Energy and Work

[Ilya Shambat]

Statements made on these forums have opened a big door for me, and
I've been studying up on physics and mathematics. While what follows
is unrelated to what I was originally writing about (change of
objects), it intrigued me. I do not claim to be competing with physics
majors on these groups, but rather sharing something that interested
me: A set of equations I ran that related work with energy.

(1) W=Fd (definition of work)
(2) F=ma (Newton's Second Law)
(3) W=mad (substituting)
(4) a=v/t (definition of acceleration)
(5) d=vt (definition of distance)
(6) W=m(v/t)(vt) (substituting)
(7) W=mv2 (t's cancel out, v's combine)
(8) E=mc2 (Einstein)
(9) W=E(v2/c2) (substituting)

Conclusions: Work is energy times square of velocity divided by square
of speed of light
At speed of light, work done is equal to energy
expended
At lower speeds, the lower the speed the more
energy it takes to do given amount of work; the
higher the speed the less energy it takes to do
the given amount of work

It's hardest to get the ball rolling; things get easier the more one
gets up to speed.

[Poutnik]

In article <39bc4560-b121-48c0-837f-72aeede42a52
@x4g2000pbq.googlegroups.com>, ibsh...@gmail.com says...

I am afraid you suppose the same symbol stands always for the same,
what is not true , while being still the same physical entity.

1) More exactly, W = path integral of force vector
2) This is correct, but F stands for sum of forces
3) WRONG, as force is doing the work,
even if total force and acceleration is zero,
e.g. lifting the objects by steady move.
4) More exactly vector A is time derivation of vector v
5) More exactly d is time integral of v.
Can be taken by scalar way, if counted travelled path
or by vector way, if distance is counted a vector start to end.
6) WRONG, As W has no relation to a
7) Therefore this is WRONG too
8) Correct
9+following) WRONG


--
Poutnik

[Y.Porat]

On Jan 13, 8:51 pm, Ilya Shambat <ibsham...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Statements made on these forums have opened a big door for me, and
> I've been studying up on physics and mathematics. While what follows
> is unrelated to what I was originally writing about (change of
> objects), it intrigued me. I do not claim to be competing with physics
> majors on these groups, but rather sharing something that interested
> me: A set of equations I ran that related work with energy.
>
> (1) W=Fd             (definition of work)
> (2) F=ma             (Newton's Second Law)
> (3) W=mad          (substituting)
> (4) a=v/t               (definition of acceleration)
> (5) d=vt                (definition of distance)
> (6) W=m(v/t)(vt)    (substituting)
> (7) W=mv2          (t's cancel out, v's combine)
> (8) E=mc2          (Einstein)
> (9) W=E(v2/c2)   (substituting)
>
> Conclusions: Work is energy times square of velocity divided by square
> of speed of light

---------------

1
was thre an old man how told you that

** ENERGY IS MASS IN MOTION!!** ??!!
in micro and macrocosm !!!
(his name is Y.Porat )
-------------------------
--------------------------
work is done by energy !!
energy is more abstract
work i s more specific for specific cases !!
-----

>                     At speed of light, work done is equal to energy
> expended

see above
-----------------
---------------------------------
at speed of light you still dont know what is the work that
CAN BE DONE !!! for a specific case
you have to know what is the mass that is moving there

b
how much of it will be materialized in c csse of splinting the
energy to a few directions in specific cases
(while its mass will collide to a few directions (vectors )
------------

>                     At lower speeds, the lower the speed the more
> energy it takes to do given amount of work; the
>                     higher the speed the less energy it takes to do
> the given amount of work

---------------------------------------
its tme for you to learn that
massis conserved as energy is conserved !!

see my thread:
'Mass id conserved BECAUSE energy is conserved !!!""
(both mass AND ENERGY ARE CONSERVED !!
iow
there is nor relativistic mass !!!
mass is not growing with speed!!
IT IS THE ENERGY NEEDED TO ADD MORE VELOCITY THATIS GROWING !!

it is not
F = gamma m a
but

F/Gamma = m a
AND m RETAINS CONSTANT !!
so
quite the opposite to your above say :

it becomes more and more difficult to add more velocity
in orded to ad more velocity to mass !!!
the trouble with you young guys that you was born to
authenticate cars
in my old days
if your battery went off
we had to push out cars in order to ignite (tart ) it !!

and had you done it with your bare hands (and bones (:-))
you would understand BY HAND EXPERIENCE.)
THAT IT BECOMES TOAD MORE AND MORE ENERGY
TO ADD THE CAR MORE VELOCITY -
THE ENRGY INVESTED IF NOT ONLY THE FORE YOU NEED
BUT THE LONGER WAY YOU NEED TO RUN WITH YOUR FORCE
IN ORDER OF NOT LOOSING CONTACT WITH THE CAR !!!
i hop my above example is very meaningful and educative

keeping in mind that
**FORCE AGENTS** **THEMSELVES** HAS AN &&UPPER LIMIT OF VELOCITY
**--
TO RUN AFTER THEIR DRIVEN OBJECT (MASS)!!
---------------
BTW
i would omit the sci.philosophy !!
it is not philosophy it is handwork and experiment work (:-)
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------------------------------

>
> It's hardest to get the ball rolling; things get easier the more one
> gets up to speed.

--------------------------

[7]

Ilya Shambat wrote:

> Statements made on these forums have opened a big door for me, and
> I've been studying up on physics and mathematics. While what follows
> is unrelated to what I was originally writing about (change of
> objects), it intrigued me. I do not claim to be competing with physics
> majors on these groups, but rather sharing something that interested
> me: A set of equations I ran that related work with energy.
>
> (1) W=Fd (definition of work)
> (2) F=ma (Newton's Second Law)
> (3) W=mad (substituting)
> (4) a=v/t (definition of acceleration)

Nope -the relation is connected through dv/dt

> (5) d=vt (definition of distance)

Nope its d = s0 + vt
If s0 (initial distance) is zero, then d = vt
but only if dv/dt = 0.

The rest is just hopeless:

> (6) W=m(v/t)(vt) (substituting)
> (7) W=mv2 (t's cancel out, v's combine)
> (8) E=mc2 (Einstein)
> (9) W=E(v2/c2) (substituting)
>
> Conclusions: Work is energy times square of velocity divided by square
> of speed of light
> At speed of light, work done is equal to energy
> expended
> At lower speeds, the lower the speed the more
> energy it takes to do given amount of work; the
> higher the speed the less energy it takes to do
> the given amount of work
>
> It's hardest to get the ball rolling; things get easier the more one
> gets up to speed.

Stop ranting across the internet and discuss with your friends and teacher
basic maths. Alternatively, use www.youtube.com and search for maths
tutorials.

[Y.Porat]

On Jan 14, 3:27 am, 7

----------------------
it is not only maths !!
maths cannot be the leader of physics !!!
(it can be the leader of maths (:-)

it needs ****first of all *** PHYSICS UNDERSTANDING !!!***

ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------------

[holog]

> ----------------------
> it is not only maths !!
> maths cannot be the   leader of   physics !!!
> (it can be the leader of maths   (:-)
>
> it needs  ****first of all    *** PHYSICS   UNDERSTANDING !!!***
>
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> ------------------------------

math is the scribbling of a lead pencil on paper, physics is wondering
why

holog

[Zerkon]

In article <39bc4560-b121-48c0-837f-72aeede42a52
@x4g2000pbq.googlegroups.com>, ibsh...@gmail.com says...

> It's hardest to get the ball rolling; things get easier the more one
> gets up to speed.
>

There is a glitch in this when energy is applied to boiling, among other
things, water.

Also this is only true given a constant environment. If the ball were to
roll from vapor into liquid ...

However it works great when trying to pull a truck with your hair.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4NFoWDhdNA&feature=related

[gu...@hotmail.com]

Energy = potential Energy remaining
Work = Energy depleted

[gu...@hotmail.com]

On Jan 14, 3:37 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:

If Energy was dispersed linearly the equations would be different.

Since the rays (Energy) of sun light widen as they propagate in space
(cone shape)
instead of linearly (line shape = Point A to Point B)
therefore the lights energy is distributed by the square area in
space:

Thus E= mv^2 instead of E=mv = momentum only.

[NoEinstein]

On Jan 13, 11:51 pm, Ilya Shambat <ibsham...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Statements made on these forums have opened a big door for me, and
> I've been studying up on physics and mathematics. While what follows
> is unrelated to what I was originally writing about (change of
> objects), it intrigued me. I do not claim to be competing with physics
> majors on these groups, but rather sharing something that interested
> me: A set of equations I ran that related work with energy.
>
> (1) W=Fd (definition of work)

Work, more correctly, is a force acting in the desired direction of
motion for some resulting distance. No work (useful work at least) is
done without having the motion be in the desired direction.

> (2) F=ma (Newton's Second Law)

The latter equation has been easily DISPROVED by me. Momentum is F =
mv. If you substiture any given force into both F = ma and F = mv,
the equation (sic) becomes ma = mv (sic). For a unit mass that
requires that velocity and acceleration be the same thing (sic!!).
So... one of those equations is WRONG! Newton, the non mathematician,
didn't realize that his Law: "For every uniform, continuously applied
force, there will be one and only one corresponding acceleration." has
no "equation" corresponding to that statement! So his "Law" stands.
But his equation goes, belately, into the dust bend of mathematical
stupidity!

> (3) W=mad (substituting)

Work done has NEVER varied due to the speed, velocity, nor the
acceleration of doing the work. A mass moved one foot in a desired
direction represents the same amount of work, whether done in one
minute or one hour!

> (4) a=v/t (definition of acceleration)

No. Not without explaining the conditions. Acceleration is the
increase in distance per unit of time for EACH unit of time. For
example g = 32.174 feet per second EACH second. Erroneous equation
(4) has too often (by airheads) been written as a = distance per
time^2. I can assure you there is nothing exponential about
acceleration! The distances traveled ARE increasing exponentially
(due only to the COASTING carryover of the velocities from earlier
time units), but the velocity is only increasing linearly, while the
acceleration remains unchanged.

> (5) d=vt (definition of distance)

WRONG!! Distance is the modular 2D planar, or modular 3D spatial
interval between any two stipulated points.

> (6) W=m(v/t)(vt) (substituting)

Wrong, due to using erroneous component factors.

> (7) W=mv2 (t's cancel out, v's combine)

Wrong! As already explained WORK doesn't involve how long it takes!
"Power" is concerned with how much work can be done because of the
continuous force that is available. However, the resistance must be
known before the time to complete the work can be calculated.

> (8) E=mc2 (Einstein)

Wrong! No experiment has ever shown that the 'energy' of any mass has
any relationship, whatsoever, to the arbitrary (MORONIC) square of
‘c’! Your equation (8) conveniently leaves out the BETA divisor [1 -
v^2/c^2]1/2. The total SR equation has only ONE variable, v. When
the velocity increases UNIFORMLY to 'c', the divisor goes to zero.
Anyone who truly understands math knows that taking the divisor to
ZERO will take Einstein's MORONIC E to infinity! Since 'c' square
isn't an infinite number, then the SR equation is getting OUT more
energy (the FORCE causing the velocity increase) is putting IN. THAT
is a clear violation of the Law of the Conservation of Energy/Mass!!!
And THAT is the easiest disproof of Einstein's Theory of Relativity
(Sic)! Understand, airheads? Ha, ha, HA! — NoEinstein —

NIX the following busted notions:

[Shmuel Metz]

In <IEdQq.8$1i...@newsfe04.ams2>, on 01/14/2012
at 11:27 AM, 7

<email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> said:

>Nope its d = s0 + vt

Only for constant v. Otherwise you have to integrate.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org

[Poutnik]

In article <6e5ddcc9-0544-4349-8d96-
c49a54...@f33g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, noein...@bellsouth.net
says...

> > (2) F=ma (Newton's Second Law)
>
> The latter equation has been easily DISPROVED by me. Momentum is F =
> mv. If you substiture any given force into both F = ma and F = mv,
>

You mix F = m . a and p = m . v


--
Poutnik

[holog]

what would uncle al say?

[M Purcell]

Idiot.

[holog]

>
> > > Thus E= mv^2 instead of E=mv = momentum only.
>
> > what would  uncle al say?
>
> Idiot.

yah but, what is our current velocity?

holog

[holog]

>
> > > Thus E= mv^2 instead of E=mv = momentum only.
>
> > what would  uncle al say?
>
> Idiot.

yah but what's our current velocity?

holog

[Jonathan]

"Ilya Shambat" <ibsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:39bc4560-b121-48c0...@x4g2000pbq.googlegroups.com...

Work is the total amount of force applied
over a distance.

The total energy of a body is the amount
of energy is has at rest, plus it's kinetic
energy.

E = MC^2 just says that energy differs from matter only
by a constant. C^2 is just a (very large) fixed number.
It's like saying E = 2M, if you drop the 2, you
haven't really changed the basic relationship
except by it's magnitude.

E = M.

So energy and matter are the same things just
in different states, like water and vapor.
The Lorentz transformation....

1 / (1 - V^2/C^2)^1/2

...shows how to convert between the frames of reference
between space and time. Einstein re-derived that
formula and showed that equation describes how
matter is converted to energy as you approach the
speed of light.

When V = C, the equation becomes

1/ (1 - C^2/C^2)^1/2 which becomes

1/( 1 - 1) which becomes

1/0 or undefined

So at the speed of light the equation becomes undefined.
The equation shows that matter would become energy
at the speed of light.

But particle physics really isn't the path to understanding
how the universe works. Physics tries to reduce reality
to a fundamental particle, operating under (4) universal
forces.

But the newer non-linear sciences have moved beyond
that to realize that universal laws are found in a
fundamental ...process operating under (3) universal
...behaviors.

That fundamental process is evolution.
And the three fundamental behaviors are simply
classical, quantum and an entanglement of the two
which is where system properties emerge.

classical > emergent < quantum
static > dynamic < chaotic
solid > liquid < gas
matter > light < energy
genetics > selection < mutation


Think of the relationship between particle physics
and the living realm as you would the relationship
between derivatives.

The derivative of acceleration is velocity.
The derivative of velocity is position.

The 'anti-derivative so to speak of particle physics is
emergent system properties.

There's a huge flaw in reductionist or objective
views when it comes to fundamental laws.
Which is that emergent system properties
CANNOT be directly related to their system
components. And emergent properties are
things like gravity, space-time, dark energy
natural selection, market-forces, ideas
and intelligence etc.

ALL THE THINGS the ...future of our reality are
dependent upon, all the things of meaning... emergent
creations, cannot be objectively 'known'. Or known
from the precise examination of it's components.

Emergence

"So what is this emergence exactly ? Generally it is
defined by saying 'the whole is greater than the sum
of the parts'. In other words we cannot predict the
outcome from studying only the fine details.
http://www.calresco.org/emerge.htm


The Uncertainty Principle, in more abstract terms, is
the relationship between system components and
system properties (behavioral tendencies). In that
the more one reduces to parts, the less you can
observe the global properties, such as a 'market force'
for instance.

And the basic duality in nature, in more abstract terms, is
that components and system properties have completely
different behaviors, yet each component is a system
unto itself.

However....there's a way around that limitation.
Read below. A simple frame of reference error
has been blinding science to the true simplicity
and beauty of it all.....


Calresco Themes (*in essay forn)
http://calresco.org/themes.htm

Self-Organizing Faq
http://calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm

Dynamics of Complex Systems
(full online textbook)
http://www.necsi.org/publications/dcs/

Steinhardt
Director, Princeton Center for Theoretical Physics
http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/cycliccosmology.html



s










s

[Frederick Williams]

Jonathan wrote:

> E = MC^2 just says that energy differs from matter only
> by a constant. C^2 is just a (very large) fixed number.
> It's like saying E = 2M, if you drop the 2, you
> haven't really changed the basic relationship
> except by it's magnitude.
>
> E = M.
>
> So energy and matter are the same things just
> in different states, like water and vapor.

Not so, that C^2 has dimensions: it may be a constant, but it's not a
pure number.

--
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by
this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.
Jonathan Swift: Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting

[M Purcell]

Of light?

[ala]

"holog" <ho...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:2438d2d4-a0d1-4dfc...@u32g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

>yah but what's our current velocity?

did you mean frequency and did you think you were speaking to kenneth

[ala]

"Ilya Shambat" <ibsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:39bc4560-b121-48c0...@x4g2000pbq.googlegroups.com...

heh! nice one

[ala]

"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in
message news:4f120d11$7$fuzhry+tra$mr2...@news.patriot.net...

> In <IEdQq.8$1i...@newsfe04.ams2>, on 01/14/2012
> at 11:27 AM, 7
> <email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> said:
>
>>Nope its d = s0 + vt
>
> Only for constant v. Otherwise you have to integrate.
>

PS you should never pick cleaning house over reading. :)

[micro...@hotmail.com]

> --------------------------- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

There is only kinetic energy of nonkinetic fundamental, bond energy
and light energy.
Mass is moving energy infinitely concentrated.
Spread out energy is the other side as bond and light.

[Poutnik]

In article <24d58f12-86ce-4a58-9314-9d4d27d03b16
@q7g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>, sacs...@aol.com says...

Related to what ?
We do not have absolute velocity.

--
Poutnik

[holog]

>
> Related to what ?
> We do not have absolute velocity.
>
> --
> Poutnik

you standing still, but traveling through space, how fast are you
going?

holog

[ala]

"holog" <ho...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

news:fcb96f4f-96fa-48fd...@t2g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...

how do you like going so fast

[Poutnik]

In article <fcb96f4f-96fa-48fd-929d-
2b60ec...@t2g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, ho...@bellsouth.net says...

Standing still is relative to Earth,
so does you space move must be related to object
you are comparing your speed with.

No absolute still and no absolute move.

Cancel Earth as common-sense based
preferred absolute frame.

--
Poutnik

People's selfconfidency is often reciprocal to their knowledge.

[Zinnic]

On Jan 22, 6:25 am, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> In article <fcb96f4f-96fa-48fd-929d-
> 2b60ec629...@t2g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, ho...@bellsouth.net says...

Everything is in motion relative to at least one other thing! The
motion of one thing is not determinable. We should just live with it!

[Poutnik]

In article <7ffce2b5-0d64-4662-82cb-db14fb8e7d52
@c13g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, zinni...@gmail.com says...

>
> On Jan 22, 6:25 am, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <fcb96f4f-96fa-48fd-929d-
> > 2b60ec629...@t2g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, ho...@bellsouth.net says...
> >
> > > > Related to what ?
> > > > We do not have absolute velocity.
> >
> > > > --
> > > > Poutnik
> >
> > > you standing still, but traveling through space, how fast are you
> > > going?
> >
> > Standing still is relative to Earth,
> > so does you space move must be related to object
> > you are comparing your speed with.
> >
> > No absolute still and no absolute move.
> >
> > Cancel Earth as common-sense based
> > preferred absolute frame.
> >
>

> Everything is in motion relative to at least one other thing! The
> motion of one thing is not determinable. We should just live with it!

I did not say anything else.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

> > basic maths. Alternatively, usewww.youtube.comandsearch for maths

> > tutorials.
>
> ----------------------
> it is not only maths !!
> maths cannot be the   leader of   physics !!!
> (it can be the leader of maths   (:-)
>
> it needs  ****first of all    *** PHYSICS   UNDERSTANDING !!!***
>
> ATB
> Y.Porat

> ------------------------------- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Substance is next to its math. This is physicality.

[holog]

>
> Substance is next to its math. This is physicality.

what is our "speed" compared to the center of the universe (as a
point) of reference?

holog

[Vurgil]

In article
<976477a3-b4bb-4a00...@18g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

In which direction from Earth is your supposed "center of the universe"?

[Poutnik]

In article <Vurgil-6BAADD....@bignews.usenetmonster.com>,
Vur...@arg.erg says...

If he tells us, where is the center
of curved 2D space of the baloon surface,
we will tell him where is center of universe. :)

--
Poutnik

[holog]

On Jan 27, 7:25 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> In article <Vurgil-6BAADD.17183527012...@bignews.usenetmonster.com>,
> Vur...@arg.erg says...
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <976477a3-b4bb-4a00-8a3d-b3d1d3b68...@18g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

> >  holog <ho...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Substance is next to its math. This is physicality.
>
> > > what is our "speed" compared to the center of the universe (as a
> > > point) of reference?
>
> > > holog
>
> > In which direction from Earth is your supposed "center of the universe"?
>
> If he tells us, where is the center
> of curved 2D space of the baloon surface,
> we will tell him where is center of universe. :)
>
> --
> Poutnik

the "singularity" , where is it

holog

[M Purcell]

Which singularity?

[holog]

On Jan 27, 7:18 pm, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> wrote:
> In article
> <976477a3-b4bb-4a00-8a3d-b3d1d3b68...@18g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

the"point" of the the "big bang

[holog]

> > > --
> > > Poutnik
>
> > the "singularity" , where is it
>
> Which singularity?

the big bang

holog

[M Purcell]

Which direction is that? All the galaxies are moving away from each
other.

[holog]

>
> > > In which direction from Earth is your supposed "center of the universe"?
>
> > the"point" of the the "big bang
>
> Which direction is that? All the galaxies are moving away from each
> other.

speed is relative, i'm wondering , the speed from a fixed point , the
first point of origin, the "point" , the universes point of origin
"the big bang", relate our speed and torque to that and you might find
out something



holog

[M Purcell]

The center of the earth?

[holog]

>
> > speed is relative, i'm wondering  , the speed from a fixed point , the
> > first point of origin, the "point" , the universes point of origin
> > "the big bang", relate our speed and torque to that and you might find
> > out something
>
> The center of the earth?

the point at which you are standing, moving through the the
universe , ,,,,,,,


holog

[holog]

maybe someone will understand, mass plus speed

holog

[M Purcell]

Where else?

[Poutnik]

In article <f18b474f-0a2c-4584-97c9-9ea6f06d9fc8
@h6g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, ho...@bellsouth.net says...

That returns us to a balloon with curved 2D space,
as analogy to curved spacetime.

Where on it is the center of the 2D space ?

All points has properties of the center,
and there is no border,
while still maximum distance is finite.

The key point is one cannot evaluate universe geometry
by geometry of common sense.


--
Poutnik

[Y.Porat]

On Jan 27, 4:25 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> In article <Vurgil-6BAADD.17183527012...@bignews.usenetmonster.com>,
> Vur...@arg.erg says...
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <976477a3-b4bb-4a00-8a3d-b3d1d3b68...@18g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

> >  holog <ho...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Substance is next to its math. This is physicality.
>
> > > what is our "speed" compared to the center of the universe (as a
> > > point) of reference?
>
> > > holog
>
> > In which direction from Earth is your supposed "center of the universe"?
>
> If he tells us, where is the center
> of curved 2D space of the baloon surface,
> we will tell him where is center of universe. :)
>
> --
> Poutnik

----------------
at th4 center of stupidity
even of much bigger big mouths !!!

we are flooded with pompous stupidity ...
even from what is called big scientists

Y.Potay

[micro...@hotmail.com]

There is no universal center and our speed is always below light and
above absolute rest.

Mitchell Raemsch

[M Purcell]

On Jan 28, 12:31 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

No rest, no light, and no reference, what kinda place is this?

[holog]

>
> There is no universal center and our speed is always below light and
> above absolute rest.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

if "there is no universal center" , then there was no "big bang",
thanks for explaining that.

holog

[M Purcell]

Oh, a creationist.

[M Purcell]

On Jan 28, 2:43 pm, holog <ho...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

More like a popping bubble i think, nothing smaller than a wavelength.
It is difficult to conceptualize in four dimensions but there may be
more.

[holog]

>
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
>
> > if  "there is no universal center" , then there was no "big bang",
> > thanks for explaining that.
>
> More like a popping bubble i think, nothing smaller than a wavelength.
> It is difficult to conceptualize in four dimensions but there may be
> more.

why do people keep thinking that TIME is a dimension, we live in 3
dimensions

holog

[micro...@hotmail.com]

It's the place that takes time...

[Sir Frederick Martin]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 14:40:47 -0800 (PST), M Purcell <sacs...@aol.com> wrote:


>No rest, no light, and no reference, what kinda place is this?

It is spookier than you can imagine.
That's why 'we' confabulate and practice
a lot of hubris boosting stories.

[M Purcell]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

"In relativistic contexts, time cannot be separated from the three
dimensions of space, because the observed rate at which time passes
for an object depends on the object's velocity relative to the
observer and also on the strength of gravitational fields, which can
slow the passage of time."

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/28/12 1/28/12 8:08 PM, holog wrote:
> why do people keep thinking that TIME is a dimension, we live in 3
> dimensions

You make several mistakes here, related to what science actually is, and how it
relates to the world we inhabit.

Science is the systematic process of formulating models of the world, testing
them experimentally, and improving the models based on the experimental results.

This process is completely unable to describe "how the world actually works", it
can only describe how the MODELS work. Your claim "we live in 3 dimensions" is
ostensibly about the world -- you have ignored the fact that everything you
think you know about the world is actually about your MODEL of the world.

The human mind can process only thoughts. Thoughts about the world
can, at best, only be MODELS of phenomena in the world we inhabit.

You implicitly use the model that space is 3 dimensional and time is something
completely different. That model works exceedingly well in our everyday lives.
But in many areas of modern physics, the model of relativity works VASTLY better
(so much so that the model you use is completely refuted). In relativity, time
is included in the geometry of the world, and so we say "the world is 4
dimensional" -- as this model works VASTLY better than the one you implicitly
use, this approach is fully justified.


Tom Roberts

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Jan 27, 3:53 pm, holog <ho...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

There is no such center as the universe is in a 4 dimensional
boundary. Because it is in a higher dimensional boundary there is no
lower dimensional boundary. This is the closing of the universe.

Mitchell Raemsch; the prize

[ala]

<micro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cd5bb516-7ada-4643...@vh10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

>There is no such center as the universe is in a 4 dimensional
>boundary. Because it is in a higher dimensional boundary there is no
>lower dimensional boundary. This is the closing of the universe.

the bricks are out, the wood is torn off and concrete and there's a
substantial crack all the way up the arch

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Jan 30, 6:46 pm, "ala" <alackr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> <microm2...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

I see you found your hole in the wall...

[ala]

<micro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f567fcd5-4fda-45d7...@ra5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

>I see you found your hole in the wall...

you bet

you will love this

Someone plowed into my front door yesterday

Given Alabama weather for the past week, I thought a tornado hit
but no, a guy mistook his accelator for the brake in the parking lot and
went through my front door.

i actually know someone who did lose their house in last week's tornados

big hole

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

yeah, the OP did a nice dimensional analysis
with his #9, as usual completely blindsiding Neinstein
and his teeny-tiny theory of every God-am thing
in Universe, except for electromagnetism etc. etc.
-- and I don't need no steenkin' mathematica --
F = ma = mv = mvv = que sera, sera!

anyway, isn't it actually "rho equals em vee,"
not p=mv, rho being a Greek letter?

> C^2 has dimensions: it may be a constant, but
> it's not a pure number.

thus:
Twins' pedagogical paradox only needs
to have those two observers, observing each-other (although
they would mayhap use Sun as a referent
for the stay-at-Eaaarth's shift,
as seen by the acceleratee).

it may be that you have uncovered a problem
in the usual, Einsteinian gedankenspiel,
whereby there "REALLY is no difference,"
in terms of "OBSERVED Doppler-Fizeau shifts,"
between the accelerated & gallilean identical,
fraternal, or just dress-alike twins.

thus:
I strongly doubt that it is not apparent in Diamond's article,
that such results would be deemed (in part) a result
of regs. for instance,
the massive, voluntary market in CO2 credits,
administered by ICE (Atlanta) and CCX (Chicago -- and
Senator Obama).

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

Minkowski had an excuse,
for not qualifying his silly syllogism
about time & space; he died at 43.

use the original vector mechanics,
quaternions, whereby time is the "real scalar," and
space is the "pure imaginary vector,"
a la Lanczos in _Variational Mechanics_,
Dover Publ.

> time is included in the geometry of the world, and
> so we say "the world is 4 dimensional" -- as
> this model works

[Michael Stemper]

In article <Vurgil-6BAADD....@bignews.usenetmonster.com>, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> writes:

>In article <976477a3-b4bb-4a00...@18g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, holog <ho...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>> > Substance is next to its math. This is physicality.
>>
>> what is our "speed" compared to the center of the universe (as a
>> point) of reference?
>

>In which direction from Earth is your supposed "center of the universe"?

I'm pretty sure that it's east of the Earth.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Indians scattered on dawn's highway bleeding;
Ghosts crowd the young child's fragile eggshell mind.

[holog]

On Jan 31, 8:51 am, mstem...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper)
wrote:
> In article <Vurgil-6BAADD.17183527012...@bignews.usenetmonster.com>, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> writes:

> >In article <976477a3-b4bb-4a00-8a3d-b3d1d3b68...@18g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, holog <ho...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> > Substance is next to its math. This is physicality.
>
> >> what is our "speed" compared to the center of the universe (as a
> >> point) of reference?
>
> >In which direction from Earth is your supposed "center of the universe"?
>
> I'm pretty sure that it's east of the Earth.
>
> --
> Michael F. Stemper
> #include <Standard_Disclaimer>
> Indians scattered on dawn's highway bleeding;
> Ghosts crowd the young child's fragile eggshell mind.

wow just trying to figure out, from the eq e=mc(squared), that
mass relates to dimensions and time is related to that of light.

holog
how does one interpret mass and dimensions

[holog]

thanks for the rebuttal, exercise of the mind always helps,

i think of dimensions as a property of matter(physical), i think of
time as an unending constant---material changes because time
continues. our observations are held at this threshold. the physical
can alter matter, but we are not able to change our time frame. this
time frame is unalterable- where matter is quite malleable - matter
exists due to the existence of time.

holog

[holog]

with an open mind---------the faster you go , time doesn't slow but
only the matter you are are made of.

holog

[holog]

and if you reach the speed of light all matter would stop , does time?

holog