Is matter still accelerating from the Big Bang? And imbued with ‘kinetic value?’
David Albert Harrell
and imbued with massive ‘kinetic potential acceleration and
gravitational values?’
I’ll admit 14 billion years is an unprecedented acceleration period,
but then again, that was a rather large explosion, also without
precedent.
Notice that if you hit a ball attached to a short rubber band, the
acceleration of the ball (while extending the band) would be slowed to
some small degree, yet acceleration would continue (also the rate of
acceleration would [should] increase) after the rubber band snapped,
until the ball reaches maximum velocity. This maximum velocity would
initially depend on the amount of force that propelled the ball.
The ball has a brief period of acceleration before it reaches full
velocity; perhaps matter propelled by the Big Bang is still in an
acceleration period. The rubber band, gravity, is still extending but
weakening due to increasing distance and loss of direct opposition (ie
matter is not staying squarely behind the accelerating object but
constantly becoming more to the side). This weakened portion of the
‘rubber band’ having effectively snapped, matter accelerates at an
accelerating rate.
The ball has an acceleration period measured in fractions of a second;
but what units of time does one use to measure the acceleration period
of matter propelled by the Big Bang.
How do we know if matter is still in an acceleration phase? And if
so, what is its maximum velocity?
‘Dark energy’ aside, matter is after all mysteriously still
accelerating, maybe that’s a clue. Perhaps accelerating expansion is
how we discover the universe is still in an acceleration period from
the Big Bang.
So now that I have eliminated the need for dark energy (and my coffee
is ready), let’s go after dark matter (never liked this cousin
either).
Between the time the ball breaks contact with the bat, and the ball
reaches maximum speed, the ball appears to be imbued with the ability
to accelerate independently. What is the substance and nature of this
potential acceleration? And what about the rubber band: Is gravity
prolonging the acceleration period; or is it just not over yet? (or
both?)
Such potential for further acceleration, locked inside of all matter,
would be a Big Bang-sourced, perhaps kinetic, value. Is it a
force? Is it energy? Does it have mass?
It could be all, one, a combination, or none of the above; with
something as strange as the ‘kinetic acceleration potential’ of an
atom, we could even be dealing with a totally new influential
concept. And whatever it is, there could be quite a lot of it,
especially if the maximum velocity of matter turns out to be an
astonishingly high speed.
I’m suggesting that this potential maximum velocity of matter is
stored within all matter as some form of ‘kinetic force/energy/mass or
other value’ that has a special gravitational field.
Perhaps universal ‘kinetic acceleration potential’ is simply an
astronomical amount of energy that, although having no apparent form
in which to actually exist, still has a gravitational influence on
matter proportional to its Big Bang-sourced value. ‘Kinetic
acceleration potential’ might even convey amplified and/or modified
gravitational influence (possibly related to its inherent direction of
motion).
I suspect ‘kinetic acceleration potential’ is a formerly unknown
property of matter. I’m guessing “it behaves like a cold, non-
radiative fluid that forms haloes around galaxies.”
Well I better leave you guys some pieces to discover in the puzzle
cosmos, and besides my toast is done.
David Albert Harrell
San Diego, CA
HVAC
>
> ‘Dark energy’ aside, matter is after all mysteriously still
> accelerating, maybe that’s a clue.
'Matter' isn't accelerating it's expansion....Space is.
Perhaps accelerating expansion is
> how we discover the universe is still in an acceleration period from
> the Big Bang.
>
> So now that I have eliminated the need for dark energy (and my coffee
> is ready), let’s go after dark matter (never liked this cousin
> either).
Dark matter has absolutely nothing in common
with dark energy except for the misnomer, 'dark'.
>
> Between the time the ball breaks contact with the bat, and the ball
> reaches maximum speed, the ball appears to be imbued with the ability
> to accelerate independently. What is the substance and nature of this
> potential acceleration? And what about the rubber band: Is gravity
> prolonging the acceleration period; or is it just not over yet? (or
> both?)
As with most laymen, you have trouble grasping the concept
of infinite. As in a singularity.
Would you like to know more?
>
> Such potential for further acceleration, locked inside of all matter,
> would be a Big Bang-sourced, perhaps kinetic, value. Is it a
> force? Is it energy? Does it have mass?
It is one of the properties of space...It expands.
>
> It could be all, one, a combination, or none of the above; with
> something as strange as the ‘kinetic acceleration potential’ of an
> atom, we could even be dealing with a totally new influential
> concept. And whatever it is, there could be quite a lot of it,
> especially if the maximum velocity of matter turns out to be an
> astonishingly high speed.
>
> I’m suggesting that this potential maximum velocity of matter is
> stored within all matter as some form of ‘kinetic force/energy/mass or
> other value’ that has a special gravitational field.
>
> Perhaps universal ‘kinetic acceleration potential’ is simply an
> astronomical amount of energy that, although having no apparent form
> in which to actually exist, still has a gravitational influence on
> matter proportional to its Big Bang-sourced value. ‘Kinetic
> acceleration potential’ might even convey amplified and/or modified
> gravitational influence (possibly related to its inherent direction of
> motion).
>
> I suspect ‘kinetic acceleration potential’ is a formerly unknown
> property of matter. I’m guessing “it behaves like a cold, non-
> radiative fluid that forms haloes around galaxies.”
>
> Well I better leave you guys some pieces to discover in the puzzle
> cosmos, and besides my toast is done.
>
> David Albert Harrell
> San Diego, CA
--
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so" - Mark Twain
dlzc
<davidalbertharr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is matter propelled by the Big Bang still in its
> acceleration period, and imbued with massive
(pun?)
> ‘kinetic potential acceleration and gravitational
> values?’
No.
> I’ll admit 14 billion years is an unprecedented
> acceleration period, but then again, that was a
> rather large explosion, also without precedent.
It was not an explosion. The evidence is there was a period of
inflation that ended before the CMBR quenched, it was fairly stable
then for billions of years, with slow acceleration, then a few billion
years ago, acceleration of expansion occurred.
> Notice that if you hit a ball attached to a short
> rubber band, the acceleration of the ball (while
> extending the band) would be slowed to some
> small degree, yet acceleration would continue
The sign of acceleration would be negative.
> (also the rate of acceleration would [should]
> increase) after the rubber band snapped,
> until the ball reaches maximum velocity.
In your metaphor, the ball's velocity is maximum just after being hit.
...
> How do we know if matter is still in an
> acceleration phase?
We can see much of it in the red shift.
> And if so, what is its maximum velocity?
Its not a kinetic velocity, such as you are imaging.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
...
> Well I better leave you guys some pieces to
> discover in the puzzle cosmos, and besides
> my toast is done.
You still have some crumbs to the left side of your mouth. There,
that got it.
David A. Smith
David Albert Harrell
> On 10/30/2010 2:51 PM, David Albert Harrell wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dark energy aside, matter is after all mysteriously still
> > accelerating, maybe that s a clue.
>
> 'Matter' isn't accelerating it's expansion....Space is.
You are guessing here, and should say so.
Unfortunately I don't believe in space. I think it's nothing really.
So it can hardly be effecting my ‘kinetic acceleration potential.’
If you slow down and read my paper again you may find that it cannot
be easily disproved, which makes it a better explanation for the
phenomena of dm&e, since these theories are in fact no more than a
catchy name given to already recognized concepts. My theory has
specifics that explain both to some degree, and can actually be tested
from many perspectives, and until disproved will remain the only
believable scenario that even begins to explain some these recent
astonishments.
In any case I’m sure it is much more interesting than you have
perceived.
Wasn’t it Mark Twain who said, "Faith is believing what you know ain't
so"
>
> Perhaps accelerating expansion is
>
> > how we discover the universe is still in an acceleration period from
> > the Big Bang.
>
> > So now that I have eliminated the need for dark energy (and my coffee
> > is ready), let s go after dark matter (never liked this cousin
> > either).
>
> Dark matter has absolutely nothing in common
> with dark energy except for the misnomer, 'dark'.
I didn’t said they had much in common, but they do, since I blew them
both away with same paper. And they are cousins at least in their
levels of misleading ambiguousness.
Hope it’s not too soon for a eulogy, but were the concepts of dark
matter and dark energy really answers, or even theories, or were they
only names given to phenomena we were already looking at but didn’t
understand before my post (chaff.
So we could not explain what was holding the universe together and
speeding it up, but does naming recognized phenomena, presuming they
are forces, and drawing blobs and rectangles to represent them, really
bring us any closer to an understanding. Or does this kind of
mistaking progress only narrow the box that most people won’t think
outside of?
Real answers or even theories on the ‘puzzle cosmos’ invariably open
up new avenues, inevitable leading to new questions; they are
sometimes even provable. DM&E always appeared to be a dead-end by
that measure.
Maybe in this case for instance, a new force hasn’t been discover, but
and old one overlooked.
But wait, maybe there is some value to the concepts of DM&E after all,
even though they are invisible, have no mass, make no matter, and
won’t reflect or obstruct any ideas.
Woe… I just discovered a new theory! I’m going to call it ‘dark
definition’ and start trying to figure what shape it would be.
> > Between the time the ball breaks contact with the bat, and the ball
> > reaches maximum speed, the ball appears to be imbued with the ability
> > to accelerate independently. What is the substance and nature of this
> > potential acceleration? And what about the rubber band: Is gravity
> > prolonging the acceleration period; or is it just not over yet? (or
> > both?)
>
> As with most laymen, you have trouble grasping the concept
> of infinite. As in a singularity.
>
> Would you like to know more?
Ah finally something I can agree with, but it’s not exactly that I
have trouble grasping the concept of infinite, instead I am fully
aware that it is not possible for me to do so. You on the other hand
seem to be sporting a grip on this inconceivable, so please tell me
what I should use for scale when thinking about infinity, because I
have no clue.
As for singularities, I am not as perplexed. I see them as powerful
and condensed gravitational forces, finite in mass and force, possibly
even fathomable for such as myself to some pusillanimous degree.
However I do no believe that diving into one would transport me to
another time or space, but instead I would expect the distance between
my personal atomic particles to disappear, causing any number of brief
but terminal heath problems.
> > Such potential for further acceleration, locked inside of all matter,
> > would be a Big Bang-sourced, perhaps kinetic, value. Is it a
> > force? Is it energy? Does it have mass?
>
> It is one of the properties of space...It expands.
>
And this has been proven?
You have not refuted anything I said, only denied it. You are trying
to discount my theory by evoking other theories.
Btw, didn’t Einstein predict that extreme velocity would create matter
of some type, maybe ‘kinetic acceleration potential’ is it.
David Albert Harrell
> On Oct 30, 2:51 pm, David Albert Harrell
>
> <davidalbertharr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Is matter propelled by the Big Bang still in its
> > acceleration period, and imbued with massive
>
> (pun?)
Ya but it was only half a pun since kinetic acceleration potential may
turn out to have mass.
> > ‘kinetic potential acceleration and gravitational
> > values?’
>
> No.
>
> > I’ll admit 14 billion years is an unprecedented
> > acceleration period, but then again, that was a
> > rather large explosion, also without precedent.
>
> It was not an explosion. The evidence is there was a period of
> inflation that ended before the CMBR quenched, it was fairly stable
> then for billions of years, with slow acceleration, then a few billion
> years ago, acceleration of expansion occurred.
This is not my view of the Big Bang, and even it this fizzle beginning
were correct, it would not rule out my theory
> > Notice that if you hit a ball attached to a short
> > rubber band, the acceleration of the ball (while
> > extending the band) would be slowed to some
> > small degree, yet acceleration would continue
>
> The sign of acceleration would be negative.
>
> > (also the rate of acceleration would [should]
> > increase) after the rubber band snapped,
> > until the ball reaches maximum velocity.
>
> In your metaphor, the ball's velocity is maximum just after being hit.
>
Are you suggesting that the ball goes from negative speed (or even 0)
to positive top speed without any passage of time, because that
completely ignores the inertia of the ball, and the laws of physics?
I doubt that these laws have ever been suspending on this count, even
for the Big Bang. The ball has mass (ie kinetic energy in the form
inertia which must be overcome. This will take time regardless of the
amount of force striking the ball. Where do you suppose this kinetic
energy goes?
I can however believe that it would be a small and difficult measure
to determine on a ball, but I make no such assumption about the Big
Bang.
>
> > How do we know if matter is still in an
> > acceleration phase?
>
> We can see much of it in the red shift.
>
> > And if so, what is its maximum velocity?
>
> Its not a kinetic velocity, such as you are imaging.
>
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
>
I’m not claiming it is kinetic, I say “perhaps kinetic.” My point is
that it is there. I don’t know much about it, but I have made some
predictions concerning what I believe will eventually be found.
David A Harrell
dlzc
On Oct 30, 7:35 pm, David Albert Harrell
<davidalbertharr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> IOn Oct 30, 4:36 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Oct 30, 2:51 pm, David Albert Harrell
>
> > <davidalbertharr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Is matter propelled by the Big Bang still in its
> > > acceleration period, and imbued with massive
>
> > (pun?)
>
> Ya but it was only half a pun since kinetic acceleration
> potential may turn out to have mass.
>
> > > ‘kinetic potential acceleration and gravitational
> > > values?’
>
> > No.
>
> > > I’ll admit 14 billion years is an unprecedented
> > > acceleration period, but then again, that was a
> > > rather large explosion, also without precedent.
>
> > It was not an explosion. The evidence is there
> > was a period of inflation that ended before the
> > CMBR quenched, it was fairly stable then for
> > billions of years, with slow acceleration, then a
> > few billion years ago, acceleration of expansion
> > occurred.
>
> This is not my view of the Big Bang, and even it this
> fizzle beginning were correct, it would not rule out
> my theory
You don't have a theory. You don't make any quantitative predictions.
> > > Notice that if you hit a ball attached to a short
> > > rubber band, the acceleration of the ball (while
> > > extending the band) would be slowed to some
> > > small degree, yet acceleration would continue
>
> > The sign of acceleration would be negative.
>
> > > (also the rate of acceleration would [should]
> > > increase) after the rubber band snapped,
> > > until the ball reaches maximum velocity.
>
> > In your metaphor, the ball's velocity is maximum
> > just after being hit.
>
> Are you suggesting that the ball goes from negative
> speed (or even 0) to positive top speed without any
> passage of time,
Read Newton on "impulse". The duration of time can be "impossibly
short", or even "not worth considering". In the standard model of
cosmology, there was no time before the Big Bang, so consequently...
> because that completely ignores the inertia of the ball,
> and the laws of physics?
Only the cartoon version you remember.
> I doubt that these laws have ever been suspending on
> this count, even for the Big Bang.
So sad for you. But at least you know where your limitations are.
> The ball has mass (ie kinetic energy in the form
> inertia which must be overcome. This will take time
> regardless of the amount of force striking the ball.
> Where do you suppose this kinetic energy goes?
Moot point, since the Big Bang was not an explosion. No point in
struggling over details of a failed analogy.
> I can however believe that it would be a small and
> difficult measure to determine on a ball, but I make
> no such assumption about the Big Bang.
Nature doesn't care what you think.
> > > How do we know if matter is still in an
> > > acceleration phase?
>
> > We can see much of it in the red shift.
>
> > > And if so, what is its maximum velocity?
>
> > Its not a kinetic velocity, such as you are imaging.
>
> >http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
>
> I’m not claiming it is kinetic, I say “perhaps kinetic.”
> My point is that it is there. I don’t know much about
> it, but I have made some predictions concerning what
> I believe will eventually be found.
Oh well, then you know you are already incorrect. How nice for you.
I'm sure you read the link, and learned about the observations that
actually *have* been made. Maybe even learned about the standard
model.
David A. Smith
bert
Rest Mass is relative. TreBert
David Albert Harrell
Of course I do, but you should search around for your imagination, try
looking out of the box for change. That is where all the elusive
answers are, otherwise someone such as yourself would have found them
by now.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Notice that if you hit a ball attached to a short
> > > > rubber band, the acceleration of the ball (while
> > > > extending the band) would be slowed to some
> > > > small degree, yet acceleration would continue
>
> > > The sign of acceleration would be negative.
>
> > > > (also the rate of acceleration would [should]
> > > > increase) after the rubber band snapped,
> > > > until the ball reaches maximum velocity.
>
> > > In your metaphor, the ball's velocity is maximum
> > > just after being hit.
>
> > Are you suggesting that the ball goes from negative
> > speed (or even 0) to positive top speed without any
> > passage of time,
>
> Read Newton on "impulse". The duration of time can be "impossibly
> short", or even "not worth considering". In the standard model of
> cosmology, there was no time before the Big Bang, so consequently...
So you admit there is a duration, thats progress, and my point is well
made.
> > because that completely ignores the inertia of the ball,
> > and the laws of physics?
>
> Only the cartoon version you remember.
>
> > I doubt that these laws have ever been suspending on
> > this count, even for the Big Bang.
>
> So sad for you. But at least you know where your limitations are.
I don't theorize any limitations for my thinking, but I do for yours.
> > The ball has mass (ie kinetic energy in the form
> > inertia which must be overcome. This will take time
> > regardless of the amount of force striking the ball.
> > Where do you suppose this kinetic energy goes?
>
> Moot point, since the Big Bang was not an explosion. No point in
> struggling over details of a failed analogy.
Not an explosion? And how would you know this?
It amazes me how some minds always except the most current theories,
no matter how ridicules they are. I'll bet you bought the one about
'the universe being belched out of a pin hole in another dimension
within a nanosecond' when it was on parade. Now you like fizzle-up
scenario, well it's no better. But not to worry, I'm sure you'll
adopt the next popular one, as soon as somebody tells you what it is.
> > I can however believe that it would be a small and
> > difficult measure to determine on a ball, but I make
> > no such assumption about the Big Bang.
>
> Nature doesn't care what you think.
Nor you sir.
> > > > How do we know if matter is still in an
> > > > acceleration phase?
>
> > > We can see much of it in the red shift.
>
> > > > And if so, what is its maximum velocity?
>
> > > Its not a kinetic velocity, such as you are imaging.
>
> > >http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
>
> > I’m not claiming it is kinetic, I say “perhaps kinetic.”
> > My point is that it is there. I don’t know much about
> > it, but I have made some predictions concerning what
> > I believe will eventually be found.
>
> Oh well, then you know you are already incorrect. How nice for you.
Wrong. Why don't you try some facts, and stop quoting the unproven
theories of others, while hurling adolescent insults.
> I'm sure you read the link, and learned about the observations that
> actually *have* been made. Maybe even learned about the standard
> model.
Wrong again, I've seen this before, and it not relevant to my theory,
so why would I be interested.
I'm afraid all of your criticisms have been completely useless. So
I'll go back to discovering the universe, and you can go back to
guarding the gates of mediocrity, attempting to slay fresh thought
with irrelevant and theoretical objections.
David Albert Harrell
HVAC
>>
>>> Dark energy aside, matter is after all mysteriously still
>>> accelerating, maybe that s a clue.
>>
>> 'Matter' isn't accelerating it's expansion....Space is.
>
> You are guessing here, and should say so.
We have been observing and measuring the expansion of space
for 3/4 of a century. Different scientists in different countries
using different instruments all agree.
I'd hardly call that a 'guess'.
> Unfortunately I don't believe in space.
This concludes our discussion.
--
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so" - Mark Twain
bert
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Its in all the astronomy books that the first 300,000 years after BB
it was all gamma photons,and it is now the microwave background of
2.7K Electrons and protons united and created the first gas element
hydrogen Best you guys when talking inertia you are talking
gravity,for they are two sides to the same coin. I will post in the
near future a "what if" called From the very beginning to the end of
a universe. I know the end of the universe "It will expand faster and
faster . Its future is grim It will be a universe with time and
energy,but no physical matter. I will fill in all that took place in
the past 22 billion years TreBert
ben6993
[snip]
> It was not an explosion. The evidence is there was a period of
> inflation that ended before the CMBR quenched, it was fairly stable
> then for billions of years, with slow acceleration, then a few billion
> years ago, acceleration of expansion occurred.
[snip]
Are those absolute accelerations or relative ones? To have inflation --
> stable --> inflation it would appear that two separate events were
needed to cause two separate inflation periods. But if it were
inflation --> deflation --> inflation then one initial event could
possibly cause both inflationary periods with an oscillating wave
effect.
dlzc
On Oct 30, 10:20 pm, David Albert Harrell
<davidalbertharr...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> Wrong. Why don't you try some facts, and stop
> quoting the unproven theories of others, while
> hurling adolescent insults.
...
> I'm afraid all of your criticisms have been completely
> useless. So I'll go back to discovering the universe,
> and you can go back to guarding the gates of
> mediocrity, attempting to slay fresh thought with
> irrelevant and theoretical objections.
Rather than getting your feelings hurt that others don't find your
uninformed hypotheses interesting, I suggest you hold them up to the
light of real data. I've given you a link to where some can be found.
David A. Smith
dlzc
On Oct 31, 7:48 am, ben6993 <ben6...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 30, 11:36 pm,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > It was not an explosion. The evidence is there
> > was a period of inflation that ended before the CMBR
> > quenched, it was fairly stable then for billions of years,
> > with slow acceleration, then a few billion years ago,
> > acceleration of expansion occurred.
>
> [snip]
>
> Are those absolute accelerations or relative ones?
I believe in Relativity, all observers agree on accelerations.
> To have inflation --> stable --> inflation
... *not* a second inflation (yet), which some would refer to as the
"Big Rip". The current epoch appears to simply be "acceleration of
expansion".
> it would appear that two separate events were needed
> to cause two separate inflation periods.
Three actually. Start inflation, stop inflation, start acceleration.
> But if it were inflation --> deflation --> inflation then
> one initial event could possibly cause both inflationary
> periods with an oscillating wave effect.
Contraindicated by the observations available. Beyond the veil of the
CMBR, we cannot see. But so far, what is shown is increasing entropy,
which also permits life to flourish. A deflation of any extent will
end all life.
David A. Smith
David Albert Harrell
> On 10/30/2010 6:51 PM, David Albert Harrell wrote:
>
>
>
> >>> Dark energy aside, matter is after all mysteriously still
> >>> accelerating, maybe that s a clue.
>
> >> 'Matter' isn't accelerating it's expansion....Space is.
>
> > You are guessing here, and should say so.
>
> We have been observing and measuring the expansion of space
> for 3/4 of a century. Different scientists in different countries
> using different instruments all agree.
>
> I'd hardly call that a 'guess'.
Really? Would you call it a fact?
Are these the same scientist who set out a few years ago to measure
how fast the expansion of the universe was slowing down?
> > Unfortunately I don't believe in space.
> > I think it's nothing really.
> This concludes our discussion.
>
Gee, what a shame. You mean I won't have you reminding me of what I
could read anytime on wikipedia.
You have well defined yourself sir as just another close-minded parrot
of popular rhetoric.
http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Markopoulou_SpaceDNE.pdf
"Space does not exist, so time can."
Now for the benefit of people who think for themselves:
It is matter that allows space any substance or properties; the
illusion that space is expanding is obviously caused by our incomplete
understanding of matter, gravity, and relativity. Not exactly the
first time this sort of error has been made.
David Albert Harrell
Once again your assumption is incorrect. Even if my "feelings" were
some kind of relevant factor here, it would take far more
creditability than you and hvac have accrued in this thread to damage
them. Neither of you even realize that one cannot discount or
disprove a given theory by invoking another theory, this is a
fundamental error that no competent scientist would make even once,
let alone repeatedly.
Also, I of course do not expect my theories to be appreciated for
quite some time, just wanted to get them on record. I did however
expect the usually common unimaginative objections, so you and hvac
are hardly upsetting or surprising.
David Albert Harrell
Autymn D. C.
<davidalbertharr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The ball has a brief period of acceleration before it reaches full
> velocity; perhaps matter propelled by the Big Bang is still in an
> acceleration period. The rubber band, gravity, is still extending but
> weakening due to increasing distance and loss of direct opposition (ie
> matter is not staying squarely behind the accelerating object but
> constantly becoming more to the side). This weakened portion of the
> ‘rubber band’ having effectively snapped, matter accelerates at an
> accelerating rate.
weakened -> limpened
http://google.com/groups?q=%22Comparisons+for+the+illiterate%22
> The ball has an acceleration period measured in fractions of a second;
> but what units of time does one use to measure the acceleration period
> of matter propelled by the Big Bang.
See Wikipedia.
> How do we know if matter is still in an acceleration phase? And if
> so, what is its maximum velocity?
See Hubble constant and Size of the universe.
> Between the time the ball breaks contact with the bat, and the ball
> reaches maximum speed, the ball appears to be imbued with the ability
> to accelerate independently. What is the substance and nature of this
> potential acceleration? And what about the rubber band: Is gravity
> prolonging the acceleration period; or is it just not over yet? (or
> both?)
Radiòns.
> I suspect ‘kinetic acceleration potential’ is a formerly unknown
> property of matter. I’m guessing “it behaves like a cold, non-
> radiative fluid that forms haloes around galaxies.”
Nes.
> Well I better leave you guys some pieces to discover in the puzzle
> cosmos, and besides my toast is done.
me guys?
-Aut
Autymn D. C.
bert
> On Oct 30, 3:05 pm, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:> 'Matter' isn't accelerating it's expansion....Space is.
>
Benj
<davidalbertharr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps universal ‘kinetic acceleration potential’ is simply an
> astronomical amount of energy that, although having no apparent form
> in which to actually exist, still has a gravitational influence on
> matter proportional to its Big Bang-sourced value. ‘Kinetic
> acceleration potential’ might even convey amplified and/or modified
> gravitational influence (possibly related to its inherent direction of
> motion).
>
> I suspect ‘kinetic acceleration potential’ is a formerly unknown
> property of matter. I’m guessing “it behaves like a cold, non-
> radiative fluid that forms haloes around galaxies.”
>
> Well I better leave you guys some pieces to discover in the puzzle
> cosmos, and besides my toast is done.
>
> David Albert Harrell
> San Diego, CA
Garbage in = garbage out.
Has the current state of physics sunk this low that doing physics is
now something akin to writing the Lord of the Rings?
1. There is no Big Bang. It's a total misconception.
2. Red shift is an optical not Doppler effect due to velocity but
rather due to the geometry of light in the universe.
3. Oddly idiots like HVAC use the argument that "space is expanding"
which implies a higher order dimensionality to the universe, while at
the same time they vehemently deny the existence of high dimensions!
But we expect that sort of thing from him. The term for it is
"doublethink".
4. Imaginary forces, use of "impulses" and other mathematical abstract
non-existent entities only gets you lost.
5 . Errors then are compounded by attempting to explain phenomena in
terms of the erroneous BB theory, by inventing even further nonsense
such as dark matter and dark energy.
6. If space is "nothing", how can it have properties, Huh? Bright
boy?
How about you all just forget all the CRAP that you "know" and back up
to the beginning and start over.
ben6993
On Oct 31, 8:33 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> Dear ben6993:
>
> On Oct 31, 7:48 am, ben6993 <ben6...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 30, 11:36 pm,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > [snip]
> > > It was not an explosion. The evidence is there
> > > was a period of inflation that ended before the CMBR
> > > quenched, it was fairly stable then for billions of years,
> > > with slow acceleration, then a few billion years ago,
> > > acceleration of expansion occurred.
>
> > [snip]
>
> > Are those absolute accelerations or relative ones?
>
> I believe in Relativity, all observers agree on accelerations.
Ok. So it is not a deflation disguised as a stable period.
> > To have inflation --> stable --> inflation
>
> ... *not* a second inflation (yet), which some would refer to as the
> "Big Rip". The current epoch appears to simply be "acceleration of
> expansion".
I am not clear about the difference between an "acceleration of
expansion" and an inflation, unless it is that inflation is much
faster.
> > it would appear that two separate events were needed
> > to cause two separate inflation periods.
>
> Three actually. Start inflation, stop inflation, start acceleration.
OK
> > But if it were inflation --> deflation --> inflation then
> > one initial event could possibly cause both inflationary
> > periods with an oscillating wave effect.
>
> Contraindicated by the observations available. Beyond the veil of the
> CMBR, we cannot see. But so far, what is shown is increasing entropy,
> which also permits life to flourish. A deflation of any extent will
> end all life.
OK.
"end all life": There will possibly be a slow ending even without
deflation. It should be OK for a while under deflation until we ran
out of warm (ie not too hot) places to exist.
Thank you David.
Ben
dlzc
On Nov 2, 2:24 am, ben6993 <ben6...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 31, 8:33 pm,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Oct 31, 7:48 am, ben6993 <ben6...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 30, 11:36 pm,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > [snip]
> > > > It was not an explosion. The evidence is there
> > > > was a period of inflation that ended before the CMBR
> > > > quenched, it was fairly stable then for billions of years,
> > > > with slow acceleration, then a few billion years ago,
> > > > acceleration of expansion occurred.
>
> > > [snip]
>
> > > Are those absolute accelerations or relative ones?
>
> > I believe in Relativity, all observers agree on
> > accelerations.
>
> Ok. So it is not a deflation disguised as a stable period.
Right. In deflation, light issued at / near the instant of reversal
would be blue shifted, and if the reversal were longer/deeper than say
z+1=1.5, we'd see perhaps fatal amounts of energetic radiation from
otherwise "safe" (but distant) sources.
> > > To have inflation --> stable --> inflation
>
> > ... *not* a second inflation (yet), which some would
> > refer to as the "Big Rip". The current epoch appears
> > to simply be "acceleration of expansion".
>
> I am not clear about the difference between an
> "acceleration of expansion" and an inflation, unless it
> is that inflation is much faster.
Inflation would have the Rindler horizon between us and the Sun, for
example. Inflation talks more about the rate of expansion, and
acceleration of expansion is the rate-of-change of expansion.
> > > it would appear that two separate events were needed
> > > to cause two separate inflation periods.
>
> > Three actually. Start inflation, stop inflation, start
> > acceleration.
>
> OK
>
> > > But if it were inflation --> deflation --> inflation then
> > > one initial event could possibly cause both inflationary
> > > periods with an oscillating wave effect.
>
> > Contraindicated by the observations available. Beyond
> > the veil of the CMBR, we cannot see. But so far, what
> > is shown is increasing entropy, which also permits life
> > to flourish. A deflation of any extent will end all life.
>
> OK.
> "end all life": There will possibly be a slow ending even
> without deflation. It should be OK for a while under
> deflation until we ran out of warm (ie not too hot) places
> to exist.
No, deflation makes the 3K background get hotter. Sources within our
own Milky Way appear hotter. Basically cooks us where we stand.
Expansion permits for life to exist longer.
David A. Smith
PD
Before I respond to this in detail, I'd like to make a few general
remarks:
1. You call this a "paper". That's fine, but a post on an unmoderated
newsgroup certainly doesn't fit into the same category as papers
published through an editorial and peer review process, and most
people you would want to elicit interest from would prefer seeing it
in the latter rather than in the former.
2. You call this a "theory". Allow me to dispel that notion swiftly.
In physics, an explanation with words is not what is considered a
theory. Intelligent Design is an explanation with words ("God arranged
things this way") but is distinctly not a scientific theory. A
scientific theory is marked by quantitative predictive power. The
quantitative qualifier is important; it means that you MUST be able to
calculate things with it. The predictive qualifier is important; it
means that you MUST be able to predict a measurable outcome of an
accessible experiment that distinguishes your theory from other
competing theories.
3. You say that other theories do not "disprove" your theory. That's
true. Theories do not establish prominence by proving that other
theories are wrong. Only experimental data can prove a theory wrong --
and that is in the case where your theory makes a definite prediction
of a measurable outcome, and the measured outcome is different. The
fact that other theories have not disproved your theory is a worthless
assertion, as that isn't how science works.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, would you care to hear
about the claims you've made in your longish post?
PD
Just wanted you to know that you've scored well:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
I see 50 pts for #37, 40 pts for #36, 20 pts for #24, plus a
smattering of points from earlier entries.
I hope you notice 1) how easily recognized you are, and 2) how
depressingly common you are.
David Albert Harrell
> On Oct 30, 2:51 pm, David Albert Harrell
>
> <davidalbertharr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The ball has a brief period of acceleration before it reaches full
> > velocity; perhaps matter propelled by the Big Bang is still in an
> > acceleration period. The rubber band, gravity, is still extending but
> > weakening due to increasing distance and loss of direct opposition (ie
> > matter is not staying squarely behind the accelerating object but
> > constantly becoming more to the side). This weakened portion of the
> > ‘rubber band’ having effectively snapped, matter accelerates at an
> > accelerating rate.
>
>
> > The ball has an acceleration period measured in fractions of a second;
> > but what units of time does one use to measure the acceleration period
> > of matter propelled by the Big Bang.
>
> See Wikipedia.
>
> > How do we know if matter is still in an acceleration phase? And if
> > so, what is its maximum velocity?
>
> See Hubble constant and Size of the universe.
>
> > Between the time the ball breaks contact with the bat, and the ball
> > reaches maximum speed, the ball appears to be imbued with the ability
> > to accelerate independently. What is the substance and nature of this
> > potential acceleration? And what about the rubber band: Is gravity
> > prolonging the acceleration period; or is it just not over yet? (or
> > both?)
>
> Radiòns.
>
> > I suspect ‘kinetic acceleration potential’ is a formerly unknown
> > property of matter. I’m guessing “it behaves like a cold, non-
> > radiative fluid that forms haloes around galaxies.”
>
> Nes.
>
> > Well I better leave you guys some pieces to discover in the puzzle
> > cosmos, and besides my toast is done.
>
> me guys?
>
> -Aut
Wikipedia? Hubble's law? Radion? None of these are news to me.
I see no sign that you fathom any part or portion of 'acceleration
potential.' I cannot explain it any more clearly. I will however be
glad to respond to even mildly interesting questions or comments
related to this subject.
David Albert Harrell
David Albert Harrell
>
> <davidalbertharr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Perhaps universal ‘kinetic acceleration potential’ is simply an
> > astronomical amount of energy that, although having no apparent form
> > in which to actually exist, still has a gravitational influence on
> > matter proportional to its Big Bang-sourced value. ‘Kinetic
> > acceleration potential’ might even convey amplified and/or modified
> > gravitational influence (possibly related to its inherent direction of
> > motion).
>
> > I suspect ‘kinetic acceleration potential’ is a formerly unknown
> > property of matter. I’m guessing “it behaves like a cold, non-
> > radiative fluid that forms haloes around galaxies.”
>
> > Well I better leave you guys some pieces to discover in the puzzle
> > cosmos, and besides my toast is done.
>
> > David Albert Harrell
> > San Diego, CA
>
> Garbage in = garbage out.
> Has the current state of physics sunk this low that doing physics is
> now something akin to writing the Lord of the Rings?
Actually I've never been able to endure (sit through) one of those
particular flicks, never read the books either, but I assume the point
you are trying to make is that my theories are absurd. Thanks. So
'acceleration potential' passes the first critical test anyway.
“If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for
it ..." Albert Einstein
> 1. There is no Big Bang. It's a total misconception.
No BB? And how would you know this?
It amazes me how many people accept the most current theories on
parade, no matter how unlikely they sound. So you like the fizzle-up
scenario, aren't you just a little curious how all this matter got
launched from a central point in pretty much all directions at such
high speeds? Sure sounds like a boom in there somewhere. The
stuttering start of a fizzle-up universe will never be able to explain
such an energetic spherical expansion.
> 2. Red shift is an optical not Doppler effect due to velocity but
> rather due to the geometry of light in the universe.
>
> 3. Oddly idiots like HVAC use the argument that "space is expanding"
> which implies a higher order dimensionality to the universe, while at
> the same time they vehemently deny the existence of high dimensions!
> But we expect that sort of thing from him. The term for it is
> "doublethink".
>
> 4. Imaginary forces, use of "impulses" and other mathematical abstract
> non-existent entities only gets you lost.
If we stop imagining forces, how will we discover any yet unknown
ones?
> non-existent entities only gets you lost.
Everyone is obviously lost in the puzzle cosmos (we seem to be missing
a few pieces), and will be for quite a while I suspect.
> 5 . Errors then are compounded by attempting to explain phenomena in
> terms of the erroneous BB theory,
You are attempting to discount theory with theory.
> by inventing even further nonsense such as dark matter and dark energy.
I find neither of these concepts useful.
> 6. If space is "nothing", how can it have properties, Huh? Bright
> boy?
Because matter and gravity are something, and they occur within the
nothing of space, giving space the illusion of dimension and curvature
(respectively) for instance. But it is the gravitational field that
is curved, and I find it misleading to think of the space as being
curved.
Space is a word we invented to represent absolute nothing, a pure and
useful concept, and I don't like to see it unnecessarily muddied-up
even by the heavyweights. Although Einstein eventually attempted to
clarify, saying it was not space exactly that was curved, but space-
time. Yet people continue to refer to space as curved (next they will
be giving it whiskers and a tail, saying that this creature is
expanding), then they talk about gravitational fields being curved,
but they are talking about the same phenomenon from different
perspectives.
Let's pick one and stick with it: Gravity is the cause of the effect,
and it has a tangible source (matter); Gravity easily wins, it is
responsible for the curves. Space is nothing, it is perhaps the only
absolute zero in physics, and I think we will eventually need this
value to understand the universe.
I am however reluctant to mention the 'time' portion of this space-
time confusion, since 'time' is even less tangible than space, and
even more of an entity invention (to deal with speed and distance).
David Albert Harrell
HVAC
>>
>>> You are guessing here, and should say so.
>>
>> We have been observing and measuring the expansion of space
>> for 3/4 of a century. Different scientists in different countries
>> using different instruments all agree.
>>
>> I'd hardly call that a 'guess'.
>
> Really? Would you call it a fact?
> Are these the same scientist who set out a few years ago to measure
> how fast the expansion of the universe was slowing down?
Exactly correct.
That's what they set OUT to do.
The observations proved that space is INCREASING
it's rate of expansion.
That's good science.
Observe, and let the chips fall where they may.
HVAC
I was using the possessive.
Thanks for playing tho......
HVAC
>
> 1. There is no Big Bang. It's a total misconception.
YOU are a retarded retard.
> 2. Red shift is an optical not Doppler effect due to velocity but
> rather due to the geometry of light in the universe.
Of course, you have exactly ZERO evidence for this.
> 3. Oddly idiots like HVAC
*I* am not the idiot here, BJ.
> use the argument that "space is expanding"
Not just me, ALL observations bear this out.
Of course, YOU have nothing to back up YOUR bullshit.
Until you do, have a Coke and a smile and shut the fuck up.
> which implies a higher order dimensionality to the universe, while at
> the same time they vehemently deny the existence of high dimensions!
"They"?
I am a subscriber to the 11 dimensional space-time...At least
in a mathematical model.
So, per usual, you proceed from a false premise.
> But we expect that sort of thing from him. The term for it is
> "doublethink".
I can think of FAR more than two things at once.
YOU, on the other hand, have trouble thinking ONE thought at a time.
> 4. Imaginary forces, use of "impulses" and other mathematical abstract
> non-existent entities only gets you lost.
>
> 5 . Errors then are compounded by attempting to explain phenomena in
> terms of the erroneous BB theory, by inventing even further nonsense
> such as dark matter and dark energy.
The fact that YOU cannot comprehend dark energy give me wood.
> 6. If space is "nothing", how can it have properties, Huh? Bright
> boy?
I have consistently said that, "Space is NOT nothing".
(Please pardon my double-negative)
> How about you all just forget all the CRAP that you "know" and back up
> to the beginning and start over.
Why don't YOU just back up to your boyfriend......
Have a nice day! :-)
David Albert Harrell
> remarks:
> 1. You call this a "paper". That's fine, but a post on an unmoderated
> newsgroup certainly doesn't fit into the same category as papers
> published through an editorial and peer review process, and most
> people you would want to elicit interest from would prefer seeing it
> in the latter rather than in the former.
I’ve published many such peer reviewed papers in the field of cog sci,
and I find the internet to be flowing at a less glacieral and more
responsive pace. My expectation here is not approval, but simply to
put the idea on the table, and on record.
> 2. You call this a "theory". Allow me to dispel that notion swiftly.
> In physics, an explanation with words is not what is considered a
> theory. Intelligent Design is an explanation with words ("God arranged
> things this way") but is distinctly not a scientific theory. A
> scientific theory is marked by quantitative predictive power. The
> quantitative qualifier is important; it means that you MUST be able to
> calculate things with it. The predictive qualifier is important; it
> means that you MUST be able to predict a measurable outcome of an
> accessible experiment that distinguishes your theory from other
> competing theories.
I’m saying that the apparently missing 85% of mass in the universe may
be locked inside matter as acceleration potential, and that this
acceleration potential is causing accelerating expansion. Ie
something is lost, and I’m pointing at matter and saying, “Look, it
could be in here.” Realizing these are relatively wide sweeping and
outrageous ideas, I’m further saying that these assertions are
theoretical. But if you wish to call them 'crazy ideas' or 'crackpot
notions' instead, I don't object. I would be shocked at any other
reaction.
However my crackpot ideas suggest a plethora of obvious experiments
and calculations. If we consider the atoms in our universe, for
instance, and then calculate the rate of increase in their distance
(from each other) due to expansion, we should be able to find a
relationship between this rate of dissipation and expansion
acceleration.
How’s that?
> 3. You say that other theories do not "disprove" your theory. That's
> true. Theories do not establish prominence by proving that other
> theories are wrong. Only experimental data can prove a theory wrong --
> and that is in the case where your theory makes a definite prediction
> of a measurable outcome, and the measured outcome is different. The
> fact that other theories have not disproved your theory is a worthless
> assertion, as that isn't how science works.
I don’t claim that incompetent criticism validates my theories.
> Now that we've gotten that out of the way, would you care to hear
> about the claims you've made in your longish post?
I don’t view this as a long post, but short paper. And by all means,
be the first in this thread to offer a comment or question addressing
‘acceleration potential.’
David Albert Harrell
I'm wondering, since my ideas are so common and depressing to you, why
are you talking to me?
And hey! I've mentioned Einstein twice since you tallied my total, so
I'm due another 10 points at least.
PD
wrote:
Show the calculations. Develop that structure. Until then, it's a
cocktail napkin idea, but it's not a theory.
Secondly "finding a relationship between this rate of dissipation and
expansion acceleration" is not exactly a prediction of some
*measurable* outcome that can be tested in experiment, is it? Where is
the *prediction* of a measurable behavior that has yet to be observed?
This is *essential* to science.
>
> > 3. You say that other theories do not "disprove" your theory. That's
> > true. Theories do not establish prominence by proving that other
> > theories are wrong. Only experimental data can prove a theory wrong --
> > and that is in the case where your theory makes a definite prediction
> > of a measurable outcome, and the measured outcome is different. The
> > fact that other theories have not disproved your theory is a worthless
> > assertion, as that isn't how science works.
>
> I don’t claim that incompetent criticism validates my theories.
Surviving logical inspection or argument is ALSO not a test of
theories. Theories that are logically self-consistent and plausible
(and keep in mind that you do not have a theory yet) are a dime a
dozen. A theory that makes interesting quantitative predictions of
behaviors yet to be observed in an accessible experiment are valuable.
A theory that gets those predictions RIGHT, by virtue of agreement
with measurement, are worth their weight in gold.
David Albert Harrell
I don't normally get involved in something as irrelevant as grammar,
but i'm your case I'll make an exception.
Everyone realizes you were using the possessive case, problem is, it
is still incorrect.
Benj
wrote:
> On Nov 2, 12:03 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> > 1. There is no Big Bang. It's a total misconception.
>
> No BB? And how would you know this?
In science, how I know that is irrelevant. The only relevant question
would be is there any factual data to support it.
> It amazes me how many people accept the most current theories on
> parade, no matter how unlikely they sound. So you like the fizzle-up
> scenario, aren't you just a little curious how all this matter got
> launched from a central point in pretty much all directions at such
> high speeds? Sure sounds like a boom in there somewhere. The
> stuttering start of a fizzle-up universe will never be able to explain
> such an energetic spherical expansion.
Lessee. You start with the assumption (erroneous) that red shift is
due to Doppler shift, hence velocity, and then you turn that around
and ask me to explain how it is that the universe is expanding? Easy.
Your head is up your own butt!
Have YOU been on a star where you could verify it's velocity? Has
anyone? Information zero. Speculation 100%.
> > 2. Red shift is an optical not Doppler effect due to velocity but
> > rather due to the geometry of light in the universe.
>
> > 3. Oddly idiots like HVAC use the argument that "space is expanding"
> > which implies a higher order dimensionality to the universe, while at
> > the same time they vehemently deny the existence of high dimensions!
> > But we expect that sort of thing from him. The term for it is
> > "doublethink".
>
> > 4. Imaginary forces, use of "impulses" and other mathematical abstract
> > non-existent entities only gets you lost.
>
> If we stop imagining forces, how will we discover any yet unknown
> ones?
The problem is not "imagination" but failure to carefully draw the
dividing line between reality and imaginary. Abstract mathematics is
not more real than reality.
> > non-existent entities only gets you lost.
>
> Everyone is obviously lost in the puzzle cosmos (we seem to be missing
> a few pieces), and will be for quite a while I suspect.
Now that is a totally correct observation! It must take some pretty
big cahones to be a "cosmologist". You start with virtually zero
verified information and from that deduce the total creation of the
entire universe. I guess you NEED big cahones given the amount of
mental masturbation required!
> > 5 . Errors then are compounded by attempting to explain phenomena in
> > terms of the erroneous BB theory,
>
> You are attempting to discount theory with theory.
No. Point out two opposite theories. Validity is established by
measurements on reality. Nothing else.
> > by inventing even further nonsense such as dark matter and dark energy.
>
> I find neither of these concepts useful.
Me neither.
> > 6. If space is "nothing", how can it have properties, Huh? Bright
> > boy?
>
> Because matter and gravity are something, and they occur within the
> nothing of space, giving space the illusion of dimension and curvature
> (respectively) for instance. But it is the gravitational field that
> is curved, and I find it misleading to think of the space as being
> curved.
Space cannot be "nothing". aside from matter or gravity (which may
indeed be "something") we know that space has impedance, hence
permittivity and all the rest. "nothing" cannot have properties. As
for the Einsteinian "curved space" gyration, that is simply
mathematical games. I'm sure the mathematical equivalence works (gives
correct answers) but that in no way implies that reality must be like
that. Imaginary numbers give "correct" answers when properly used, but
reality is not "imaginary".
> Space is a word we invented to represent absolute nothing, a pure and
> useful concept, and I don't like to see it unnecessarily muddied-up
> even by the heavyweights. Although Einstein eventually attempted to
> clarify, saying it was not space exactly that was curved, but space-
> time. Yet people continue to refer to space as curved (next they will
> be giving it whiskers and a tail, saying that this creature is
> expanding), then they talk about gravitational fields being curved,
> but they are talking about the same phenomenon from different
> perspectives.
Yes, you are exactly correct. It is the mathematical hybrid of "space-
time" that is the "trick". It really implies nothing about reality.
And note again that this implies a multidimensional nature to space.
> Let's pick one and stick with it: Gravity is the cause of the effect,
> and it has a tangible source (matter); Gravity easily wins, it is
> responsible for the curves. Space is nothing, it is perhaps the only
> absolute zero in physics, and I think we will eventually need this
> value to understand the universe.
But what is "Gravity"? How is that force created? Transmitted?
Particles? Gravitons? If you "warp" space-time,then what in hell are
you actually "warping"? Well, then you'd have to answer what is
"space" and what is "time". Nobody does.
In dealing with forces, Maxwell noted that energy can be transmitted
through space only in two ways. either kinetically by matter
(particles) or by waves in a medium. Clearly particles can go through
"nothing" and transmit energy. But waves cannot transmit energy or
even logically exist without a medium! Therefore, since modern
physics like you have done away with space as a real entity, it has
been necessary to add one more method of energy transmission to
Maxwell's. There is kinetic transmission, wave transmission, and in
"modern" physics the third way: Magic.
> I am however reluctant to mention the 'time' portion of this space-
> time confusion, since 'time' is even less tangible than space, and
> even more of an entity invention (to deal with speed and distance).
As well you should be! Others, however, are apparently not so wise.
PD
wrote:
> On Nov 2, 12:55 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 31, 5:33 pm, David Albert Harrell
>
> > <davidalbertharr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Also, I of course do not expect my theories to be appreciated for
> > > quite some time, just wanted to get them on record. I did however
> > > expect the usually common unimaginative objections, so you and hvac
> > > are hardly upsetting or surprising.
>
> > Just wanted you to know that you've scored well:http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
> > I see 50 pts for #37, 40 pts for #36, 20 pts for #24, plus a
> > smattering of points from earlier entries.
> > I hope you notice 1) how easily recognized you are, and 2) how
> > depressingly common you are.
>
> I'm wondering, since my ideas are so common and depressing to you, why
> are you talking to me?
Because, David, I don't hold the position that cranks should be
summarily ignored. On the other hand, there is a misperception among
cranks that if they aren't ignored, then they must be onto something
worthwhile. This is perhaps associated with a craving for attention,
and that the good feeling that accompanies having that craving
satisfied must be rationalized in the mind as belonging to some
worthwhile deed. However, it is also a misperception among cranks that
they are special people, being blessed with unique insight and agile
wits; on this front, I also am taking the time to let you know that
you are in no way special and are in fact quite predictable.
Science, you see, is less about the ideas themselves than about how
one works with those ideas -- how they are developed, what they must
do at minimum to be considered scientifically viable, and how they are
tested. You are overly concerned about the quality of your ideas
themselves, and not at all about whether your investigative approach
should be considered scientific at all.
> And hey! I've mentioned Einstein twice since you tallied my total, so
> I'm due another 10 points at least.
Yes, indeed. At least.
HVAC
>
> However my crackpot ideas suggest a plethora of obvious experiments
> and calculations. If we consider the atoms in our universe, for
> instance, and then calculate the rate of increase in their distance
> (from each other) due to expansion, we should be able to find a
> relationship between this rate of dissipation and expansion
> acceleration.
>
> How�s that?
That would be great except wouldn't the 'ruler'
that you are using to measure expansion, also expand?
bert
> On Nov 1, 7:55 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 30, 3:05 pm, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:> 'Matter' isn't accelerating it's expansion....Space is.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Think the raisen bread theory. TreBert
David Albert Harrell
> On 11/2/2010 2:57 PM, David Albert Harrell wrote:
>
>
>
> > However my crackpot ideas suggest a plethora of obvious experiments
> > and calculations. If we consider the atoms in our universe, for
> > instance, and then calculate the rate of increase in their distance
> > (from each other) due to expansion, we should be able to find a
> > relationship between this rate of dissipation and expansion
> > acceleration.
>
>
> That would be great except wouldn't the 'ruler'
> that you are using to measure expansion, also expand?
The ruler is mathematics from observation of speed based on distance
interval measurements.
I can't prove one or more of these is not in some kind of warping
flux, but I have no reason to think so.
Thanks for your question. It is actually relevant to my post.
David Albert Harrell
> On Nov 2, 3:01 pm, David Albert Harrell <davidalbertharr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 2, 12:03 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> > > 1. There is no Big Bang. It's a total misconception.
>
> > No BB? And how would you know this?
>
> In science, how I know that is irrelevant. The only relevant question
> would be is there any factual data to support it.
As you hopefully know, there is no proof of how the universe began,
things get pretty foggy when we start trying to look back 14b years.
Most people adopt the theory they like the best for our beginning. I
like the BB. And I would think, that under the circumstances, you
would be satisfied that I am not introducing a new one here as part of
this paper.
BB has many charms working on me, not the least of which is that it
offers continuity for our universe if you can further extrapolated to
eventual collapse, as I do. I think the universe has a BB heartbeat
lasting x billion years. I don’t know what x is and I decline to
guess, but continuity of the universe at least allows that we are not
so fortunate as to have caught the one and only bus going out of town,
never to return. This to me would be like buying a lotto ticket, then
going directly to a travel agent and planning an itinerary to spend
the 37 mil.
Even if you win the damn thing, one could make a good argument that
your trip to the agent was naïve, arrogant, premature, and/or
presumptuous.
>
> > It amazes me how many people accept the most current theories on
> > parade, no matter how unlikely they sound. So you like the fizzle-up
> > scenario, aren't you just a little curious how all this matter got
> > launched from a central point in pretty much all directions at such
> > high speeds? Sure sounds like a boom in there somewhere. The
> > stuttering start of a fizzle-up universe will never be able to explain
> > such an energetic spherical expansion.
>
> Lessee. You start with the assumption (erroneous) that red shift is
> due to Doppler shift, hence velocity, and then you turn that around
> and ask me to explain how it is that the universe is expanding? Easy.
> Your head is up your own butt!
Before you make any further inaccurate conjecture concerning my
anatomy, I have not mentioned Doppler or his shift in this thread.
> Have YOU been on a star where you could verify it's velocity? Has
> anyone? Information zero. Speculation 100%.
No.
> > > 2. Red shift is an optical not Doppler effect due to velocity but
> > > rather due to the geometry of light in the universe.
>
> > > 3. Oddly idiots like HVAC use the argument that "space is expanding"
> > > which implies a higher order dimensionality to the universe, while at
> > > the same time they vehemently deny the existence of high dimensions!
> > > But we expect that sort of thing from him. The term for it is
> > > "doublethink".
>
> > > 4. Imaginary forces, use of "impulses" and other mathematical abstract
> > > non-existent entities only gets you lost.
>
> > If we stop imagining forces, how will we discover any yet unknown
> > ones?
>
> The problem is not "imagination" but failure to carefully draw the
> dividing line between reality and imaginary. Abstract mathematics is
> not more real than reality.
You didn’t answer my question or ask one. Nor can I detect any point
to respond to.
> > > non-existent entities only gets you lost.
>
> > Everyone is obviously lost in the puzzle cosmos (we seem to be missing
> > a few pieces), and will be for quite a while I suspect.
>
> Now that is a totally correct observation! It must take some pretty
> big cahones to be a "cosmologist". You start with virtually zero
> verified information and from that deduce the total creation of the
> entire universe. I guess you NEED big cahones given the amount of
> mental masturbation required!
Well your anatomical assumptions are improving but your follow-through
predictions are once again flawed. You must be confusing my thinking
habits with your own local customs.
It’s a safe bet that far more is unknown about the cosmos than is
known, all I’m doing is pointing at a few possibilities and asking
some perhaps interesting questions.
> > > 5 . Errors then are compounded by attempting to explain phenomena in
> > > terms of the erroneous BB theory,
>
> > You are attempting to discount theory with theory.
>
> No. Point out two opposite theories. Validity is established by
> measurements on reality. Nothing else.
>
I can’t find your point again, but I will say that some validation may
be achieved by mere observation, if a nearby star went nova for
instance you would not need a slide rule or scale to confirm this, you
could read about it in the newspaper by the night sky.
> > > by inventing even further nonsense such as dark matter and dark energy.
>
> > I find neither of these concepts useful.
>
> Me neither.
>
> > > 6. If space is "nothing", how can it have properties, Huh? Bright
> > > boy?
>
> > Because matter and gravity are something, and they occur within the
> > nothing of space, giving space the illusion of dimension and curvature
> > (respectively) for instance. But it is the gravitational field that
> > is curved, and I find it misleading to think of the space as being
> > curved.
>
> Space cannot be "nothing". aside from matter or gravity (which may
> indeed be "something") we know that space has impedance, hence
> permittivity and all the rest. "nothing" cannot have properties.
Space has impedance, permittivity, and all the rest?
It has impedance like a broken wire, because it isn’t there.
Impedance is merely an argument for space being a poor conductor, this
makes my point, not yours.
Permittivity? Space does not retain energy, it is the staging area
for electric fields, since such fields have dimensions and probably
even some mass. The notion that space is any kind of ‘battery’ is
without foundation.
Try this. Blow up a paper bag, microwave it for about ten minutes,
then try to use it to jumpstart your car. If it starts, you can have
all the rights and royalties.
> As for the Einsteinian "curved space" gyration, that is simply
> mathematical games. I'm sure the mathematical equivalence works (gives
> correct answers) but that in no way implies that reality must be like
> that. Imaginary numbers give "correct" answers when properly used, but
> reality is not "imaginary".
You must be into self-abuse to have posted this paragraph, I don’t
mean to be uncooperative, but let me be perfectly sarcastic and just
add:
Yeah that Einstein was a real cut-up, with an imagination that was
clearly over the top. Good thing we have you to correct him, and
point out when and where he was just playing games. The pitiful
couple of moot points he did manage to get half right were probably
just lucky guesses.
> > Space is a word we invented to represent absolute nothing, a pure and
> > useful concept, and I don't like to see it unnecessarily muddied-up
> > even by the heavyweights. Although Einstein eventually attempted to
> > clarify, saying it was not space exactly that was curved, but space-
> > time. Yet people continue to refer to space as curved (next they will
> > be giving it whiskers and a tail, saying that this creature is
> > expanding), then they talk about gravitational fields being curved,
> > but they are talking about the same phenomenon from different
> > perspectives.
>
> Yes, you are exactly correct. It is the mathematical hybrid of "space-
> time" that is the "trick". It really implies nothing about reality.
> And note again that this implies a multidimensional nature to space.
>
> > Let's pick one and stick with it: Gravity is the cause of the effect,
> > and it has a tangible source (matter); Gravity easily wins, it is
> > responsible for the curves. Space is nothing, it is perhaps the only
> > absolute zero in physics, and I think we will eventually need this
> > value to understand the universe.
>
> But what is "Gravity"? How is that force created? Transmitted?
> Particles? Gravitons? If you "warp" space-time,then what in hell are
> you actually "warping"? Well, then you'd have to answer what is
> "space" and what is "time". Nobody does.
Gravity I would conservatively define as a mysterious but somewhat
measurable attraction property of matter. I don’t think it is created
any differently than matter.
However consider this: If you convert a given value of energy into
matter, have you added to the universal gravitational field?
It would seem unavoidable unless energy already has gravitational
force unknown to us, perhaps including such forces as weak, strong,
inertia and kinetic energy.
And if we converted all force and energy in the universe into matter,
would we have the missing 85% gravitational force? One might argue
that even if all energy were converted into matter, things aren’t
moving fast enough to account for all the missing gravity. But are we
sure we know how fast things are moving?
If the entire spherical universal mass was moving at some substantial
speed, would we definitely be able to measure this using only the
light constant, without a material reference point having a known
speed?
> In dealing with forces, Maxwell noted that energy can be transmitted
> through space only in two ways. either kinetically by matter
> (particles) or by waves in a medium. Clearly particles can go through
> "nothing" and transmit energy. But waves cannot transmit energy or
> even logically exist without a medium! Therefore, since modern
> physics like you have done away with space as a real entity, it has
> been necessary to add one more method of energy transmission to
> Maxwell's. There is kinetic transmission, wave transmission, and in
> "modern" physics the third way: Magic.
You are making the argument that space exists because waves pass right
through it, as though it didn’t exist. Now we have entered a mode of
thought Descartes called ‘circular logic.’ If I continue, I’ll get
dizzy and throw-up, so you better take it from here.
> > I am however reluctant to mention the 'time' portion of this space-
> > time confusion, since 'time' is even less tangible than space, and
> > even more of an entity invention (to deal with speed and distance).
>
> As well you should be! Others, however, are apparently not so wise.
Thanks. But ironically this is the first somewhat upsetting remark in
this thread. Could you at least qualify it a little for my peace of
mind?
Actually, thanks for the comments.
David Albert Harrell
David Albert Harrell
> > I’m saying that the apparently missing 85% of mass in the universe may
> > be locked inside matter as acceleration potential, and that this
> > acceleration potential is causing accelerating expansion. Ie
> > something is lost, and I’m pointing at matter and saying, “Look, it
> > could be in here.” Realizing these are relatively wide sweeping and
> > outrageous ideas, I’m further saying that these assertions are
> > theoretical. But if you wish to call them 'crazy ideas' or 'crackpot
> > notions' instead, I don't object. I would be shocked at any other
> > reaction.
>
> > However my crackpot ideas suggest a plethora of obvious experiments
> > and calculations. If we consider the atoms in our universe, for
> > instance, and then calculate the rate of increase in their distance
> > (from each other) due to expansion, we should be able to find a
> > relationship between this rate of dissipation and expansion
> > acceleration.
>
> > How’s that?
>
> Show the calculations. Develop that structure. Until then, it's a
> cocktail napkin idea, but it's not a theory.
How bout if we call it a cocktail napkin theory? No? Ok.
> Secondly "finding a relationship between this rate of dissipation and
> expansion acceleration" is not exactly a prediction of some
> *measurable* outcome that can be tested in experiment, is it? Where is
> the *prediction* of a measurable behavior that has yet to be observed?
> This is *essential* to science.
>
Well if ‘acceleration potential’ is real, I’m predicting a
relationship so obvious and exact that it jumps up and bites the
entire astrophysics community between the eyes. Best I can do at the
moment.
>
> > > 3. You say that other theories do not "disprove" your theory. That's
> > > true. Theories do not establish prominence by proving that other
> > > theories are wrong. Only experimental data can prove a theory wrong --
> > > and that is in the case where your theory makes a definite prediction
> > > of a measurable outcome, and the measured outcome is different. The
> > > fact that other theories have not disproved your theory is a worthless
> > > assertion, as that isn't how science works.
>
> > I don’t claim that incompetent criticism validates my theories.
>
> Surviving logical inspection or argument is ALSO not a test of
> theories. Theories that are logically self-consistent and plausible
> (and keep in mind that you do not have a theory yet) are a dime a
> dozen. A theory that makes interesting quantitative predictions of
> behaviors yet to be observed in an accessible experiment are valuable.
> A theory that gets those predictions RIGHT, by virtue of agreement
> with measurement, are worth their weight in gold.
>
I agree with most of what you are saying, and note that it’s a good
thing I’m not in this for the bullion.
I believe you are sincere in your attempts to indoctrinate me into
scientific and scholastic procedure. I actually have more knowledge
and less concern in this area than you may think. But thank you
anyway for your comments and efforts.
David Albert Harrell
David Albert Harrell
I'm just going to ignore the psycho babble above and point out that
your record concerning physics is yet credible.
And I just have one question on this crackpot post of yours. If any
part or portion of my non-theories turns out to be correct, do I still
get to keep my crackpot points?
PD
<davidalbertharr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I’m saying that the apparently missing 85% of mass in the universe may
> > > be locked inside matter as acceleration potential, and that this
> > > acceleration potential is causing accelerating expansion. Ie
> > > something is lost, and I’m pointing at matter and saying, “Look, it
> > > could be in here.” Realizing these are relatively wide sweeping and
> > > outrageous ideas, I’m further saying that these assertions are
> > > theoretical. But if you wish to call them 'crazy ideas' or 'crackpot
> > > notions' instead, I don't object. I would be shocked at any other
> > > reaction.
>
> > > However my crackpot ideas suggest a plethora of obvious experiments
> > > and calculations. If we consider the atoms in our universe, for
> > > instance, and then calculate the rate of increase in their distance
> > > (from each other) due to expansion, we should be able to find a
> > > relationship between this rate of dissipation and expansion
> > > acceleration.
>
> > > How’s that?
>
> > Show the calculations. Develop that structure. Until then, it's a
> > cocktail napkin idea, but it's not a theory.
>
> How bout if we call it a cocktail napkin theory? No? Ok.
No. OK.
>
> > Secondly "finding a relationship between this rate of dissipation and
> > expansion acceleration" is not exactly a prediction of some
> > *measurable* outcome that can be tested in experiment, is it? Where is
> > the *prediction* of a measurable behavior that has yet to be observed?
> > This is *essential* to science.
>
> Well if ‘acceleration potential’ is real, I’m predicting a
> relationship so obvious and exact that it jumps up and bites the
> entire astrophysics community between the eyes. Best I can do at the
> moment.
Sorry, that's not enough to sell.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > 3. You say that other theories do not "disprove" your theory. That's
> > > > true. Theories do not establish prominence by proving that other
> > > > theories are wrong. Only experimental data can prove a theory wrong --
> > > > and that is in the case where your theory makes a definite prediction
> > > > of a measurable outcome, and the measured outcome is different. The
> > > > fact that other theories have not disproved your theory is a worthless
> > > > assertion, as that isn't how science works.
>
> > > I don’t claim that incompetent criticism validates my theories.
>
> > Surviving logical inspection or argument is ALSO not a test of
> > theories. Theories that are logically self-consistent and plausible
> > (and keep in mind that you do not have a theory yet) are a dime a
> > dozen. A theory that makes interesting quantitative predictions of
> > behaviors yet to be observed in an accessible experiment are valuable.
> > A theory that gets those predictions RIGHT, by virtue of agreement
> > with measurement, are worth their weight in gold.
>
> I agree with most of what you are saying, and note that it’s a good
> thing I’m not in this for the bullion.
>
> I believe you are sincere in your attempts to indoctrinate me into
> scientific and scholastic procedure.
I don't know if it's really a matter of indoctrination. Choosing to
attempt a scientific investigation implicitly puts an onus on you to
conduct that investigation in a scientific manner, which means
invocation of the scientific methodology. One can always write poetry
about natural objects that are of interest to science, but it's still
poetry and not a scientific product.
think
Life By Other Lights
Intelligence, of all things, must be
distributed most evenly,
Since no one ever prays or pines
for more, nor less, than God assigned.
To Infidels that gaze old sky,
and ask "Do eyes look back?"
Such arrogance of blackhole mass,
Myopic of their campfire home,
This sun so dim a fleeting flare
Within a famous spinning speck.
Where every telecircled eye,
Sees a trillion ancient swirling ships,
and landlocked sailors wonder if
Such points are filled with dreamers.
Vessels in plain yestersight,
Big Bang of God's heartbeat light,
Who can doubt the thoughtful peers below those distant decks?
Silent neighbors that send nor borrow,
for ocean time will keep them back,
to our primitive and stranded sorrow.
-----------------------------------------------------
bert
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Its laughable to not go with Einstein's GR for it has meet every test
over 100 years. Space between matter and stars is the most dynamic
area of the universe. Lots of my theories are based on this reality
TreBert
bert
> ------------------------------------------------------ Hide quoted text -
PD
<davidalbertharr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Notice that if you hit a ball attached to a short rubber band, the
> acceleration of the ball (while extending the band) would be slowed to
> some small degree, yet acceleration would continue (also the rate of
> acceleration would [should] increase) after the rubber band snapped,
> until the ball reaches maximum velocity. This maximum velocity would
> initially depend on the amount of force that propelled the ball.
>
I'd like to dive into this for a moment, as it's implied this is the
product of some actual observation, supportable by measurements. Do
you really have support for this claim?
The acceleration is no doubt the result of contact with the bat, no?
In that case, once the bat ceases to be in contact with the ball,
there will be no further acceleration of the ball. Stroboscopic photos
attest to that.
Autymn D. C.
Autymn D. C.
Autymn D. C.
<davidalbertharr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > But what is "Gravity"? How is that force created? Transmitted?
> > Particles? Gravitons? If you "warp" space-time,then what in hell are
> > you actually "warping"? Well, then you'd have to answer what is
> > "space" and what is "time". Nobody does.
>
> Gravity I would conservatively define as a mysterious but somewhat
> measurable attraction property of matter. I don’t think it is created
> any differently than matter.
>
> However consider this: If you convert a given value of energy into
> matter, have you added to the universal gravitational field?
Energhy and matter do not interconvert, but are linearly independent.
Dýnamic and cinètic (or potential and motional) energhy interconvert;
virtval and real matter interconvert.
> It would seem unavoidable unless energy already has gravitational
> force unknown to us, perhaps including such forces as weak, strong,
> inertia and kinetic energy.
The only three fundamental fortiæ are coloral, elèctrètal, and
gravital.
> And if we converted all force and energy in the universe into matter,
> would we have the missing 85% gravitational force? One might argue
> that even if all energy were converted into matter, things aren’t
> moving fast enough to account for all the missing gravity. But are we
> sure we know how fast things are moving?
move fast is a ocsýmòron: http://google.com/groups?q=%22Comparisons+for+the+illiterate%22
-Aut
HVAC
LOL
David Albert Harrell
I believe the semicolon is optional, but I’m certain I don’t care.
David Albert Harrell
> On Oct 30, 4:51 pm, David Albert Harrell
>
> <davidalbertharr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Notice that if you hit a ball attached to a short rubber band, the
> > acceleration of the ball (while extending the band) would be slowed to
> > some small degree, yet acceleration would continue (also the rate of
> > acceleration would [should] increase) after the rubber band snapped,
> > until the ball reaches maximum velocity. This maximum velocity would
> > initially depend on the amount of force that propelled the ball.
>
> I'd like to dive into this for a moment, as it's implied this is the
> product of some actual observation, supportable by measurements. Do
> you really have support for this claim?
No.
> The acceleration is no doubt the result of contact with the bat, no?
> In that case, once the bat ceases to be in contact with the ball,
> there will be no further acceleration of the ball. Stroboscopic photos
> attest to that.
Well if this is true I can flush “acceleration potential” without
further ado. Could you direct me to these stroboscopic photos, or
some other conclusive specific example?
Benj
wrote:
No he can't. And he doesn't need to. How he knows this is not
important. Only that it's true. Hint: F = ma.
Acceleration is thus proportional to force. Where is the "force" on a
batted ball or a ball ejected by a rubber band? It's from the bat or
the attached band. One the bat looses contact, the force is zero (or
more exactly becomes negative from air friction creating a
deceleration). Same goes for that rubber band. If you want to propose
some "acceleration potential" then you need to demonstrate the force
that accelerates the object once the primary force has terminated. And
you wonder why nobody here (except us cranks) were impressed with your
"theory"?
Greg Neill
The parabolic-shaped curves of strobe photos of bouncing
balls provide all the required proof that no such
'acceleration potential' exists.
If it did then the initial acceleration of the ball
after bouncing and losing contact with the bounce surface
would not be -g, but some other value -g + a(d), where
a(d) represents the contribution of the 'acceleration
potential' with respect to distance from the bounce. The
curves would then *not* be parabolic in shape.
Lots of strobe photos of bouncing balls are available on
the web.
Note: newsgroups trimmed to the more relevant selections.
PD
I can't point to any easily Googlable link on the web, no, but this is
frequently done in a freshman physics lab, and I've done it
frequently. It's also pretty easy to set up in your front yard with
less than $20 of equipment. All you need is a T-stand, a baseball, a
bat, a camera, and a strobe light attached to a running car engine.
When in doubt, check your guess against measurements.
Autymn D. C.
> the attached band. One the bat looses contact, the force is zero (or
David Albert Harrell
David Albert Harrell
(see my latest post to this thread)
David Albert Harrell
Benj, Greg, and PD, this is a response to all three of your most
recent post, which seem to be along similar lines.
First let me point out that Greg’s bouncing ball is not a useful
analogy since the motion inertia of the ball is being reflected by the
ground, as opposed to delivered by the bat, which would seem to be an
entirely different event.
As for crude experimentation, I don’t think it would be useful since
if there is a period of independent acceleration, I expect it to be
very brief.
Let’s set it up: First, a baseball for instance would squash as it
contacts the bat, tapping and adding its elastic properties to the
equation. We don’t need any additional confusion so let’s use a
titanium bat and ball to minimize this effect, and hit the ball in
space to throw out Earth’s gravity and atmospheric friction.
Let’s further declare that the ball is not moving when we hit it.
I’ll be the invulnerable (immune to the hostilities of space)
slugger. Let’s glue my feet to an imaginary platform and stipulate
that it will remain static as I contact the ball.
Swing and a silent hit! The ball begins to move. Now according to
Newton, the ball has inertia at rest, which I’m saying must be
overcome before it reaches its top speed. This takes time. So there
is an interval, the only question is, do the bat and ball remain in
contact during this entire interval? What I’m saying is, I don’t
know, but I think not.
I’m left looking for proof one way or another. Any ideas?
Greg Neill
>
> Benj, Greg, and PD, this is a response to all three of your most
> recent post, which seem to be along similar lines.
>
> First let me point out that Greg’s bouncing ball is not a useful
> analogy since the motion inertia of the ball is being reflected by the
> ground, as opposed to delivered by the bat, which would seem to be an
> entirely different event.
In what way is it different? In both cases a ball is
being struck by a hard surface. Simply choose your
frame of reference appropriately.
The ground (the Earth) is nothing more than a really
massive bat whose inertia is much greater than that
of the ball...
>
> As for crude experimentation, I don’t think it would be useful since
> if there is a period of independent acceleration, I expect it to be
> very brief.
That's what stroboscopes are for. Of course, if it is so
brief as to be non-existent, then it's an exercise in
futility to even consider!
>
> Let’s set it up: First, a baseball for instance would squash as it
> contacts the bat, tapping and adding its elastic properties to the
> equation. We don’t need any additional confusion so let’s use a
> titanium bat and ball to minimize this effect, and hit the ball in
> space to throw out Earth’s gravity and atmospheric friction.
All real substances comprising bat and ball have what
is known as a coefficient of restitution, which specifies
how "stiffly" it behaves when it's compressed. Steel's
is greater than rubber's, for example. A steel ball will
bounce higher than a rubber ball on a hard surface.
There is no material that is infinitely stiff, so if
your choice of titanium for the bat and ball is meant
to eliminate compression of the ball it won't work;
Titanium will still compress to a certain degree. All
the elastic energy stuff will just occur over a shorter
time interval with smaller deflections.
On the other hand, if it is meant simply to minimize the
_time_ that the compression lasts (and hence the contact
time for the bat and ball) then that is fine. It won't,
however, reduce it to zero.
>
> Let’s further declare that the ball is not moving when we hit it.
> I’ll be the invulnerable (immune to the hostilities of space)
> slugger. Let’s glue my feet to an imaginary platform and stipulate
> that it will remain static as I contact the ball.
>
> Swing and a silent hit! The ball begins to move. Now according to
> Newton, the ball has inertia at rest, which I’m saying must be
> overcome before it reaches its top speed.
The ball always has inertia. Newton says the ball will behave
according to the formula f=m*a, where f is the applied force,
m the inertial mass, and a the resulting acceleration.
> This takes time. So there
> is an interval, the only question is, do the bat and ball remain in
> contact during this entire interval? What I’m saying is, I don’t
> know, but I think not.
Yes, the acceleration occurs during the period of time
(however brief) that the bat and ball are in contact.
Stiffer materials just make the time interval shorter. It
cannot be zero since there is no such thing as a real
material with infinite stiffness.
If the ball is still somewhat compressed after leaving the
bat and it restores itself to round only afterwards
(perhaps performing several oscillations in shape in the
process) be sure that it's the center of momentum of the
ball that you're following for your measurements of position,
velocity, and acceleration.
>
> I’m left looking for proof one way or another. Any ideas?
Try to buy some unobtainium on e-bay. If you succeed then
you can build a bat and ball with infinite stiffness and
coefficient of restitution to play with. Then you'll find
that when struck by the bat, the ball will behave like an
ideal particle being given an impulse (a momentum transfer
over an essentially zero time interval). It will
accelerate up to its final velocity instantaneously upon
contact with the bat. Somehow I doubt that you'll succeed
in finding the unobtanium...
PD
wrote:
>
> Let’s further declare that the ball is not moving when we hit it.
> I’ll be the invulnerable (immune to the hostilities of space)
> slugger. Let’s glue my feet to an imaginary platform and stipulate
> that it will remain static as I contact the ball.
>
> Swing and a silent hit! The ball begins to move. Now according to
> Newton, the ball has inertia at rest, which I’m saying must be
> overcome before it reaches its top speed. This takes time. So there
> is an interval, the only question is, do the bat and ball remain in
> contact during this entire interval? What I’m saying is, I don’t
> know, but I think not.
>
> I’m left looking for proof one way or another. Any ideas?
First of all, you talk about Newtonian physics, so let's make sure you
get the Newtonian aspect right.
Inertia is not overcome by a force before acceleration happens.
Newton's second law is force = mass x acceleration, where that mass is
the amount of inertia. So you see, no matter how small the force is or
how big the inertia is, there will be a nonzero acceleration right
away. Sometimes you need to overcome *friction* but friction is just
one of the forces that contributes to the left hand side of that
equation. Beginners often confuse the force that they need to apply
before it is greater than the force of friction (so that the NET force
is nonzero) with inertia -- not so.
And you're right, the force needs to apply for a certain amount of
time before the ball gets up to top speed. And in fact, the relation
here is (change in speed) = acceleration x time interval. If you go
back to the previous paragraph, you can see that acceleration =
force / mass, and so we can substitute in this relation to get (change
in speed) = (force / mass) x time. The point of doing this small
exercise is to let you know that that the change in speed is
completely determined by the amount of time the force is applied. When
the force is no longer applied, the speed no longer changes. (When the
force goes to zero, the acceleration goes to zero, and then the change
in velocity goes to zero, which means the velocity stops changing.)
This is verified by high-speed stroboscopic photos, though you can do
it yourself with a gentler force (not a ball and a bat) and the much
cheaper strobe photo set-up I described to you. So, no, the ball does
not continue to accelerate after contact with the bat, and yes, the
ball and bat are in contact during the entire interval of
acceleration.
As for the claim that the bat and the ball is different than the ball
on the floor, you'd be mistaken. I'll make a simple argument so that
you can at least visualize it. First, replace the bat with a flat
paddle like an oar. (Again remove the air and gravity and all that.)
Instead of letting the ball hang in air and swinging the paddle at it,
try throwing the ball at the paddle which is held fixed and
stationary. Clearly this starts to look like the ball bouncing against
a flat surface. If you video-record this from one side, but arrange
the camera to move alongside the ball at the same speed, when you look
at the video, it will look *just like* a stationary ball being hit by
a moving paddle. It is one of the remarkable statements of Newtonian
physics that these two situations are physically *identical*.
PD
David Albert Harrell
> David Albert Harrell wrote:
>
> > Benj, Greg, and PD, this is a response to all three of your most
> > recent post, which seem to be along similar lines.
>
> > First let me point out that Greg s bouncing ball is not a useful
> > analogy since the motion inertia of the ball is being reflected by the
> > ground, as opposed to delivered by the bat, which would seem to be an
> > entirely different event.
>
> In what way is it different? In both cases a ball is
> being struck by a hard surface. Simply choose your
> frame of reference appropriately.
>
Perhaps I did come down a little hard on your analogy, seems to end up
in the same place. In fact the ground isn’t moving so it can’t stay
with the ball like a bat, pushing it to achieve acceleration. This
may actually be a better analogy since it eliminates the pushing
possibility.
This means the ball must go from an instant of zero velocity to full
rebound speed during about half the contact duration, and before it
breaks contact with the ball. This sounds even less plausible to
me.
So let’s use a titanium ball, with a titanium floor, and ask again if
the ball accelerates after contact is broken.
> The ground (the Earth) is nothing more than a really
> massive bat whose inertia is much greater than that
> of the ball...
>
> > As for crude experimentation, I don t think it would be useful since
> > if there is a period of independent acceleration, I expect it to be
> > very brief.
>
> That's what stroboscopes are for. Of course, if it is so
> brief as to be non-existent, then it's an exercise in
> futility to even consider!
>
I am familiar with stroboscopes, and the last sentence is incorrect
since science is frequently about eliminating possibilities. I for
instance have been trying (unsuccessfully) to eliminate acceleration
potential for about a week now. Frankly, I didn’t expect it to take
this long.
>
> > Let s set it up: First, a baseball for instance would squash as it
> > contacts the bat, tapping and adding its elastic properties to the
> > equation. We don t need any additional confusion so let s use a
> > titanium bat and ball to minimize this effect, and hit the ball in
> > space to throw out Earth s gravity and atmospheric friction.
>
> All real substances comprising bat and ball have what
> is known as a coefficient of restitution, which specifies
> how "stiffly" it behaves when it's compressed. Steel's
> is greater than rubber's, for example. A steel ball will
> bounce higher than a rubber ball on a hard surface.
Try a superball. I was concerned more with the squashing (as it would
seem to prolong contact), and with its elastic properties,
complicating the issue. I was simply trying to “minimize these
effects.”
> There is no material that is infinitely stiff, so if
> your choice of titanium for the bat and ball is meant
> to eliminate compression of the ball it won't work;
> Titanium will still compress to a certain degree. All
> the elastic energy stuff will just occur over a shorter
> time interval with smaller deflections.
>
Again, I only attempted to “minimizing this effect.”
> On the other hand, if it is meant simply to minimize the
> _time_ that the compression lasts (and hence the contact
> time for the bat and ball) then that is fine. It won't,
> however, reduce it to zero.
>
Never said or implied it would.
>
> > Let s further declare that the ball is not moving when we hit it.
> > I ll be the invulnerable (immune to the hostilities of space)
> > slugger. Let s glue my feet to an imaginary platform and stipulate
> > that it will remain static as I contact the ball.
>
> > Swing and a silent hit! The ball begins to move. Now according to
> > Newton, the ball has inertia at rest, which I m saying must be
> > overcome before it reaches its top speed.
>
> The ball always has inertia. Newton says the ball will behave
> according to the formula f=m*a, where f is the applied force,
> m the inertial mass, and a the resulting acceleration.
>
Do you seriously imagine that I don’t know about this?
> > This takes time. So there
> > is an interval, the only question is, do the bat and ball remain in
> > contact during this entire interval? What I m saying is, I don t
> > know, but I think not.
>
> Yes, the acceleration occurs during the period of time
> (however brief) that the bat and ball are in contact.
> Stiffer materials just make the time interval shorter. It
> cannot be zero since there is no such thing as a real
> material with infinite stiffness.
Well if I thought there was, I would have used it instead of titanium.
> If the ball is still somewhat compressed after leaving the
> bat and it restores itself to round only afterwards
> (perhaps performing several oscillations in shape in the
> process) be sure that it's the center of momentum of the
> ball that you're following for your measurements of position,
> velocity, and acceleration.
>
>
> > I m left looking for proof one way or another. Any ideas?
>
> Try to buy some unobtainium on e-bay. If you succeed then
> you can build a bat and ball with infinite stiffness and
> coefficient of restitution to play with. Then you'll find
> that when struck by the bat, the ball will behave like an
> ideal particle being given an impulse (a momentum transfer
> over an essentially zero time interval). It will
> accelerate up to its final velocity instantaneously upon
> contact with the bat. Somehow I doubt that you'll succeed
> in finding the unobtanium...
Piece of cake, I just shipped you 40 pounds; let me know if it bounces
higher than the superball.
David Albert Harrell
David Albert Harrell
> And you're right, the force needs to apply for a certain amount of
> time before the ball gets up to top speed. And in fact, the relation
> here is (change in speed) = acceleration x time interval. If you go
> back to the previous paragraph, you can see that acceleration =
> force / mass, and so we can substitute in this relation to get (change
> in speed) = (force / mass) x time. The point of doing this small
> exercise is to let you know that that the change in speed is
> completely determined by the amount of time the force is applied. When
> the force is no longer applied, the speed no longer changes. (When the
> force goes to zero, the acceleration goes to zero, and then the change
> in velocity goes to zero, which means the velocity stops changing.)
> This is verified by high-speed stroboscopic photos, though you can do
> it yourself with a gentler force (not a ball and a bat) and the much
> cheaper strobe photo set-up I described to you. So, no, the ball does
> not continue to accelerate after contact with the bat, and yes, the
> ball and bat are in contact during the entire interval of
> acceleration.
Ah but I know you are less than 100% certain of this or you would not
have so cautiously inquired as to whether or not I had proof of
acceleration after contact.
[you wrote]
“I'd like to dive into this for a moment, as it's implied this is the
product of some actual observation, supportable by measurements. Do
you really have support for this claim?”
Which still leaves me unable to dismiss acceleration potential.
> As for the claim that the bat and the ball is different than the ball
> on the floor, you'd be mistaken. I'll make a simple argument so that
> you can at least visualize it. First, replace the bat with a flat
> paddle like an oar. (Again remove the air and gravity and all that.)
> Instead of letting the ball hang in air and swinging the paddle at it,
> try throwing the ball at the paddle which is held fixed and
> stationary. Clearly this starts to look like the ball bouncing against
> a flat surface. If you video-record this from one side, but arrange
> the camera to move alongside the ball at the same speed, when you look
> at the video, it will look *just like* a stationary ball being hit by
> a moving paddle. It is one of the remarkable statements of Newtonian
> physics that these two situations are physically *identical*.
>
> PD
See my latest reply to Greg.
David Albert Harrell
David Albert Harrell
wrote:
I guess I better stipulate that in the new 'bounce' scenario, the ball
strikes the reflector platform at no angle, otherwise we would not
have this wonderful moment of zero velocity to work with. (which
someone will no doubt say does not exist) And let's keep everything
in space, no gravity, atmosphere, etc.
Greg Neill
> I guess I better stipulate that in the new 'bounce' scenario, the ball
> strikes the reflector platform at no angle, otherwise we would not
> have this wonderful moment of zero velocity to work with. (which
> someone will no doubt say does not exist) And let's keep everything
> in space, no gravity, atmosphere, etc.
Oh, the zero velocity instant exists all right, provided
that you consider only a single point of the impacting
ball at a time. Since any real material will deform
elastically, there may be parts of the impactor still in
motion while other parts have stopped and yet other
parts have already begun to reverse direction.
BTW, here's a cute steel ball bouncing demo from an advert
(for golf clubs no less) that shows steel balls bouncing
on three different surfaces: steel, titanium, and their
trademarked alloy called LiquidMetal (obviously not a
liquid!). It outperforms titanium by a good margin.
http://www.leaderboard.com/BOUNBALL.htm
Steel, with a coefficient of restitution (COR) in excess of
0.9 would outperform a superball which has a coefficient of
restitution of about 0.86 or so, at least for drop heights
that don't lead to permanent deformation of the steel. It
might be noted that glass has an even higher COR than steel,
but for obvious reasons is not suitable for bouncing from
large heights!
PD
Good. Just be aware that the phrase "the force has to overcome inertia
to start the acceleration" is a flag for a common misconception among
students.
You misread me, then. I asked you this question not because I have
lingering doubts, but because I wanted you to examine for yourself how
you arrived at the conclusion you did. If you don't have any
observational support for the claim, then it should have occurred to
you that perhaps it was pulled out of thin air.
>
> > As for the claim that the bat and the ball is different than the ball
> > on the floor, you'd be mistaken. I'll make a simple argument so that
> > you can at least visualize it. First, replace the bat with a flat
> > paddle like an oar. (Again remove the air and gravity and all that.)
> > Instead of letting the ball hang in air and swinging the paddle at it,
> > try throwing the ball at the paddle which is held fixed and
> > stationary. Clearly this starts to look like the ball bouncing against
> > a flat surface. If you video-record this from one side, but arrange
> > the camera to move alongside the ball at the same speed, when you look
> > at the video, it will look *just like* a stationary ball being hit by
> > a moving paddle. It is one of the remarkable statements of Newtonian
> > physics that these two situations are physically *identical*.
>
> > PD
>
> See my latest reply to Greg.
I read it. My comment stands. Did you follow?
>
> David Albert Harrell
Greg Neill
> On Nov 4, 12:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is verified by high-speed stroboscopic photos, though you can do
>> it yourself with a gentler force (not a ball and a bat) and the much
>> cheaper strobe photo set-up I described to you. So, no, the ball does
>> not continue to accelerate after contact with the bat, and yes, the
>> ball and bat are in contact during the entire interval of
>> acceleration.
>
> Ah but I know you are less than 100% certain of this or you would not
> have so cautiously inquired as to whether or not I had proof of
> acceleration after contact.
I think it's only prudent (if not polite) to ask for such;
In science it's all about the experimental evidence, and
everyone knows that evidence trumps theory every time. Also,
one should always be open to surprising new evidence;
it's the best kind! It's always best to cut to the chase
and examine any evidence being presented, which speaks much
louder than any handwavy what-if's or unsupported assertions.
If there is no evidence to present then there is every
possiblity that the claim is based soley on intuition or
'feeling', which does not constitute a solid argument in
science. History suggests that in such situations the
discussion will often prove unproductive for both parties.
David Albert Harrell
A material that stores energy long enough to add it to the next
bounce?
Fascinating.
David Albert Harrell
[cc to PD]
You two, Newton, and the entire physics community are saying that the
ball goes from zero to full rebound speed during the second half of
the contact period, these halves being separated by the ‘moment’ of
zero velocity.
I can’t disagree, but you realize of course that I knew this was the
unanimous consensus when I posted.
My objective was to review an experimental proof of acceleration
ending as contact ends, or confirm that no such proof exists. We have
been unable to locate such a demonstration. Yet I am prepared to give
up looking, in deference to other projects.
Correct if wrong, but you a both saying that proof is no doubt out
there, this experiment undoubtedly having been preformed, we just
don’t know where to access it.
In any case, I would say that acceleration potential is in trouble,
since I have no plan on how to proceed. Thank you for your help
gentleman.
David Albert Harrell
David Albert Harrell
Sure. Always did.
[cc to Greg]