What REALLY IS Physical FORCE ?!
rmcel...@briefcase.com
Physical FORCE -- What It REALLY IS !
Most orthodox physicists do NOT know what a force REALLY
IS. The best that they can do is to define it in terms of
what it DOES--accelerate a mass, (F = ma). Yet, they
ARROGANTLY use the terms "PSEUDO-FORCE" and "FICTIONAL FORCE"
to describe forces like CENTRIFUGAL FORCE and the CORIOLIS
FORCE. The physicists have FAILED to pick up the CLUE, about
what a force really IS, from the fact that these so-called
"pseudo-forces" result from MOTIONS.
According to the GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical
Universe developed by the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson,
each force is a MOTION, or a COMBINATION OF MOTIONS, or a
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOTIONS, including INWARD and OUTWARD
SCALAR MOTIONS, in the form of TRANSLATIONAL, VIBRATIONAL,
ROTATIONAL, or ROTATIONAL-VIBRATIONAL motions.
For example, the expansion of the physical Universe is
simply an OUTWARD SCALAR MOTION, which is an INHERENT
PROPERTY of the Universe and NOT a result of a "big bang",
[which means that "Hubble's constant", whatever its correct
value, can NOT be used to determine the age of the physical
Universe.].
Gravitation is an INWARD SCALAR MOTION that obeys the
inverse square law. MOTION is what makes a homogeneous
gravitational field "EQUIVALENT" to a uniformly accelerated
reference frame, (which is in a certain kind of MOTION).
For objects moving at speeds close to the speed of
light, acceleration drops toward zero, (a = F/m), NOT because
"mass increases toward infinity" (mass really STAYS
CONSTANT), but because FORCE decreases toward ZERO (because
of the RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOTIONS of the near-light speed
of the object and the OUTWARD SCALAR MOTION of light at the
speed of light).
In Larson's Theory, the "strong nuclear force" and the
"weak nuclear force" DO NOT EXIST. They are merely AD HOC
ASSUMPTIONS, resulting from an ERRONEOUS model of the atom.
A WEALTH of information about Physicist Dewey B.
Larson's GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical Universe,
("The Reciprocal System of Theory"), can now be found at the
web site http://www.randomc.com/~rs .
Robert E. McElwaine
B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
http://www.angelfire.com/wi/mcelwaine
P.S.: PASS IT ON !
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
IQ 400
question please.
Q. Do you think that Motion creates the force or that the force creates
the motion?
--
Wisdom is my kingdom,
if I fail to make you wiserindeed,
at least amusement was guaranteed.
http://homestead.deja.com/user.hemetis/files/Qindex.htm
[Sir Isaac Hemet]
SagaLore
rmcel...@briefcase.com wrote in message <7n5iig$ak7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
SagaLore
fe...@mscd.edu
"SagaLore" <saga...@ptd.net> wrote:
> Could you get a new keyboard? Your tab and caps/lock key seem to be
stuck.
Well SagaLore at first I thought the Keyboard thing was the result of a
Pepsi syndrome; but I now Have second thoughts! I must be a force
acting on the KeyBoard! I mean sure! If he elevates the CORIOLIS FORCE
(aka Effect) to a force that overcomes gravity! Than I am sure there
must be some emmense force near his KeyBoard makING HIS KEYBOARD TO ACT
STRANGELY + ARG ITS HAS ME NOW!
>
> rmcel...@briefcase.com wrote in message <7n5iig$ak7
Fred McGalliard
rmcel...@briefcase.com wrote:
>
> Physical FORCE -- What It REALLY IS !
>
> Most orthodox physicists do NOT know what a force REALLY
> IS.
This is a repeat, for anyone that missed it last time. It is a good
thing to keep in mind that the writer is both perfectly correct, and
absurdly, humorously, wrong. Physicists do not, in fact, know what a
force "REALLY" is. It is defined by processes that cause it to arise,
and the effects it has once it has arisen. In newtonian mechanics it was
first observed as that which caused the acceleration of an object. It is
now more properly recognized as a pair of effects, commonly refered to
as action and reaction, that change the momentum of two "objects" in
exactly equal and opposite manner, preserving total momentum. This of
course says nothing about "REALLY", but is all one needs to construct
practical experiments and make valid predictions. All else is gilding on
the lilly. As Einstein said, ~"any theory should be as simple as
possible, but no simpler.".
Fred McGalliard
IQ 400 wrote:
> Q. Do you think that Motion creates the force or that the force creates the motion?
I love it. A chicken and egg problem, this early in the morning. Go
figure. If a change in momentum, not motion, is the result of a force,
and is how we define a force, and how we measure a force, then they are
really not seperable. Which one creates the other if they must both
arise at once because they are defined togather. It is usually regarded
that the force causes the motion because we manipulate the things that
cause force to cause the momentum change we want. But if the momentum
changed because of our action, this would be defined as the result of a
force. So how can you address the change in momentum without force?
Gourou
This question was addressed in one of my graduate physics classes...
The professor fought to answer it for a little while before dismissing the
class for the day out of frustration.
Fred McGalliard
everybody's tea. What is nitric acid? A strong smelling liquid chemical
with a bunch of properties defined by how it acts when we put something
in it, or vice versa. So why would you think a "force" (or anything else
for that matter), should have a more fundamental or true or perfect or
"real" definition? Whenever we see something move, we know to look for
something else somewhere moving in the other direction and some process
we call a force to be exchanged between them. How much more "real" can
our knowledge be? Any way, the absolute realm of "real" belongs to
religion. I already have one thank you, I don't want to stir up a new
one mixed with my perfectly good physics.
rs
Please stop the repetitive USENET postings - over 5 years saying the
same thing! You are free to post what you want, but IMO, the way you
are advocating RS through use of sarcasm, uppercase characters, etc.
isn't effective. What kind of introduction to Larson's work are
you presenting? What's wrong with putting more substance in your
posts?
rs_@_randomc.com
rmcel...@briefcase.com wrote:
>
> Physical FORCE -- What It REALLY IS !
>
> Most orthodox physicists do NOT know what a force REALLY
> IS. The best that they can do is to define it in terms of
...
Jim Carr
>
>Would you care to summarize your point in a simple answer to a simple
>question please.
Only rarely has McElwaine carried on a discussion in the newsgroups
in which he posts his missives, and the last time I recall that
happening was back in the Beginning when he was still at UW-EC.
He also has only altered a few bits of his missives over the
years, as the archive sites show.
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | desired to this or any address
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | that resolves to my account
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | for any reason at any time.
Simon Skelly
How's this for a summary? -
*
Care to use your 400 mensa rating to answer?
I bet you can't do it in just *three* consise, simple plain-english
sentences.
If you really are that smart - we'll see.
Simon
----------
In article <7n5sq5$e5j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, IQ 400 <hem...@lilac.ocn.ne.jp>
wrote:
> Would you care to summarize your point in a simple answer to a simple
> question please.
> Q. Do you think that Motion creates the force or that the force creates
> the motion?
> --
> Wisdom is my kingdom,
> if I fail to make you wiserindeed,
> at least amusement was guaranteed.
> http://homestead.deja.com/user.hemetis/files/Qindex.htm
> [Sir Isaac Hemet]
>
>
PRH
thread is that its molecules consist of 5 atoms, 4 of which are
tightly bound by one type of force and the fifth is less strongly
bound by a quite different type of force. It is the nature and
strength of this second bond that causes the more distinctive
properties of nitric acid.
So 'what is force?' probably needs to take into account all the
important variants on the nature of force. No single answer?
On Thu, 22 Jul 1999 20:08:42 GMT, Fred McGalliard
<frederick.b...@boeing.com> wrote:
>Philosophy and the really fundamental ideas of physics are not
>everybody's tea. What is nitric acid? A strong smelling liquid chemical
>with a bunch of properties defined by how it acts when we put something
>in it, or vice versa. So why would you think a "force" (or anything else
>for that matter), should have a more fundamental or true or perfect or
>"real" definition?
PRH
IQ 400
Sure, I asked you for your point and you gave it to me as clear as a
black star in the middle of the sky on a clear day.
IQ 400
j...@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
> In article <7n5sq5$e5j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> IQ 400 <hem...@lilac.ocn.ne.jp> writes:
> >
> >question please.
>
> in which he posts his missives, and the last time I recall that
> happening was back in the Beginning when he was still at UW-EC.
>
> He also has only altered a few bits of his missives over the
> years, as the archive sites show.
> --
> James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu>
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hi James
Well, this is Hemet not another in disguise.
I asked that question because I discovered that the discussion was
overloading the mental concepts of primordial physics.
I have solved that problem by proving the falsity of “Nothingness” of
J. P. Sartre.
If a pure Logical Force “is” then “Nothingness” is impossible logically.
The implications of the “beingness” of a Primordial Force, when probed
by the logic of the mind, within a setup of assumed “Nothingness”, must
result in absolute motion.
That is to say, the primordial force is dynamic by default.
That dynamic nature is a dimensionless ratio of relative lengths.
The task of modern physics is to account for the relative stability in
space which is a chaotic set that persists and endures time, hence
having a life time.
Since motion is impossible to halt “Primordially”, I discovered
that “Torus Knot Topology” AKA (TKT) provides the answer. They are
perfect orbits of a Moebius closed loop nature that are internally
extremely dynamic, but when observed as a total topology they
demonstrate a space-time stable characteristic that can be regarded
as “Anchors”.
The right answer to my tricky question is neither.
The causation of motion is a logical abstract that requires Force as a
primordial fabric to demonstrate the primordial logic.
To summarize all I can say that [ Logic + Force = beingness ].
Best regards.
Richard Schultz
: Only rarely has McElwaine carried on a discussion in the newsgroups
: in which he posts his missives, and the last time I recall that
: happening was back in the Beginning when he was still at UW-EC.
: He also has only altered a few bits of his missives over the
: years, as the archive sites show.
And the really sad part is what he has altered is, by general acclamation,
far and away the best thing that he's ever posted.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
". . .Mr Schutz [sic] acts like a functional electro-terrorist who
impeads [sic] scientific communications with his too oft-silliness."
-- Mitchell Swartz, sci.physics.fusion article <EEI1o...@world.std.com>
bla...@my-deja.com
IQ 400 <hem...@lilac.ocn.ne.jp> wrote:
> In article <7namkg$eh5$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "Simon Skelly" <pur...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > IQ,
> >
> > How's this for a summary? -
> >
> > *
> >
> > Care to use your 400 mensa rating to answer?
> >
> > I bet you can't do it in just *three* consise, simple plain-english
> > sentences.
> >
> > If you really are that smart - we'll see.
> >
> > Simon
Don't worry it's impossible to have an IQ of 400, but then again I'm
sure it's all a joke anyway...
--Age doesn't always bring wisdom. Sometimes age
comes alone. --
IQ 400
bla...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <7ndmp0$vqv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> IQ 400 <hem...@lilac.ocn.ne.jp> wrote:
> > In article <7namkg$eh5$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> > "Simon Skelly" <pur...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > IQ,
> > >
> > > How's this for a summary? -
> > >
> > > *
> > >
> > > Care to use your 400 mensa rating to answer?
> > >
> > > I bet you can't do it in just *three* consise, simple plain-
> > > english
> > > sentences.
> > >
> > > If you really are that smart - we'll see.
> > >
> > > Simon
>
> > [Hemet]
> > Sure, I asked you for your point and you gave it to me as clear as
> > a black star in the middle of the sky on a clear day.
> [Dickhead]:-)
> Don't worry it's impossible to have an IQ of 400, but then again I'm
> sure it's all a joke anyway...
>
> --Age doesn't always bring wisdom. Sometimes age
> comes alone. --
--
[Hemet]
Why is it impossible to write 400 Incredible Quotations?
It seems that your wisdom and age are competing for a limited space.
:-)
--
Wisdom is my kingdom,
if I fail to make you wiser indeed,
at least amusement was guaranteed.
http://homestead.deja.com/user.hemetis/files/Qindex.htm
bla...@my-deja.com
Thank you, Sir, for not resorting to base attacks or name calling.
--Age doesn't always bring wisdom. Sometimes age
comes alone. --