
propose a BS theory that could be disproved in a few months. Now a
days, such a model would have to include quantum mechanics. That makes
the problem much harder. But it wasn't stupid in 1900 to propose that
there may be a theory, sometime in the future, that really works.
Those structure factors are fun. Without quantum mechanics, you
can make the shape of the electron anything you want. Its all
plausible, without quantum mechanics. But Einstein didn't have quantum
mechanics when he made that statement. No one did.
Y.Porat
wrote:
----------------------
but Spacemen
you missed the whole idea !
once you are in a dead lock
you cannot get out of it just using the old tools
you have to look for something new
(please remember theonly way of getting out
of a dead lock:
it is trial and error)
at amy of the existing suggestions
youhave not the answer to the question
what is that 'mysterious' force
that keeps matter from escaping to the endless
space inspight the endless inner repulsive collisions
that ocure endlessly
it is always if you will say
that there is something that is pushing it back inside
than that 'something' is pushed OUTWARDS!!
according to the law of CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM !!
so it must be soemetning that 'pushes itself' inwards
that is exactly why Einstein invented the curved space time
but he didnt realize that sapce is nothing
it is enpthy
if you suggest the old Aether you have the same above problem
and you forget that in that case
you as well introduced as well an arbitrary invented
physical entity in order to solve the problem
but i pointed to you that eve you' aether
does not answer the **over all ** momentum conservation problem.
2
the Aether does not answer for instance the queastion
why should not Aether be deluted (becomming less
and less dense ) while
space is expanding
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------
Spaceman
Gravity works like a coriolis effect but with "masses so small
we can only witness thier force via gravity.
The natural curve is not really needed, but the force can cause
the curving motion naturally just like coriolis forces
cause mass to push towards the center of the spin.
higer energy pushes the lesser energy towards the center
to conserve energy.
> so it must be soemetning that 'pushes itself' inwards
> that is exactly why Einstein invented the curved space time
> but he didnt realize that sapce is nothing
> it is enpthy
I think he just did not want to look for the "smallest" stuff
that causes this curved effect.
> if you suggest the old Aether you have the same above problem
> and you forget that in that case
> you as well introduced as well an arbitrary invented
> physical entity in order to solve the problem
> but i pointed to you that eve you' aether
> does not answer the **over all ** momentum conservation problem.
> 2
> the Aether does not answer for instance the queastion
> why should not Aether be deluted (becomming less
> and less dense ) while
> space is expanding
Coriolis effect with mass smaller than we can detect
can actually do the job I think.
And it actually causes the "natural" curving motion also.
Huang
wrote:
Here is what Ghost In The Machine posted. And I agree with him, but I
am not so sure about the value of d. Here is what he wrote :
> F = G*m1*m2/d^2
>
> If m1 = m_e = 9.10938188 * 10^-31 kg,
> m2 = m_p = 1.67262171 * 10^-27 kg,
> d = 2.5 * 10^-11 m,
> and G = 6.674215 * 10^-11 m^3/(kg s^2),
> then F = 1.6270722 * 10^-46 Newton, which makes
> the weight of a butterfly's eyelash gigantic by comparison.
>
> Even the Earthly weight of a proton -- which is simply
> g * m_p = 1.64 * 10^-26 N, where g = 9.805 N/kg -- swamps
> this effect by just over 10 orders of magnitude, despite
> the fact that the Earth's center is on the order of
> 2.55 * 10^17 hydrogen radii away.
The above is a valid criticism from the point of view of "rubbery
ducky physics".
My approach is completely different. First - I have discarded the
notions of energy and force completely. These concepts do not appear
in any of my calculations. Energy and space are the same thing.
So, to model energy, you need to understand probability distributions
really well.
This does not mean that we simply abandon the relationship :
F = G*m1*m2/d^2 .
Rather, all we need is an approapriate probabilistic interpretation of
F = G*m1*m2/d^2 which is not "rubber ducky centric".
I do not have a solution to this problem at this time, but I am
working on it. I also question the usefulness of a solution because
even if it is true for Hydrogen, you still have 100 more atoms to
explain and their orbitals are not so pretty. So, it is unlikely that
you would ever be able to think of the atom as being a tiny solar
system, even if a gravity based explanation can be found for Hydrogen.
Regardless, I do believe that the gravitational view is correct, where
gravity is thought of as a bending of spacetime.
Y.Porat
so why not call it th e Circlon (:-)
a basic particle that moves naturally in a circular path ??
is it not the simplest ??
Y.P
-----------------------------
Y.Porat
-----------------
just save your precious time
and forget about 'curvature of space time
(though SR is right !!!)
have you ever heard about the alternative ideal
of the 'Circlon ' ??
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------
Huang
>
> - Show quoted text -
Einstein explained what energy really is. The whole world said "wow"
and then ignored him.
I dont play with rubber duckies in the bathtub. All energy is
modellable as being nothing more than bent space.
In this universe you have dimension, and that is all. All of the forms
of energy which appear to exist are all manifestations of bent,
twisted and knotted space.
The idea of energy should have been obsoleted in 1950. There is
_nothing_ in this universe except dimension and dynamics.
To model this you must use an scheme which "looks like math but really
may or may not actually be math". There is a piece of that puzzle that
I cant post that you'll never figure out in 100 years, and I refuse to
post it because I rather enjoy being the biggest asshole currently
alive on the planet.
Have you ever burned ants with a magnifying glass ? Well, that is what
mankind is doing to itself, and it's highly entertaining to watch. If
you understood fusion, why on Earth would you ever want to share that
when it would be so much more fun to watch humanity suffocate itself
with it's own CO2 emmissions ?
Spaceman
There has to be a physical cause for the natural circular path
though.
Like we always say, no mass = no real and no energy to
change path etc so it has to be caused by a surrounding mass.
And I think coriolis effect explains such very well.
(but not the stupid merry go round mistake made on websites)
I mean the "fluid" effect of coriolis.
Strich 9
Huang;1212486 Wrote:
>
>
> In this universe you have dimension, and that is all. All of the forms
> of energy which appear to exist are all manifestations of bent,
> twisted and knotted space.
>
>
You do not even need "space". "Space" is merely the geometric
interpretation of numbers. At the most fundamental, you only need
numbers. Abstract numbers.
You're welcome.
--
Strich 9
Huang
wrote:
So, reality is an abstraction ? The physical is really abstract ?
Happy to help.
Y.Porat
i am afraid you didnt get the simple idea of the 'Circlon'
it is a postulate
that you have to accept it or leave it
it is a basic assumption that theremust be
some basic particle that moves naturally
in a closed circle (if not disturbed on its way
i came to it by understanding that no other idea
can answer to scratch all possible questions
that actually at this time are 'swept under the carpet'
(iow overlooked )
nothing will do against a theory that does not use it
there cant be a model that will explain
how can any attraction be
by messengers that are shot directly
in the shortest line between the two attracted bodies
it is because any messenger like that
that has momentum actually to push the acted masses
instead of pulling them closer
if you think about some hydraulic effect
you assume that teh whole univers is full of matter
and it cant be
because if it was all full of matter
no motion could be done
motion is only of matter through some empty space
2
if it was as your 'full of fluid' space
than what happens to that 'fluid' while space is
expanding??
is it still full of that 'fluid' ??
even the hydraulic effect is taking place
you overlook the fact that even in the hydraulic environment
there is the attraction force between the molecules of that
'fluid
that you overlooked
so
iow
by introducing the' hydraulic mechanism'
you just pushed the real problem -**the very attraction problem** !!
(pospond it
or suspended it )) further away from yourself (just for as while )
ie
it is either you overlooked the real problem
or 'pushed it under the carpet'
and actually left it unsolved
btw
Einstein understood it first and that is why he
suggested the curved space
but he didnt realize that space is nothing
and the real actor there is some unknown yet property of** mass!**
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------------
Spaceman
The expanding space is not actually true porat,
Just like there must be real mass in motion to create energy,
there must already be space there for objects to move into it,
(or expand).
The only reason we see it "expanding" is because we get to see
one year more for every year the light can travel.
and we won't see any further til something from out there's light
actually reaches us, or something that we see already moves out
that far.
The fluid still can work.
It is another that has "basic logic" also.
> even the hydraulic effect is taking place
> you overlook the fact that even in the hydraulic environment
> there is the attraction force between the molecules of that
> 'fluid
> that you overlooked
> so
> iow
> by introducing the' hydraulic mechanism'
> you just pushed the real problem -**the very attraction problem** !!
> (pospond it
> or suspended it )) further away from yourself (just for as while )
> ie
> it is either you overlooked the real problem
> or 'pushed it under the carpet'
> and actually left it unsolved
> btw
> Einstein understood it first and that is why he
> suggested the curved space
> but he didnt realize that space is nothing
> and the real actor there is some unknown yet property of** mass!**
I am not overlooking the problem,
The pressure of the smallest mass causes the outward movement
and the attraction we see occur to the stuff being forced together
by even more pressure closer inside the universe where we are.
anyways.
I can see where you are coming from with the natural curve motion,
I hope you can see where I am coming from with the "space is already there
and what we see is just moving towards it from the pressure that is caused
by the physical mass and every single growth and force of mass occuring.
Dirk Van de moortel
Strich.9...@physicsbanter.com
Yes, our GPS satellites and our planet and our Sun, they are
merely fly "through a geometric interpretation of numbers."
Yes, to launch a rocket at the most fundamental level, you
"only need numbers". "Abstract numbers."
Dirk Vdm
Y.Porat
we are not detecting expansion of space
by measuring space -- we cant measure space
we can do it only by measuring the
**distance between materialistic objects in space *
and the those measurements show
growing **distance** between the objects that were
measured with elaps of time
we cannot know anything about empty space
unless we can detect new unknown particles
between those known expanding objects
if you tell me that
those 'unknown particles' are Circlons
i a m with you
yet even so their number cannot grow with
expanding space
because you cant create some (new things -
physical objects ) from nothing
2
i hope you notices my remark about the inner attraction force
that exist in a hydraulic system
(that you make an analogy to it )
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------
Y.Porat
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Strich 9 <Strich.9.2ebb...@physicsbanter.com> wrote in message
>
> Strich.9.2ebb...@physicsbanter.com
Bravo Dirky
you start (even late ) to be a physicist
and it i s better late than never .......
the next step wil be to handle your
W bosons (:-)
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------
PD
And in so doing, accept (or leave) a particle that naturally violates
the conservation of momentum. The conservation of momentum law,
recall, says that there is NOTHING that travels naturally in a closed
circle.
Huang
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Strich 9 <Strich.9.2ebb...@physicsbanter.com> wrote in message
>
> Strich.9.2ebb...@physicsbanter.com
>
>
> >> In this universe you have dimension, and that is all. All of the forms
> >> of energy which appear to exist are all manifestations of bent,
> >> twisted and knotted space.
>
> > You do not even need "space". "Space" is merely the geometric
> > interpretation of numbers. At the most fundamental, you only need
> > numbers. Abstract numbers.
>
> Yes, our GPS satellites and our planet and our Sun, they are
> merely fly "through a geometric interpretation of numbers."
> Yes, to launch a rocket at the most fundamental level, you
> "only need numbers". "Abstract numbers."
>
> Dirk Vdm
Well, if you are talking about the universe that exists in your mind,
then yes it is abstract.
But if you are talking about physics, then you are wrong. It is
physical, and that is why they call it "physics".
I think you've been reading too much information theory interpretation
of QM, which should be a banned because of it is a purient and obscene
subject matter.
Dirk Van de moortel
fcd1d3b9-aa99-4f4f...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com
> On Aug 16, 3:27 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
> SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Strich 9 <Strich.9.2ebb...@physicsbanter.com> wrote in message
>>
>> Strich.9.2ebb...@physicsbanter.com
>>
>>> Huang;1212486 Wrote:
>>
>>>> In this universe you have dimension, and that is all. All of the forms
>>>> of energy which appear to exist are all manifestations of bent,
>>>> twisted and knotted space.
>>
>>> You do not even need "space". "Space" is merely the geometric
>>> interpretation of numbers. At the most fundamental, you only need
>>> numbers. Abstract numbers.
>>
>> Yes, our GPS satellites and our planet and our Sun, they are
>> merely fly "through a geometric interpretation of numbers."
>> Yes, to launch a rocket at the most fundamental level, you
>> "only need numbers". "Abstract numbers."
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> Well, if you are talking about the universe that exists in your mind,
> then yes it is abstract.
I am talking about the universe that exists in Strich's mind.
>
> But if you are talking about physics, then you are wrong. It is
> physical, and that is why they call it "physics".
Yes.
But perhaps I am talking like Strich.
>
> I think you've been reading too much information theory interpretation
> of QM, which should be a banned because of it is a purient and obscene
> subject matter.
I think you have no sense of humour.
Dirk Vdm
Strich 9
Huang;1212745 Wrote:
> On Aug 15, 12:42*pm, Strich 9 Strich.9.2ebb...@physicsbanter.com
> wrote:-
> Huang;1212486 Wrote:
>
>
> -
> In this universe you have dimension, and that is all. All of the
> forms
> of energy which appear to exist are all manifestations of bent,
>
> You do not even need "space". "Space" is merely the geometric
> interpretation of numbers. At the most fundamental, you only need
> numbers. Abstract numbers.
>
> You're welcome.
>
> --
>
> So, reality is an abstraction ? The physical is really abstract ?
>
> Happy to help.
No help needed. Thank you anyway.
Back to your question... Is that hard to grasp? -A universe of pure
abstraction-, to quote myself, or a -mathematical universe hypothesis-,
to quote Max Tegmark (gee, I don't know how he developed that idea)
I suggest a quick read on "Idealism" in philosophy as a backgrounder.
--
Strich 9
Dirk Van de moortel
Ah.
We have another armchair philosopher in out mids.
One without a book, without an ISBN, without a name, without a brain.
Tell me, does it hurt when you feel you
Have Something To Say To The World,
but you are
Too Much Of A Coward To Even Reveal Your Name?
Dirk Vdm
Y.Porat
---------------------------
?????
where did you find that law ??
i said many times that if you takl aboth an
attraction messenger that is moving in a straight line
tothe acted mass
it cannot cause the acted mass tocome closer to the acting mass
because it can only cause it to be pushed further
OTHA
the circlon can cause attraction because
it hitts the acted mass from behind !!!
(its rare side )
do you want to say that a particle that moves naturally in a closed
circle i s violating any momentum law ??
how about Einsteins curved space-time ?? movement ??
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------------------
>
Huang
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> fcd1d3b9-aa99-4f4f-84ed-eb40e47e8...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry -
I really do have one. And my reply probably sounded quite a bit like
an asshole, because I am one. But I do have an excellent sense of
humor.
Im just an asshole with a sense of humor. A smartass. A real life "Dr
Evil". Bald, I have a midget sidekick who looks just like me and yes I
do plan to take over the world.
Dirk Van de moortel
>
> I really do have one. And my reply probably sounded quite a bit like
> an asshole, because I am one. But I do have an excellent sense of
> humor.
>
> Im just an asshole with a sense of humor. A smartass. A real life "Dr
> Evil". Bald, I have a midget sidekick who looks just like me and yes I
> do plan to take over the world.
That's much better already :-)
Cheers,
Dirk Vdm
Y.y.Porat
well said !!!
iow
too much nasty private interests
and too little science and technology
Y.Porat
-------------------------------
Y.Porat
----------------------
Huang
> > The idea of energy should have been obsoleted in 1950. There is
> > _nothing_ in this universe except dimension and dynamics.
>
> > To model this you must use an scheme which "looks like math but really
> > may or may not actually be math". There is a piece of that puzzle that
> > I cant post that you'll never figure out in 100 years, and I refuse to
> > post it because I rather enjoy being the biggest asshole currently
> > alive on the planet.
>
> > Have you ever burned ants with a magnifying glass ? Well, that is what
> > mankind is doing to itself, and it's highly entertaining to watch. If
> > you understood fusion, why on Earth would you ever want to share that
> > when it would be so much more fun to watch humanity suffocate itself
> > with it's own CO2 emmissions ?
>
> well said !!!
> iow
> too much nasty private interests
> and too little science and technology
>
> Y.Porat
> -------------------------------
>
> Y.Porat
roflmao
What I said actually proves what an imbecile I am from time to time,
especially on those rare occasions that I lose the capacity to give a
shit.
PD
Conservation of momentum? You did not know about this law?
>
> i said many times that if you takl aboth an
> attraction messenger that is moving in a straight line
> tothe acted mass
> it cannot cause the acted mass tocome closer to the acting mass
> because it can only cause it to be pushed further
Not so. The momentum exchanged is a function of both the direction the
particle goes AND the sign of the charge at the vertex. You didn't
know that?
> OTHA
> the circlon can cause attraction because
> it hitts the acted mass from behind !!!
> (its rare side )
>
> do you want to say that a particle that moves naturally in a closed
> circle i s violating any momentum law ??
Uh. Yeah.
>
> how about Einsteins curved space-time ?? movement ??
Particles travel in *straight lines* in curved space. I know this is
tricky for you. A geodesic is a *straight line* in a curved space.
>
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> -----------------------------------------
>
>
Spaceman
> Particles travel in *straight lines* in curved space. I know this is
> tricky for you. A geodesic is a *straight line* in a curved space.
ROFLOL
A geodesic is not a straight line PD.
You only prove how much you have been brainwashed when you
say such.
PD
wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > Particles travel in *straight lines* in curved space. I know this is
> > tricky for you. A geodesic is a *straight line* in a curved space.
>
> ROFLOL
> A geodesic is not a straight line PD.
Of course it is. Look it up.
Eric Gisse
wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > Particles travel in *straight lines* in curved space. I know this is
> > tricky for you. A geodesic is a *straight line* in a curved space.
>
> ROFLOL
> A geodesic is not a straight line PD.
Yeah, it is. Ask a surveyor.
Spaceman
> On Aug 17, 4:34 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote:
>> PD wrote:
>>> Particles travel in *straight lines* in curved space. I know this is
>>> tricky for you. A geodesic is a *straight line* in a curved space.
>>
>> ROFLOL
>> A geodesic is not a straight line PD.
>
> Of course it is. Look it up.
I have,
I see a geodesic will create a circle and circles are not straight lines.
You must be seeing things.
:)
Again, you only prove how brainwashed you have become.
Spaceman
> On Aug 17, 1:34 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote:
>> PD wrote:
>>> Particles travel in *straight lines* in curved space. I know this is
>>> tricky for you. A geodesic is a *straight line* in a curved space.
>>
>> ROFLOL
>> A geodesic is not a straight line PD.
>
> Yeah, it is. Ask a surveyor.
LOL
You do that Eric.
Tell him a geodesic has no curve at all!
Then ask him,
How does it make a great circle then?
LOL
Freakin rubber ruler morons!
Huang
wrote:
Incredulous.
Is this the level of discussion these days ? I honestly cant believe
it.
But thanks to PD for mentioning it, I had almost fogot about that
general principle and had not stoppoed to consider how it might carry
over to space which is deformed by "existential indeterminacy".
You just gave me some great ideas for applying differential equations
to the mess Ive created.
Y.Porat
is it not tricky for you ??
what a nice(idiotic ) way to cheat !!!
if it was as you say
what at all is there a need for curved space ??
the photon that curves next to sun
is moving 'at the end of the day' 'in a straight line ??
do you thing that ** verbal manipulations**
will advance us in physics ??!!
or leave you a crackparroter for the rest of your life ??
keep well
Y.Porat
---------------------
Y.Porat
----------------
and another question to PD
the electron that moves according some theories
around the nuc
**is violating the law of momentum conservation??!!!
particles that are located at the edge of a rotating disk
are violating the the conservation of momentum ??!!
the earth that is rotating around the sun
is violating the conservation of momentum??!!
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------
Eric Gisse
Yea, he is that stupid.
Huang
>
> - Show quoted text -
More's the pity.
PD
It's not a cheat.
Here, I'll help: Define "straight" first.
>
> if it was as you say
> what at all is there a need for curved space ??
>
> the photon that curves next to sun
> is moving 'at the end of the day' 'in a straight line ??
Yes.
PD
No, because they are not moving "by their nature" around the nucleus.
They are under the influence of a *force*. Your circlon moves in a
circle "by its nature" and without the influence of a force -- this is
what violates the conservation of momentum.
Now, if you are happy to say that the circlon moves in a circle
because it's under the influence of a force, then that's a wholly
separate thing. But that's not what you've been saying.
>
> particles that are located at the edge of a rotating disk
> are violating the the conservation of momentum ??!!
>
> the earth that is rotating around the sun
> is violating the conservation of momentum??!!
I cannot believe you were ever a structural engineer and do not
remember what conservation of momentum means.
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> -----------------------
PD
It's not a way to cheat. However, I understand that you are confused.
I understand that you find it difficult how a geodesic in curved space
could possibly be straight -- the entire concept is just nonsensical
to you. To you, all lines in curved space are curved and straight
lines are only possible in uncurved space. This is why I'm asking you
to tell me what you think "straight" *means*. Please summon all your
powers of speaking English to define this term carefully.
PD
zzbu...@netscape.net
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> and then ignored him.
Well, that's simple to understand why.
Since Einstein's explaination was the same thing as Gauss' idiot
explanation of energy.
But, the obvious thing neither understood about energy is that
probability distributions,
are well do you say it in idiot mathese: probability distributions.
They're not sets, they're not functions, they're not digital,
they're not computers, they're not satellites,
and they're not lasers, masers, fiber optics, DNA, RNA, CD, DVD,
moons, cruise missiles,
stealth radar, or robots.
>
> I dont play with rubber duckies in the bathtub. All energy is
> modellable as being nothing more than bent space.
>
> In this universe you have dimension, and that is all. All of the forms
> of energy which appear to exist are all manifestations of bent,
> twisted and knotted space.
>
> The idea of energy should have been obsoleted in 1950. There is
> _nothing_ in this universe except dimension and dynamics.
>
> To model this you must use an scheme which "looks like math but really
> may or may not actually be math". There is a piece of that puzzle that
> I cant post that you'll never figure out in 100 years, and I refuse to
> post it because I rather enjoy being the biggest asshole currently
> alive on the planet.
>
> Have you ever burned ants with a magnifying glass ? Well, that is what
> mankind is doing to itself, and it's highly entertaining to watch. If
> you understood fusion, why on Earth would you ever want to share that
> when it would be so much more fun to watch humanity suffocate itself
> with it's own CO2 emmissions ?- Hide quoted text -
Y.Porat
------------------
(:-) !!!!! (without words )
you have no idea what a stupid parrot you are !!
Y.Porat
---------------------------
Y.Porat
---------------------
Curvedsapce time is NONSENSE!!
unless you ahve not a thinking power of yourself
or you are an uncurable parrot
space is nothing it is by definition vacum - nothing - nada
its only proprty is to host matter
if space hassome unknown particles in it that is another
'opera '
now if it has some other physical entities in it
it is not 'space' anymore
it is
SPACE PLUS something !!
to add to i t Time
is anopther nonsense physics !!
Time is a human invention todescribe
RELATIVEMOTION
nature does not know waht is Time
it knowesonly what relative motion is
so
combining sPace and time
does not give us a new physical entity
that is beyond time and sPace SEPARATELY !!
I
it is not another 'hocus fucus' magic combination
that leads us further than we could do without it
now indeed Einstein and may be others felt
that there is so emthing missing in our knowlwdge
to explain unexplained phenomenon
he realized that there is some 'mysterious behaviour
of curved movement while allthe previous physics
since Newton were LOCKED on Newtons
first law of movement
that there is nothing in undisturbed movement
'but straight line movement'
but that was a few hundreds of years ago
duribing those hundreds of years
we accumulated so new knowlwdge and experimwental data
that told us that there must be some
'natural mechanism' that will enable CURVED ANTURAL
MOVEMENT
or else you come to a dead end of absurdities
the same dead end that does not anable you tounderstand
that if say the sun is sending toearth a messenger
that moves straight to us and it has momentum
ITCAN DO NOTHING BUT PUSH US FIRTHERAWAY
because its momentum before hiotting us was
directed outwards !!andnot inwards to keep us in our orbit
around the sun
therefore he invented (suggested) the natural movement
that is curved ONLY NEXT TO MASSES
now please note thestupidity nonsense physics:
if it curves only next to mass
IT IS MASS THAT IS DOING THE TRICK !!
and not the empty of propeties space !
now he stept on another 'land mine'
he was asuming that no mass can reach c
therefore if the photon curves next to the sun
'and it is massless'''' therefore it is a 'prove' that
it is curved space that is doing it
but he and all his followers ddint realize that
the photon might be an exception to the rule
and it HAS MASS
i proved it even mathematrically based on E=hf
while discovering that mass is** already hiding inside the h factor **
if you dont get it
go and re learn how physical formulas are built and used !!!
--------------
so
folowing Einsteins brilliant breakthroug suggestion
i suggested that it is not spacetime that is doing
the curved motion but there must be
anunknown property of mass that does it
ie
the 'Ciclon'
a basic particle that moves anturally in curved lines
ONLY THAT PARTICLEID DOING IT
ALL THE BIGGER MASSES MOVE IN STRAIGHT LINES !!
as we can realize everyday and we dont have to twist
junglairily ideas as geodetics that are curved and strigth
just as IT FITES TO OUR THEORY
it is straight and it is curved ** at your request program**
----------
now i ask you again and again:
did you ever saw the abstact of my model ??
it could start answering and settling many of our disputes !!
like' point particles'
the attraction force
curved motion etc etc
but not in the regular parroting way !!.....
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------------
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------
PD
Why is it that everything you do not understand or that does not make
sense to you, you call parroting?
Are you of the school that says, "If it's right, then it should be
immediately obvious"?
PD
PD
Yes, I've been to your website.
>
> it could start answering and settling many of our disputes !!
> like' point particles'
> the attraction force
> curved motion etc etc
> but not in the regular parroting way !!.....
>
All these words, and all you did is confirm that you cannot make sense
of curved space, and you did not carefully define what "straight"
means.
PD
zzbu...@netscape.net
Well, you don't have to, since Newton didn't. Since all the idiot
theorists (read as mindreaders in idiot quantum mechanics/bio-
lution)
that came after assumed that what he REALLY meant by moton was
MANIFOLDS.
Y.Porat
--------------------
of course curved space is nonsense to me
because space is nothing !!
you cant even detect space until there is some mass in it !!
so space means nothing unless there is some physical entity
in addition to it !!!
so it is not sapce that makes physics
it is what is *** in*** that space !!
and therefore space can do nothing but hosting mass
and if there is any physical pheniomenon
it is done bythe entities *in space*
---
th every fact that you ask what is the difference between
a curved line and a straight line
means that you and others because of over smartguyness
lost your basic physics common sense
and notonly physics comon sense but geometry comon sense
any normal human being can tell that he can sense
the difference between curved and straight line
therefore if you say that a curved line is a straight line
and there is no difference between them
****th e burdain of prove is on you !!**
now let me try and tell what is the difference
between a curved line
and a srtaight line:
suppose you have a line anyline
which is a sucssesive collection of points
now
you pick randomly two pints on it
A and B that there is some distance betweent hem
(now please dont ask me what is distance (:-))
so
if all the points between A and B are **on the shortest
distance between A and B
he line is straight
if not all the points are on the shortest distance
between A and B
the line is not a straight line OK ??
(that was the first of hand attempt to explain the obvious )
so there is a physical difference between
a straight line and a curved line
they are not the same case
and cannot be the same case !!!
and again
**it is not space that makes that difference*
(space cannot do anything !!!!)
it is the physical entities in it that make that difference !!!
curved or straight movement is a property (result)
of mass and massive messengers acting
on other masses
if you dont get it
you are not a physicist you are a mumbler parrot
if you say that you saw my model
please read it again
and i can bring it again here
may be better fo r the other readers :
http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract
(hoping that i didnt mistyped it ...)
if mistyping i will try again
and try to see and understand tha t the electron
is not a 'point particle'
and see at appendix at the end
the 'Circlon' idea
and how it can make attarction force
by curved movement and not by straight line movement
of messengers
it is a home made site
because i am not as rich as you
to hire a sit e builder
but my creativity is at least richer than yours
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------------
PD
Excellent. So let's take an example, shall we?
Let's take the space that is available to an ant crawling on a beach
ball. The ant cannot penetrate the beach ball and he can't fly off the
beach ball. The points that are on the surface of the beach ball make
a lovely 2-dimensional space. (You DO allow for 2-dimensional spaces,
don't you?) And between any two points in this space there are curved
lines and straight lines that the ant can walk. For a straight line,
the ant obviously turns neither left nor right as he walks.
Now consider two points on this surface, Porat: one on the "equator"
of the ball and the one on the "north pole" of the ball. Now we'll
make a path that is the set of points the ant can crawl that makes the
*shortest distance* between these two points. This is *your*
definition of straight, recall. By your own definition, a line that
extends from the equator to the pole on the surface of this ball is
straight. And I would agree with you.
Do you not agree with your own definition?
Spaceman
Poor PD, stuck in a flat 2D world surrounding a 3D object.
No wonder you can not grasp actual 3D anymore.
Poor PD does not understand that the ant is not moving in a "straight" line
at all, he is moving on a line that constantly changes angle to follow
the curve of the surface.
> Now consider two points on this surface, Porat: one on the "equator"
> of the ball and the one on the "north pole" of the ball. Now we'll
> make a path that is the set of points the ant can crawl that makes the
> *shortest distance* between these two points. This is *your*
> definition of straight, recall. By your own definition, a line that
> extends from the equator to the pole on the surface of this ball is
> straight. And I would agree with you.
It is not the "shortest" distance and if only on the surface, it is not even
straight at all.
It is the shortest travelable path when confined to the surface.
Poor PD still does not understand that a straight line does not change
the angle it moves towards ever.
Sheesh!
PD
wrote:
OK, so this tells me that you don't think 2D spaces mean anything, and
that the only space that means anything is 3D. Is that right?
>
> > Now consider two points on this surface, Porat: one on the "equator"
> > of the ball and the one on the "north pole" of the ball. Now we'll
> > make a path that is the set of points the ant can crawl that makes the
> > *shortest distance* between these two points. This is *your*
> > definition of straight, recall. By your own definition, a line that
> > extends from the equator to the pole on the surface of this ball is
> > straight. And I would agree with you.
>
> It is not the "shortest" distance and if only on the surface, it is not even
> straight at all.
> It is the shortest travelable path when confined to the surface.
> Poor PD still does not understand that a straight line does not change
> the angle it moves towards ever.
OK, and so when the shortest distance between two points in 3D
"changes the angle it moves over" is that straight or curved?
You say the line between two points on the ball MUST penetrate the
ball to be straight. So if we have a line between two points in 3-
space, does it have to penetrate a 4th spatial dimension to be
straight?
PD
Spaceman
No,
It tells me that you are ignorant to a 3D system that your 2D joke
must exist in to be a sphere at all.
It tells me you have no understanding of the necessity of the 3rd dimension
to allow a "sphere".
It tells me that you are a "flat" earther more than you could even know.
>>> Now consider two points on this surface, Porat: one on the "equator"
>>> of the ball and the one on the "north pole" of the ball. Now we'll
>>> make a path that is the set of points the ant can crawl that makes
>>> the *shortest distance* between these two points. This is *your*
>>> definition of straight, recall. By your own definition, a line that
>>> extends from the equator to the pole on the surface of this ball is
>>> straight. And I would agree with you.
>>
>> It is not the "shortest" distance and if only on the surface, it is
>> not even straight at all.
>> It is the shortest travelable path when confined to the surface.
>> Poor PD still does not understand that a straight line does not
>> change
>> the angle it moves towards ever.
>
> OK, and so when the shortest distance between two points in 3D
> "changes the angle it moves over" is that straight or curved?
The shortest physical distance between two points in 3D does not curve
at all.
You keep confusing a shortest distance with a shortest travelable path.
I don't know why you can not understand such simple 3D geometry
that is not "warped" like your rubber ruler world is.
> You say the line between two points on the ball MUST penetrate the
> ball to be straight. So if we have a line between two points in 3-
> space, does it have to penetrate a 4th spatial dimension to be
> straight?
No of course not.
Why would you need another dimension when all three
are present to allow the straight line to be "physically straight"?
I really don't see why you have such a hard time with simple 3D
straight lines.
The shortest distance between two points is a striaght line.
The straight line would never ever come back to the same point.
Did you ever study Eucidian geometry at all?
You sure prove that you skipped over some of the most important
facts about basic geometry that there is.
You can not have a sphere without a 3rd dimension, so your
stupid ass 2D surface of a sphere is just that... Stupid to the first
degree.
Y.Porat
--------------------------
'crawling on a beach ball ' ???!
dont you see that your logic is dead by arrival ???
you assume right by arrival that space is some sphere??
and if you start by such an assumption
do you expect that going on with that assumption
will refute you basic assumption??
it is either i ddint get your example and logic
or that you ddint get it ??
cant you get that space** by itself **
has no properties what soever ???
btw
one of the advantages of my Circon idea is
that it allows *both**
a straight line movement for most masses
PLUS
a curved line only for some basic particles !!
dont you see any advantage for that??
(in preventing entangled junglairing logic
2
did you see my Circlon idea
at the end of my site??
did you see the 'chaion of orbitals' idea and implementation
along my model
and how i could describe** tangibly **all the elements
of the periodic table without the need of
'clouds of probability ' ??!!!
compatible with chemical facts nculear data
ie
particles in my model are not abstract formulas
that cannot goon with big nuclei
but defined structures
with a systematic tangible structure that goes on
all along building up a step by step
with not a single failiour ]
do you still believe that Atoms are
'clouds of probabilities ' ???
or may be better
one of the most decisive unequivocal definite tangible structures??
as you look around you and realse it
dont you sense (even ** intuitivly ** and surprising as you can do
at this stage
of your understanding it ) ---something excelent
and unexpected innovative and new in there ??
did you understood how that Circlon idea can explain simply (!!)
any attrction force without the need to invent
strange illogic messengers like say the W boson
90 times bigger than their mother
that never was and never will be found??
and alike nonsense physics
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------
Y.Porat
wrote:
-----------------
oh yes you are right
i forgot to tell PD
that walking **on our globe**
is not walking in straight lines!
because our globe is a sphere
i actually told it to him in a differnt way:
that an ant walking on a ball is** apriory**
wrong example fo r talking about straight lines movement
our every day movement on our globe is **just **close** to straight
line
because the curvature of our globe compared to our
body size is very small and nearly un felt
so walking on our globe is only *close* to a straight line*
it is not the theoretic straight line !!!
a straight line is as i defined it to PD .
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------
PD
OK, so your definition of a straight line "being the shortest distance
between two points in a space" must be insufficient. So I need a
better definition of "straight" from you.
For an arbitrary space (whether the space is claimed to be curved or
not), and a line in that space, how can you tell me whether that line
is straight.
You couldn't find a straight line in the 2D space given above, and you
had to resort to drawing the line through a 3rd dimension that
includes points not in the 2D space.
How do you know a line in 3D space is straight and doesn't have to
include points through a 4th dimension that includes points not in the
3D space?
I'm asking you to THINK, Porat, and to come up with a self-consistent
definition of "straight" that we can use in any case we want.
Spaceman
You did not have a 2D space at all.
You had a 3D space and wrapped a 2D space around it
and then attempted to ignore that you wrapped it around a
3D space.
You really should wake up some day and stop trying to be
such a con man.
PD
What do you think a true 2D space is?
Y.Porat
ok now we start to talk bussiness
please explain
how is that force you mentioned is working
to keep the electron moving around the nuc
btw
it i s a wrong assumption but let it be as a thinking excercise
(th e electron is not orbiting the nuc anyway lets hear )
and may be we cam go to a closer to reality example
please explain how those 'garvitins from sun
are keeping earth orbiting
*without violating ** the momentum principle **
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------
Y.Porat
even if i am sure he is talking sense similar to me
i woill read him later )
ok do you whant to think
lets see:
if a ship is sailing deeper and deeper to sea
and you stand on the beach
now
waht you see is thatif the ship is sinking deaper and deaper
untill it disappear
so waht do we have here :
we have a movement on a certainly a curved surface
and we have photns that certainly move in
**straigh tlines*
and we realize clearly that
the movenet of the ship on thecirved surface
is not like the movement of the photon!
if you like i will define now
a straight line movement as** the movement of the photon !!((
so ??
is there a difference between th e movement** on** our curved globe
and the straight line movement ??
***are they the same ??? *** !!!
btw
do you think i could be a good structural engineer
as you doubted below ?? (:-)
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------------------
Spaceman
There is no "true" 2D space.
Please write down all your answers on a piece of paper
that has a perfect 0 thickness (true 2D paper) and mail them to,
Dingle Berry, Einstein
- 200 Rubber Ruler Rd
Malfuntioning Clockville
Non Existant Flat Universe
When you recieve the letter, try and read the 2D nothingness
you sent.
:)
Dirk Van de moortel
bLSdnZcNGP8HQTfV...@comcast.com
When Spaceman is instructed to take the shortest possible route
from city A to city B, Spaceman does not move. He knows that
the shortest way is through a tunnel in a "straight line", and he
knows there is no such tunnel, so he stays where he is.
If you tell him that you mean the "shortest possible route without
tunneling" or the "shortest possible route along the surface of the
planet", then Spaceman says: "Impossible, there is no tunnel!".
Then you ask "but don't you understand what I mean?".
Then Spaceman says "you don't understand what you ask, since
there is no tunnel!".
Dirk Vdm
PD
Then this is the answer to the question I asked you earlier.
I asked you whether you think there is such a thing as 2D space. Your
answer is "no".
You also below seem to ask for a *material object* (a piece of paper
of 0 thickness) that would be a 2D space. Does a "true" space have to
be a material thing to you, Spaceman?
PD
First, I'd like you to acknowledge that a circlon is a particle that
travels around in a circle by its nature and without being under the
influence of a force, and therefore is a particle that would violate
the conservation of momentum.
>
> please explain
> how is that force you mentioned is working
> to keep the electron moving around the nuc
>
> btw
> it i s a wrong assumption but let it be as a thinking excercise
> (th e electron is not orbiting the nuc anyway lets hear )
> and may be we cam go to a closer to reality example
>
> please explain how those 'garvitins from sun
> are keeping earth orbiting
> *without violating ** the momentum principle **
When an asteroid passes near the earth and gets deflected in its path,
do you think that momentum conservation is violated in this case? I'm
just trying to get a feel for how much freshman physics from WAY back
in your college days you remember.
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> -----------------------
Spaceman
> When Spaceman is instructed to take the shortest possible route
> from city A to city B, Spaceman does not move. He knows that
> the shortest way is through a tunnel in a "straight line", and he
> knows there is no such tunnel, so he stays where he is.
> If you tell him that you mean the "shortest possible route without
> tunneling" or the "shortest possible route along the surface of the
> planet", then Spaceman says: "Impossible, there is no tunnel!".
> Then you ask "but don't you understand what I mean?".
> Then Spaceman says "you don't understand what you ask, since
> there is no tunnel!".
There goes Dirk again, making up stories.
I said clearly the shortest travelable path may not be straight.
But of course, Dirk will twist that simple factual statement into
something I did not say.
Poor Dirk,
He can not tell the difference between shortest "distance"
and shortest travelable path.
I supposed he needs to make up as much bullshit as he can
since once you support one lie, you must make some new ones
to keep the con man game going.
Spaceman
If we are talking about "physics" PD, yes, it has to be a material
thing.
You really have no clue what "physics" means anymore huh?
You poor brainwashed soul.
PD
wrote:
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> > When Spaceman is instructed to take the shortest possible route
> > from city A to city B, Spaceman does not move. He knows that
> > the shortest way is through a tunnel in a "straight line", and he
> > knows there is no such tunnel, so he stays where he is.
> > If you tell him that you mean the "shortest possible route without
> > tunneling" or the "shortest possible route along the surface of the
> > planet", then Spaceman says: "Impossible, there is no tunnel!".
> > Then you ask "but don't you understand what I mean?".
> > Then Spaceman says "you don't understand what you ask, since
> > there is no tunnel!".
>
> There goes Dirk again, making up stories.
> I said clearly the shortest travelable path may not be straight.
Well, let's see. We asked what the *definition* of straight is, and
Porat suggested that the definition of straight is that it is the
shortest path that can be traveled between two points. So this
definition is clearly out. So what's a definition of "straight" that
works for you, that we can apply in general?
> But of course, Dirk will twist that simple factual statement into
> something I did not say.
>
> Poor Dirk,
> He can not tell the difference between shortest "distance"
> and shortest travelable path.
I can tell the difference. A distance is a number that is attached to
a travelled path, but isn't the travelled path itself. So how can you
tell if a path is straight?
PD
Ah, so you say. So is light a material thing? Are radio waves a
material thing?
Is a magnetic field a material thing? Is gravity a material thing?
Gee, when I look through a physics textbook, there seems to be LOTS of
chapters that deal with things that aren't material. When you say
"physics" is about "material things", which book are you "looking" at?
Spaceman
> On Aug 19, 10:30 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote:
>> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>
>>> When Spaceman is instructed to take the shortest possible route
>>> from city A to city B, Spaceman does not move. He knows that
>>> the shortest way is through a tunnel in a "straight line", and he
>>> knows there is no such tunnel, so he stays where he is.
>>> If you tell him that you mean the "shortest possible route without
>>> tunneling" or the "shortest possible route along the surface of the
>>> planet", then Spaceman says: "Impossible, there is no tunnel!".
>>> Then you ask "but don't you understand what I mean?".
>>> Then Spaceman says "you don't understand what you ask, since
>>> there is no tunnel!".
>>
>> There goes Dirk again, making up stories.
>> I said clearly the shortest travelable path may not be straight.
>
> Well, let's see. We asked what the *definition* of straight is, and
> Porat suggested that the definition of straight is that it is the
> shortest path that can be traveled between two points. So this
> definition is clearly out. So what's a definition of "straight" that
> works for you, that we can apply in general?
I have already said such PD.
The shortest physical distance between two points is a straight line.
> I can tell the difference. A distance is a number that is attached to
> a travelled path, but isn't the travelled path itself. So how can you
> tell if a path is straight?
Again you prove you are so clueless.
A "distance traveled" is the number attached to the path.
A distance between point A and B has nothing to do with
the path you take.
If you can not grasp the difference between the two different
"numbers" than you truly will never grasp "reality".
I truly feel sorry for your ignorance of the difference between
shortest physical distance and shortest travelable path.
Lets check to see if you can get the most basics all over again.
If you start at point A and travel for 100 miles and end up at point
B, but point A is only 10 inches from point B using a straight line
to measure it.
How far is A away from B?
Is it 100 miles? or is it 10 inches?
Clue for morons like PD,
The path you took is 100 miles.
The distance between the 2 points is 10 inches.
Can you grasp even the slightest amount of those facts PD?
Or are you just going to play your con man game forever?
Or is it that you are such a moron you could never understand
the difference at all?
Sheesh!
Dirk Van de moortel
Making up Spaceman quotes:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/FloatingNorth.html
Question: Why not ask what is North of the North Pole?
Spaceman:
| If you have created an actual north.
| the things that are north of such are "floating above the planet"
|
| North,
| does not end just because a planets size stops.
|
| If you are 240 miles above the North Pole and 100 miles east..
| Do you head "down" to head further north?
Dirk Vdm
Spaceman
> Ah, so you say. So is light a material thing? Are radio waves a
> material thing?
> Is a magnetic field a material thing? Is gravity a material thing?
Yes.
They all are 3D material things.
But of course you will never grasp such a simple fact because
you actually believe 2D things exist.
Too bad you can not not have e/m waves without 3D.
Nor magnetic fields or gravity without 3D either.
:)
> Gee, when I look through a physics textbook, there seems to be LOTS of
> chapters that deal with things that aren't material. When you say
> "physics" is about "material things", which book are you "looking" at?
The books you read are your "rubber ruler books" that use the silly 2D
bullshit
instead of working with 3D reality to find "physical" causes
instead of stupid ass "2D" mathematical bullshit causes.
I can tell you never picked up an classical physics books ever,
and you must be living in a "2D" flat world full of curves
that can not even occur in 2D.
LOL
Spaceman
Simple stuff that Dirk can not understand.
Must be that problem he has with "out of the box" thinking.
:)
Dirk Van de moortel
Zeroman:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Zeroman.html
Dirk Vdm
PD
That's an interesting statement. I know that photons are deflected as
they pass near the sun (experimentally measured in 1919) and they are
also deflected as they pass near the earth for the same reason -- the
earth gravitates just as the sun does.
Now, the deflection of the path of the photons is not the same as the
deflection of the ship, so it's natural that the two of them wouldn't
track together -- and they don't.
What's interesting is that I agree with you that photons certainly
travel in straight lines, even though they get deflected as they pass
near the earth. Again, this refers back to what the definition of
"straight" is. You had suggested the shortest distance that can be
traveled between two points, and then thought differently. We're still
without a definition, between you and me, of what "straight" means.
PD
wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > Ah, so you say. So is light a material thing? Are radio waves a
> > material thing?
> > Is a magnetic field a material thing? Is gravity a material thing?
>
> Yes.
> They all are 3D material things.
I agree they are 3D things. But material things?
What is the material of light?
What is the material of a radio wave?
What is the material of a magnetic field?
What is the material of gravity.
You said physics is only about material things.
If I look in a freshman physics book, I see that it is about the
things above as well, but it makes no mention of them being material
things. You do. So what is their material?
> But of course you will never grasp such a simple fact because
> you actually believe 2D things exist.
> Too bad you can not not have e/m waves without 3D.
> Nor magnetic fields or gravity without 3D either.
> :)
>
> > Gee, when I look through a physics textbook, there seems to be LOTS of
> > chapters that deal with things that aren't material. When you say
> > "physics" is about "material things", which book are you "looking" at?
>
> The books you read are your "rubber ruler books" that use the silly 2D
> bullshit
Really? Freshman and high school physics books are not about physics?
PD
wrote:
>
> >http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/FloatingNorth....
>
> > Question: Why not ask what is North of the North Pole?
> > Spaceman:
> > | If you have created an actual north.
> > | the things that are north of such are "floating above the planet"
> > |
> > | North,
> > | does not end just because a planets size stops.
> > |
> > | If you are 240 miles above the North Pole and 100 miles east..
> > | Do you head "down" to head further north?
>
> Simple stuff that Dirk can not understand.
> Must be that problem he has with "out of the box" thinking.
Kind of like dealing with spaces that are 2D or aren't flat, or about
physical entities that are not material things.
Must be that problem that Spaceman has with "out of the box" thinking.
PD
Spaceman
> On Aug 19, 11:12 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote:
>> PD wrote:
>>> Ah, so you say. So is light a material thing? Are radio waves a
>>> material thing?
>>> Is a magnetic field a material thing? Is gravity a material thing?
>>
>> Yes.
>> They all are 3D material things.
>
> I agree they are 3D things. But material things?
> What is the material of light?
> What is the material of a radio wave?
> What is the material of a magnetic field?
> What is the material of gravity.
All stuff you think does not exist as material but does.
And the data all suggests that the "stuff" (material) is there.
But as I have stated, we do not have the needed techology
to "see" that small of stuff yet.
:)
> You said physics is only about material things.
It is,
Physics is about the physical material objects that create
the Universe and all the material objects contained in the Universe.
> If I look in a freshman physics book, I see that it is about the
> things above as well, but it makes no mention of them being material
> things. You do. So what is their material?
physical = material.
physics = "stuff that is physical".
>> But of course you will never grasp such a simple fact because
>> you actually believe 2D things exist.
>> Too bad you can not not have e/m waves without 3D.
>> Nor magnetic fields or gravity without 3D either.
>> :)
>>
>>> Gee, when I look through a physics textbook, there seems to be LOTS
>>> of chapters that deal with things that aren't material. When you say
>>> "physics" is about "material things", which book are you "looking"
>>> at?
>>
>> The books you read are your "rubber ruler books" that use the silly
>> 2D bullshit
>
> Really? Freshman and high school physics books are not about physics?
A lot are truly not about "physics" and some go completely away from
the "physical material science"(physics) and jump into the mathematical
only realm which is based purely on "abstracts" alone and can contain
no "physical materials" at all in most cases.
Spaceman
I have no problem with out of the box thinking.
I always show you "out of the box" and you just refuse to look.
:)
PD
wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > On Aug 19, 11:12 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> > wrote:
> >> PD wrote:
> >>> Ah, so you say. So is light a material thing? Are radio waves a
> >>> material thing?
> >>> Is a magnetic field a material thing? Is gravity a material thing?
>
> >> Yes.
> >> They all are 3D material things.
>
> > I agree they are 3D things. But material things?
> > What is the material of light?
> > What is the material of a radio wave?
> > What is the material of a magnetic field?
> > What is the material of gravity.
>
> All stuff you think does not exist as material but does.
> And the data all suggests that the "stuff" (material) is there.
> But as I have stated, we do not have the needed techology
> to "see" that small of stuff yet.
> :)
>
> > You said physics is only about material things.
>
> It is,
> Physics is about the physical material objects that create
> the Universe and all the material objects contained in the Universe.
Really? Who says? You?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics
http://physics.about.com/od/physics101thebasics/f/WhatisPhysics.htm
http://www.er.doe.gov/Sub/Newsroom/News_Releases/DOE-SC/2005/What_is_Physics.htm
http://scidiv.bcc.ctc.edu/physics/whatis.html
http://www.has.vcu.edu/phy/wip.htm
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-physics.htm
http://www.weber.edu/physics/whatis.html
Also read the first chapter of any of these physics books:
http://www.amazon.com/College-Physics-Raymond-Serway/dp/0495386936/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219170066&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/College-Physics-Alan-Giambattista/dp/0073301744/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219170089&sr=8-3
http://www.amazon.com/College-Physics-Strategic-Approach-MasteringPhysics/dp/0805316957/ref=pd_bbs_sr_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219170109&sr=8-6
http://www.amazon.com/University-Physics-Modern-MasteringPhysics-12th/dp/080532187X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219170155&sr=8-1
>
> > If I look in a freshman physics book, I see that it is about the
> > things above as well, but it makes no mention of them being material
> > things. You do. So what is their material?
>
> physical = material.
> physics = "stuff that is physical".
>
> >> But of course you will never grasp such a simple fact because
> >> you actually believe 2D things exist.
> >> Too bad you can not not have e/m waves without 3D.
> >> Nor magnetic fields or gravity without 3D either.
> >> :)
>
> >>> Gee, when I look through a physics textbook, there seems to be LOTS
> >>> of chapters that deal with things that aren't material. When you say
> >>> "physics" is about "material things", which book are you "looking"
> >>> at?
>
> >> The books you read are your "rubber ruler books" that use the silly
> >> 2D bullshit
>
> > Really? Freshman and high school physics books are not about physics?
>
> A lot are truly not about "physics" and some go completely away from
> the "physical material science"(physics) and jump into the mathematical
> only realm which is based purely on "abstracts" alone and can contain
> no "physical materials" at all in most cases.
Really? So you are telling physics authors that what they write and
what they teach is not physics? Fascinating. Much like you stating
that what 5th grade math teachers teach is not logical. Why, Spaceman,
you are thoroughly convinced that no one is doing what they should be
doing.
PD
Y.Porat
1
photons travel in straight lines in vacum!!
next to the sun it curves
do you know why ?? just guess
because they ahve mass !!
2
please explain
how curved space is eponsible for keeping
electrons around the nuc.
3
plwease explain how curved space]
is responmsible of keeping our globe
orbiting the sun
but please do it indetailes
fo rinstance how it curved next to our globe
and how it curves next tothe sun
and how all those various curvaturs
kep our earth to orbit around the sun
4
after eplaining 3
please explain if it si alldone bycurvature
WHAT IS THE NEED IN ALL THOSE GRAVITINS'?
and what is the need
of all those photons and virtual photons
that make ther atraction of electron to the nucleus ??
(is curved sapce is doing it anyway ??)
5
do you know that Einstein di d a lot of efforts to unify
all the attraction forces by 'curved space'
and** failed ***??
not only him but all his followers failed !!
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
Huang
> 5
> do you know that Einstein di d a lot of efforts to unify
> all the attraction forces by 'curved space'
> and** failed ***??
> not only him but all his followers failed !!
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
That's because "God dont play dice", and he did not recognize the
power of modelling randomness as if it were a fluid embedded in
spacetime, which allows you to use dimension as a medium of wave
propagation.
Of course, nobody believes in "existential indeterminacy".....so,
unification would be blasphemy against mathematics.
Spaceman
Ya sure PD,
I am gonna jump right in on the rubber ruler bus (aka short bus)
and learn all about how 2D space wrapped around a 3D sphere can
still be 2D only..
LOL
You are a fool.
You love the "massless" joke you call physics.
I like the physical physics I call physics.
You can play with your rubber rulers all you want,
It only proves you need "2D flatness" and can't actually work with
the "real 3D the universe is made of.
>> A lot are truly not about "physics" and some go completely away from
>> the "physical material science"(physics) and jump into the
>> mathematical only realm which is based purely on "abstracts" alone
>> and can contain no "physical materials" at all in most cases.
>
> Really? So you are telling physics authors that what they write and
> what they teach is not physics? Fascinating. Much like you stating
> that what 5th grade math teachers teach is not logical. Why, Spaceman,
> you are thoroughly convinced that no one is doing what they should be
> doing.
You know PD,
You think you are funny, but you truly are lost and merely caught in a
2D bullshit world of rubber rulers and malfunctioning clocks.
I don't care how you think the universe works since you can not
even tell the difference between 2D and 3D anymore, nor can you
figure out how to find the shortest physical distance between two points
because you think the travelable path has something to do with shortest
physical distance.
:)
Huang
> You think you are funny, but you truly are lost and merely caught in a
> 2D bullshit world of rubber rulers and malfunctioning clocks.
> I don't care how you think the universe works since you can not
> even tell the difference between 2D and 3D anymore, nor can you
> figure out how to find the shortest physical distance between two points
> because you think the travelable path has something to do with shortest
> physical distance.
> :)
>
> --
> James M Driscoll Jr
> Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
I think you play with Rubber Duckies.
Spaceman
> I think you play with Rubber Duckies.
Yes..I do.
PD stands for Polymer Ducky.
LOL
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman