Fastest speed human body can take?
Boyan
With speeding up mass of a body increases (per E=mc2),
so what is the fastest speed a human body can take to
not crash down? (Of course, mainly in space travels...)
Thanks!
Boyan
Boyan
and...@attglobal.net
>
> Hello,
>
> With speeding up mass of a body increases (per E=mc2),
Your mass doesn't increase, your energy increases
per
E = (m*c^2)/sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2) where m is constant.
> so what is the fastest speed a human body can take to
> not crash down? (Of course, mainly in space travels...)
What does "crash down"? What are you trying to say would
happen?
John Anderson
Michael Varney
"Boyan" <sp...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:%Km26.125$Io4....@news.siol.net...
Oh brother! This is the 4th post of yours that I have seen. Read the FAQ.
Use a search engine.
BD
With speeding up mass of a body increases (per E=mc2),
so what is the fastest speed a human body can take to
not crash down? (Of course, mainly in space travels...)
Thanks!
Boyan
Michael Varney
"BD" <sp...@mail.com.x> wrote in message
news:ZMu26.143$Io4....@news.siol.net...
As was already stated: Read a book, learn to use a search engine.
BD
message did not show up, so i reposted,
delays in news servers i guess, sorry!
"Michael Varney" <mva...@muswest.net> wrote in message
news:KOt26.2369$zL2.3...@news.uswest.net...
BD
being can travel to not get hurt...
Eh, and how come mass does not increass?
That's what I've read not came up on my own...
What would mean my energy increasses?
BTW, my mass is my energy too, isn't it???
<and...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:<3A4A2A...@attglobal.net>...
BD
"Michael Varney" <mva...@muswest.net> wrote in message
news:SQu26.3171$zL2.4...@news.uswest.net...
Michael Varney
"BD" <sp...@mail.com.x> wrote in message
> You are of real help. Thanks bro!
I doubt it was of any help unless you made the effort to read a book or
learn how to use the search engine.
Learning is the hardest thing one can do and the most rewarding. First you
have to learn how to use the basic tools.
The library.
And for the internet you need to use a search engine.
No teacher will do your learning for you, it is up to you.
Tom Roberts
> With speeding up mass of a body increases (per E=mc2),
> so what is the fastest speed a human body can take to
> not crash down? (Of course, mainly in space travels...)
Hmmm. There is no _inherent_ reason a human cannot travel with any speed
less than c with respect to the earth, as long as every part of their body
travels with esentially the same speed and at no time was there excessive
acceleration applied. In practice, of course, we do not have technology to
achieve speeds greater than a tiny fraction of that wrt the earth for
human-sized objects (and those sattelites are grossly unsuitable for humans!).
I have no idea what you mean by "crash down", nor do I see how to relate
the first line of your quote above to the question. Perhaps you should
look in the FAQ to see why your claim "mass ... increases" is incorrect
(or at best outdated terminology which seems to have confused you).
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
and...@attglobal.net
>
> Well, I wanted simply to know how fast a human
> being can travel to not get hurt...
>
You can travel at constant velocity at any speed relative
to anyone else that is less than c and have no way
of knowing that you're moving in the absence of gravity.
> Eh, and how come mass does not increass?
> That's what I've read not came up on my own...
>
Because that is an old fashioned way of describing
relativistic effects. The way that almost
everyone has used for decades is to write
it the way I wrote it with constant mass
and the energy dependent on v that I presented.
> What would mean my energy increasses?
> BTW, my mass is my energy too, isn't it???
>
It means that your energy that you have according to
some observer depends on the
velocity that you have according to that observer. For
v << c, the Newtonian formula
E = (m*v^2)/2 tells you the same thing.
The most general way to relate mass (m), energy (E) and
momentum (p) in special relativity is
E^2 = (p*c)^2 + (m*c^2)^2
where m is not dependent on the observer.
You ought to look at the FAQ for this newsgroup
or a good text on special relativity like
Spacetime Physics by Taylor and Wheeler.
John Anderson
beda pietanza
Boyan <sp...@mail.com> wrote in message k2l26.121$Io4....@news.siol.net...
According to SR a moving body doesn't increase its mass
so for SR there should be no problems.
To my opinion there is a speed limit for each solid macroscopic
body (according to its constituents), above that limit the body
would turn to plasma, for the weakening of the forces that
bind atoms together.
Probably we will never know for that limit is not reachable
for the enormous energy needed to accelerate a macroscopic
body to those speeds.
But at the same time those speed limit are not so high.
I would think around 0.01- 0.05 C.
If that is true a human would just liquefy.
You have been warned.
best regards
beda pietanza
BD
Even human body can approach speeds close to
speed of light, but one would need to waste his
life to test that... If you put me on a nuclear rocket
and send me in space traveling for, say, 40 years,
at constant acceleration I'd reach very high speed,
but what happens if speed gets very high, will
my body be hurt in any way? So, are there
any speed limits for our human body?
And I best answers to such questions are
not easiyl found in books or using the
search engine as Michael Varney
suggests!
Bad replies from this newsgroups are a proof!
And by the way, Michael, it's harder to come
up with good question than simply reading books
which hold "infinite" number of facts, I'd be very
bored to take all facts in my mind!
I have many such simple questions, which I bet
that even with my ignorance I can put you all
in hard positions to answer! Wanna hear em all???
I can make a nice list lol
"Tom Roberts" <TomRo...@avenew.com> wrote in message
news:3A4A8205...@avenew.com...
BD
Well, sure, I am aware really a lot of energy is
needed to accelerate any mass to close to C speeds,
but in vaccum constant acceleration via LONG time
is another matter, righty??
So, to put the question in another way. If we once
discover a rockets which can be way faster than
the ones today, will the top speed be limited by
technology or our body??? Or another way,
if we can have a rocket which can travel at
any speed we like (of course, lower than C),
what's the fastest time we could achive to
travel from earth to Mars????
"beda pietanza" <beda-p...@libero.it> wrote in message
news:ocL26.195896$hk4.7...@news.infostrada.it...
BD
"helping" me, and see the other two replies
I gave in this post, and maybe you can
understand me better!
"Michael Varney" <mva...@muswest.net> wrote in message
news:Dmv26.3702$zL2.4...@news.uswest.net...
Michael Varney
"BD" <sp...@mail.com.x> wrote in message
> Ohh so simple question and so hard to answer?
No. Many have outright answered you, and the others are trying to get you
to think for yourself.
<SNIP>
>
> And I best answers to such questions are
> not easiyl found in books or using the
> search engine as Michael Varney
> suggests!
They are easy to find out for a person of sufficient intelligence.
> Bad replies from this newsgroups are a proof!
>
> And by the way, Michael, it's harder to come
> up with good question than simply reading books
> which hold "infinite" number of facts, I'd be very
> bored to take all facts in my mind!
You have not shown the ability to ask good questions, you have regurgitated
a question that others have asked before and that I asked when I was 5.
> I have many such simple questions, which I bet
> that even with my ignorance I can put you all
> in hard positions to answer! Wanna hear em all???
>
> I can make a nice list lol
Please do so that we can all laugh at your idiocy and trolling.
Michael Varney
"BD" <sp...@mail.com.x> wrote in message
> This is best reply so far, thanks!
You have shown your stupidity with great éclair.
Michael Varney
"BD" <sp...@mail.com.x> wrote in message
> Ehh, I don't like your replies, so you can stop
> "helping" me, and see the other two replies
> I gave in this post, and maybe you can
> understand me better!
Still have not read those books or used that search engine?
Tom Roberts
> "beda pietanza" <beda-p...@libero.it> wrote:
> [...nonsense...]
> This is best reply so far, thanks!
That just goes to show you that you can easily be misled if you post a
technical question in an open newsgroup but have essentially no knowledge
about the subject. Beda's reply is completely unsubstantiated, and is
totally unrelated to any generally-accepted theory of physics. He is just
guessing, and presenting his personal prejudices as if they were truth.
Just because you happen to like his answer does not mean it is correct!
The only way I know of for a neophyte to distinguish between
crackpot answers and replies from knowledgeable people is that
the cranks never reference actual physics textbooks, but experts
often do. I recommend: Taylor and Wheeler, _Spacetime_Physics_.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Paul B. Andersen
>
> Ohh so simple question and so hard to answer?
>
> Even human body can approach speeds close to
> speed of light, but one would need to waste his
> life to test that... If you put me on a nuclear rocket
> and send me in space traveling for, say, 40 years,
> at constant acceleration I'd reach very high speed,
> but what happens if speed gets very high, will
> my body be hurt in any way? So, are there
> any speed limits for our human body?
You ARE moving at the speed 0.999999999c.
Does it hurt?
The first thing you should learn about relativity
(whether it is Galilean or Lorentzian) is that
"speed" have no meaning without a frame of reference.
Your speed now depend on the frame of reference in
which you are measuring it. So your speed IS as I
stated above in some frame of reference.
However, as space isn't empty, it really might "hurt"
if you travel to fast relative to what is in space.
So what is in space?
1. Matter. Gas. Dust. The density of this varies vastly
(in the solar system - in the galaxy - between galaxies).
If you move to fast through this medium you will
be burned.
2. Radiation. If you move very fast relative to
the frame of reference in which the CMBR is isotropic,
the CMBR will be hotter in front of you and cooler behind you.
If you move to fast, your ship will burn.
You will have to go _very_ fast relative to "what is in space"
for these things to happen, though.
Paul
and...@attglobal.net
>
> Boyan <sp...@mail.com> wrote in message k2l26.121$Io4....@news.siol.net...
> > Hello,
> >
> > With speeding up mass of a body increases (per E=mc2),
> > so what is the fastest speed a human body can take to
> > not crash down? (Of course, mainly in space travels...)
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Boyan
> >
> >
>
> According to SR a moving body doesn't increase its mass
> so for SR there should be no problems.
Congratulations. You finally posted something that's correct.
> To my opinion there is a speed limit
But the posting just goes downhill from here.
Your opinions don't mean anything unless you
can back them up with testable experimental
predictions that agree with experiments.
John Anderson
and...@attglobal.net
>
> This is best reply so far, thanks!
>
See my reply to Beda Pietanza. She's telling you
her opinion, not something backed up by physics.
SHE even said so.
You need a lot more understanding of relativity principles
to understand the replies that you're getting. Your
question indicates that you have next to background
knowledge of this subject.
John Anderson
and...@attglobal.net
>
> and...@attglobal.net kirjoitti viestissä <3A4ACC...@attglobal.net>...
> >BD wrote:
> >>
> >> Well, I wanted simply to know how fast a human
> >> being can travel to not get hurt...
> >>
> >
> >You can travel at constant velocity at any speed relative
> >to anyone else that is less than c and have no way
> >of knowing that you're moving in the absence of gravity.
>
>
As I explicitly said, wrt anything. In SR, a massive object
is always going to be moving < c in any inertial frame.
John Anderson
Boyan
but that does not make me idiot. Thought,
it makes you idiot, cause you claim you
know physics, but as you can see from
other people who replied to me, they
cant give me an simple answer...
They even confront each other.
Go buy a book moron, before you make
a clown of yourself. You are really a Big head!
"Michael Varney" <mva...@muswest.net> wrote in message
news:cTN26.2630$4Y2.3...@news.uswest.net...
Boyan
Surely I did not mean to travel through pure vacum.
But through known space, which contains things you
described... So, at 0.9999c my energy increases
(not my mass), but what would mean that my
energy increases??? And, with constat acceleration,
not higher than human being can take, travleing
for 40 years, wouldn't we reach VERY high
speeds?
Or if I put it another way, what would be the speed
if I'd travel for 40 years in a rocket which would
constantly accelerate at maximum (acceleration
which isn't too high for human to bear)?
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
news:3A4BB604...@hia.no...
Michael Varney
> I am ingorant in pyhsics as I already said,
> but that does not make me idiot. Thought,
> it makes you idiot, cause you claim you
> know physics, but as you can see from
> other people who replied to me, they
> cant give me an simple answer...
> They even confront each other.
By your logic, I am an idiot because other people argue.
Keep on showing your stupidity.
> Go buy a book moron, before you make
> a clown of yourself. You are really a Big head!
Another nonsequitor.
Go play on alt.moron or something.
Boyan
You have really weak brains to not understand what I meant.
I put it simply for you. You are an idiot, because you are
accusing me to ask idiotic questions, and if my questions
are really idiotic, people here would not have any interest
to answer, more over, people who did answered are
good at physics, but have problems to give me correct
answer, which means questions is not easy, which means
question is not idiotic, which means you did not understand
anything, and that makes you an idiot.
Michael Varney
> > By your logic, I am an idiot because other people argue.
>
> You have really weak brains to not understand what I meant.
So you assume that I am able to read your mind in order to grok what you
meant?
How about this, stop drinking for a while and see if that will help you form
a coherent thought.
> I put it simply for you. You are an idiot, because you are
> accusing me to ask idiotic questions, and if my questions
> are really idiotic, people here would not have any interest
> to answer, more over, people who did answered are
> good at physics, but have problems to give me correct
> answer, which means questions is not easy, which means
> question is not idiotic, which means you did not understand
> anything, and that makes you an idiot.
Your train of logic is just astounding! (Astoundingly idiotic.)
I hope you are not the best Slovenija can produce. Perhaps the communist
purges took their toll after all.
Boyan
> meant?
Moron, so now you claim others can read my mind?
They certainly did, because they answered my question. Bravo.
> I hope you are not the best Slovenija can produce. Perhaps the communist
> purges took their toll after all.
What you do in your life serves who? Only yourself? You are at no
help to anyone in newsgroups, keep this in mind, idiot.
Paul B. Andersen
>
> Finnaly a good answer, thank you!
>
> Surely I did not mean to travel through pure vacum.
> But through known space, which contains things you
> described... So, at 0.9999c my energy increases
> (not my mass), but what would mean that my
> energy increases???
Energy is frame dependent just like speed.
Your total energy in a frame of reference is E = gamma*m*c^2,
where m is your mass, gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), v is your speed.
Your "intrinsic" energy, e.g. the energy in your mass is m*c^2,
your kinetic energy - the energy you have because of your speed
is thus (gamma-1)*m*c^2.
This latter depend on the frame of reference you are measuring
your speed (gamma) relative to.
So it can be anything - depending on which frame of reference
you select to measure it in.
What energy you may have in some arbitrary frame
of reference have obviously no physical consequences
to you.
> And, with constat acceleration,
> not higher than human being can take, travleing
> for 40 years, wouldn't we reach VERY high
> speeds?
Indeed.
See the FAQ:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/rocket.html
You will find a formula so you can calculate it yourself.
But to quote a couple of examples:
If you accelerate at 1g, you will have the following speeds
relative to the inertial frame in which you were stationary
when you started at t = 0:
after 1 year - 0.77c
after 5 years - 0.99993c
after 12 years - 0.99999999996c
But the energy it takes to accelerate at 1g for years
is tremendous. If you are bringing your fuel with you,
it isn't even theoretical possible - not even if you
were able to convert the mass of your fuel to pure
radiant energy.
And when your speed relative to the interstellar medium
becomes very high you would run into trouble, as mentioned
in my previous posting.
If you study the examples in the FAQ you should however
note that SR does not put a limit to how far you can go
in a limited time. With 1g acceleration the whole universe
is within reach during a lifetime. (I principle - ignoring
all practical limitations mentioned above.)
If you compare this to Newtonian mechanics, SR (with its
speed limit of c) allow you to go _much_ farther with
a certain acceleration for a certain time, than does
NM (with no upper bound on speed).
It is a misconception that the speed limit of SR is
a limitation on how far you can travel.
Paul
bri...@eisner.decus.org
> Or if I put it another way, what would be the speed
> if I'd travel for 40 years in a rocket which would
> constantly accelerate at maximum (acceleration
> which isn't too high for human to bear)?
Reaching out past my actual knowledge, I think the answer here is
that you assymptotically approach c.
Not just .9999c. You get arbitrarily close. As reckoned by a stay-at-home
observer. And he'd see you recede into infinity, taking an infinite
length of time to do it and getting closer to c all the time.
If I recall correctly, it takes about 11 years of proper time at 1g
proper acceleration to get anywhere in the Universe. You go fast
enough and time dilation kicks in so that the time you experience
on the trip tops out.
But what happens if you accelerate for 12 years of proper time?
Well, you cross a sort of event horizon and leave your friends
behind.
I've probably garbled this badly. Like I said, I'm reaching out
past my actual knowledge here.
John Briggs bri...@eisner.decus.org
Michael Varney
Randy M. Dumse
> With speeding up mass of a body increases (per E=mc2),
> so what is the fastest speed a human body can take to
> not crash down? (Of course, mainly in space travels...)
The reason you're getting bad answers is possibly because of confusion in
the question where you have mixed several concepts. Not everyone wants to
take the time to write a whole book to get you your answer, and this is why
MV keeps pointing you toward a book. When you have multiple references and
concepts cross linked, a simple answer will not help you. You won't accept
what you've been told because the right answer does not remove the confusion
that pre-existed.
I'll take a wack at some of these misconcept for a breather, while I'm
thinking about other things I've gotten from folks in reply.
First up. Speed doesn't matter in the way you indicate. This was probably
the first significant advance in physics made in some 2000 years. Aristole
thought things in motion tended toward rest, and the earth was the reference
frame things rest on. It wa Galileo who first articulated that physics
looked the same whether some one was standing still on the earth, or had a
constant motion. He got this idea by measuring rolling some balls moving
around. Whether he tried on land, or on a ship with a very smooth steady
motion, the experiments came out the same. That was the birth of Galilean
Relativity.
Now what you're after is acceleration. We often say speed is relative,
acceleration is absolute.
You see, if you are moving with a constant velocity, and are in a closed
room with no windows, you can't tell if you are moving or not. Ever been
between two trains when they begin to move slowly? You haven't begun to
move, but you imagine they are still and you are the one moving instead? Or
at a traffic light when the two guys next to you roll back a little and you
get the impression you're moving forward? As long as this motion is very
small so you don't feel accelerted, you can't tell if you are moving or they
are moving without further outside references. These are examples of how
motion is undetectable.
On the other hand, if you are accelerated, you feel a force. Even if you are
sitting in a car or train with no windows, you can feel when you are pushed
back in your seat (assume facing forward, flat level track). That means you
are speeding up. Or you find it hard to stay back in your seat. That means
you are slowing down. Or if you are leaning to one side or the other. That
means you are going around a corner.
So speed is speed. It has no effect on the human body. Acceleration is a
different thing. It has an effect on the human body. From being a pilot, I
know something about the acceleration limits of the body. A force at or a
couple times more than the force you feel from gravity (g's), produces some
very big "tummy thrills". Accelerations of 4 or 5 g's gets very hard to take
without something to hold your blood in place (pressure suit) although you
may be able to withstand it for a time. Accelerations of 6-9 g's will likely
black you out if the acceleration is positive (pushing you down in your
seat) or cause red out if the acceleration is negative (pushing you toward
the canopy instead). In case you don't know, a black out happens from blood
draining away from your head, and you loosing consciousness from lack of
oxygen. A red out happens when too much blood flows into your head, and your
vision goes away into a red haze because the vessels in your eyes are
literally too full of blood.
Now I can't tell you much about straight on acceleration, but you could
probably find that out from reading about some of the early astronaut
training experiments. Those pictures of people with there faces all
distended by acceleration are from rocket sled tests and centrifuge tests. I
think you can stand about 12 to 20 g's straight on, but sooner or later
you're going to pass out because your chest isn't strong enough to draw in
the air you need to breath with the force pushing it back toward your spine.
I think I'll stop there and let you ask if you don't understand. Now I've
put about 45 minutes into thinking about and answering your question. You
can see why some of these experts are jealous of their time, and want to
help people who show interest in helping themselves. (Because that is so
much easier and takes so much less time.)
I haven't begun to address more than the very first cross linking of
concepts. All I've told you so far is you said speed, but probably meant
acceleration, and some little details I have experienced about acceleration.
The next cross connection I notice is you mention E=mc^2 and mass, so you
probably think speed is causing mass to go up so people feel heavier, and
are squashed down by the extra wieght. Is that right? Or am I speaking down
to you?
--
Randy M. Dumse
Caution: Objects in mirror are more confused than they appear.
BD
Just sending someone to go buy a book is negative from
start, is it so hard for them to simply say, there are many
answers to your question and not easy to explain if you
don't have basic knowledge of physics? Just like you
said, and then it is OK to send me to the bookstore :)
Maybe they are afraid such an easy question, at least
it appears for ignorant people like me, puts them in
hard position to answer it simply. Well huh, honesty
is positive not negative, and if I can understand such
an reply as yours I'd say thanks, if I can't, then no
more harm is done then sending me to buy a book...
OK, bellow I reply you step-by-step.
"Randy M. Dumse" <r...@newmicros.com> wrote in message
news:4q936.235958$w61.2...@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
> Boyan <sp...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:k2l26.121$Io4....@news.siol.net...
> > With speeding up mass of a body increases (per E=mc2),
> > so what is the fastest speed a human body can take to
> > not crash down? (Of course, mainly in space travels...)
>
>
> The reason you're getting bad answers is possibly because of confusion in
> the question where you have mixed several concepts. Not everyone wants to
> take the time to write a whole book to get you your answer, and this is
why
> MV keeps pointing you toward a book. When you have multiple references and
> concepts cross linked, a simple answer will not help you. You won't accept
> what you've been told because the right answer does not remove the
confusion
> that pre-existed.
I can accept and understand this explanation, thank you!
> I'll take a wack at some of these misconcept for a breather, while I'm
> thinking about other things I've gotten from folks in reply.
>
> First up. Speed doesn't matter in the way you indicate. This was probably
> the first significant advance in physics made in some 2000 years. Aristole
> thought things in motion tended toward rest, and the earth was the
reference
> frame things rest on. It wa Galileo who first articulated that physics
> looked the same whether some one was standing still on the earth, or had a
> constant motion. He got this idea by measuring rolling some balls moving
> around. Whether he tried on land, or on a ship with a very smooth steady
> motion, the experiments came out the same. That was the birth of Galilean
> Relativity.
>
> Now what you're after is acceleration. We often say speed is relative,
> acceleration is absolute.
I was aware of this difference between speed and acceleration. I simply
wondered if this changes in any way when reaching close to C speeds.
Some claims on web site mislead me, saying that approaching C speed
mass increases and matter contracts, this made it sound "a bit"
problematic for human to travel at close to C speeds at all...
This is more information then I asked, but it's still good information,
and you wasted no time with being so detailed, thanks! I really
did not expect such detailed answers... as I don't want to take
that much time from anyone for such "small" (pedestrian) questions.
> Now I can't tell you much about straight on acceleration, but you could
> probably find that out from reading about some of the early astronaut
> training experiments. Those pictures of people with there faces all
> distended by acceleration are from rocket sled tests and centrifuge tests.
I
> think you can stand about 12 to 20 g's straight on, but sooner or later
> you're going to pass out because your chest isn't strong enough to draw in
> the air you need to breath with the force pushing it back toward your
spine.
>
> I think I'll stop there and let you ask if you don't understand. Now I've
> put about 45 minutes into thinking about and answering your question. You
> can see why some of these experts are jealous of their time, and want to
> help people who show interest in helping themselves. (Because that is so
> much easier and takes so much less time.)
Hmmm, many do really help, except Michael Varney (I know he is an expert),
from all his posts at newsgroups he gave no useful information to anyone!
He is just repeating all the time: go buy a book or you are "moron, idiot"
etc.
Use deja.com and search using his email address, you will see!!
This is the worst thing an intelligent person like him can do!
And yes, I have understood your explanations.
Let me try to summarize:
At close to C speed, nothing "bad" happens to body as far it's
not accelerating over acceptable G (let's say 1g) and that ship is
properly shielded to not burn from heat and other tiny matter hitting.
Reaching close to C speed is impossible with current technology,
because not enough energy can be ported on voyage - even if
accelerating constantly at 1g only....
> I haven't begun to address more than the very first cross linking of
> concepts. All I've told you so far is you said speed, but probably meant
> acceleration, and some little details I have experienced about
acceleration.
>
> The next cross connection I notice is you mention E=mc^2 and mass, so you
> probably think speed is causing mass to go up so people feel heavier, and
> are squashed down by the extra wieght. Is that right? Or am I speaking
down
> to you?
You guessed properly. I can see now I misunderstood that!
and...@attglobal.net
>
> and...@attglobal.net kirjoitti viestissä <3A4C15...@attglobal.net>...
> any better than that.
>
I answered it to the extent to explain what SR would give
as an answer. If you don't like the answer and you don't
care to say why, then I would say that you are trolling.
John Anderson
Michael Varney
"BD" <sp...@mail.com.x> wrote in message
> This kind of reply sounds logical and most of all positive!
>
> Just sending someone to go buy a book is negative from
> start, is it so hard for them to simply say, there are many
> answers to your question and not easy to explain if you
> don't have basic knowledge of physics? Just like you
> said, and then it is OK to send me to the bookstore :)
>
> Maybe they are afraid such an easy question,
Get it through your stupid thick skull! These questions of yours are so
easy to answer that you should be able to do it after reading a little bit.
Do your own fucking research instead of whining when we wont do it for you.
If you would read the FAQ you would understand that in YOUR frame of
reference you do not contract and do not gain mass (unless you eat alot and
not excercise). (This is simplified so that he can incrementally come to
some semblence of understanding.)
<SNIP>
> > I think I'll stop there and let you ask if you don't understand. Now
I've
> > put about 45 minutes into thinking about and answering your question.
You
> > can see why some of these experts are jealous of their time, and want to
> > help people who show interest in helping themselves. (Because that is so
> > much easier and takes so much less time.)
>
> Hmmm, many do really help, except Michael Varney (I know he is an expert),
I am not an expert, but I am learning.
> from all his posts at newsgroups he gave no useful information to anyone!
I gave you links to several web sites that have the information you wanted.
I teach you to fish, not give you a fish.
> He is just repeating all the time: go buy a book
I said read a book, there are such things as libraries.
> Use deja.com and search using his email address, you will see!!
Only do not make the same mistake you did.
> This is the worst thing an intelligent person like him can do!
Worse for who? You? It will be far worse for you if you rely on others to
do your thinking for you instead of your own.
It seems like you do not want to put effort into learning. This is
understandable as you also think that being in Mensa is the top goal and if
you have a high IQ you do not need to put effort into learning.
WRONG!
All learning takes effort. You can prance around all you want saying "I bet
I have a higher IQ than you do!" and "Go to www.mensa.org and we will see
who is smarter!". But in the end, the real test is how much effort you want
to put into your education, not what IQ you have.
No one can teach you as well as you can teach yourself, but you have to MAKE
THE EFFORT! I recommend that you STOP posting and spend a couple of weeks
reading the FAQ that I have posted for you 10 times. If you have specific
questions that show that you have at least attempted to learn SR, then you
will find that people, including me are much more receptive to helping you.
Now get the hell out of here until you want to put the effort into learning
instead of arguing.
Kevin Aylward
>
> "BD" <sp...@mail.com.x> wrote in message
> news:%bb36.264$Io4....@news.siol.net...
> > This kind of reply sounds logical and most of all positive!
> >
> > Just sending someone to go buy a book is negative from
> > start, is it so hard for them to simply say, there are many
> > answers to your question and not easy to explain if you
> > don't have basic knowledge of physics? Just like you
> > said, and then it is OK to send me to the bookstore :)
> >
> > Maybe they are afraid such an easy question,
>
> Get it through your stupid thick skull! These questions of yours are so
> easy to answer that you should be able to do it after reading a little
bit.
> Do your own fucking research instead of whining when we wont do it for
you.
>
Yes indeed Mr. Varney, one more of your valiant, but futile attempts at
rational discourse. Often, one might suggest that approaches such as this,
are sometimes considered analogous to actions taken by closet gays.
Kevin Aylward , Warden of the Kings Ale
ke...@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice "Cheap, No Shit!", a currently free
GUI xspice, unlimited component, mixed-mode Windows simulator with Schematic
Capture, waveform display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Opinions of my employer are not necessarily indicative of my own
Oscillators don't, amplifiers do"
Michael Varney
"Kevin Aylward" <kevinan...@home.com> wrote in message
news:MEd36.96722$x6.43...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> "Michael Varney" <mva...@muswest.net> wrote in message
> news:ACb36.2958$Tq.3...@news.uswest.net...
> >
> > "BD" <sp...@mail.com.x> wrote in message
> > news:%bb36.264$Io4....@news.siol.net...
> > > This kind of reply sounds logical and most of all positive!
> > >
> > > Just sending someone to go buy a book is negative from
> > > start, is it so hard for them to simply say, there are many
> > > answers to your question and not easy to explain if you
> > > don't have basic knowledge of physics? Just like you
> > > said, and then it is OK to send me to the bookstore :)
> > >
> > > Maybe they are afraid such an easy question,
> >
> > Get it through your stupid thick skull! These questions of yours are so
> > easy to answer that you should be able to do it after reading a little
> bit.
> > Do your own fucking research instead of whining when we wont do it for
> you.
> >
>
> Yes indeed Mr. Varney, one more of your valiant, but futile attempts at
> rational discourse. Often, one might suggest that approaches such as this,
> are sometimes considered analogous to actions taken by closet gays.
The dumbshit Kevin speaks again!
Bennett Standeven
"BD" <sp...@mail.com.x> wrote in message
news:%bb36.264$Io4....@news.siol.net...
> Let me try to summarize:
>
> At close to C speed, nothing "bad" happens to body as far it's
> not accelerating over acceptable G (let's say 1g) and that ship is
> properly shielded to not burn from heat and other tiny matter hitting.
> Reaching close to C speed is impossible with current technology,
> because not enough energy can be ported on voyage - even if
> accelerating constantly at 1g only....
>
Yes, that's an accurate summary.
beda pietanza
Tom Roberts <TomRo...@avenew.com> wrote in message
3A4BB102...@avenew.com...
Quoting is many times used to deceive.
Once a great painter said "It has taken a life time for me to
learn how to depict like child".
Maybe it will take more than their life time for many physicists
to learn how to speak like common people, and probably when
they will, they will also learn that most of their theories were wrong.
Good science simplify.
Bad science has to quote itself.
best regards
beda pietanza
beda pietanza
<and...@attglobal.net> wrote in message 3A4C13...@attglobal.net...
I strongly disagree with you: since logic has to point
out the experiment and then logic has to explain experiments
logic is the most important part to take care of.
From my post:
""To my opinion there is a speed limit for each solid macroscopic
body (according to its constituents), above that limit the body
would turn to plasma, for the weakening of the forces that
bind atoms together.
Probably we will never know for that limit is not reachable
for the enormous energy needed to accelerate a macroscopic
body to those speeds.
But at the same time those speed limit are not so high.
I would think around 0.01- 0.05 C.
If that is true a human would just liquefy.
You have been warned.""
I express my opinion, I motivated it using "my" logic;
If you disagree, you only have to say that the force that
binds atoms together get stronger or stay the same as
the speed of the body increase, using "your" logic.
It is a good logic question, say your opinion.
best regards
beda pietanza (by the way, Beda is a HE not a SHE)
Michael Varney
"beda pietanza" <beda-p...@libero.it> wrote in message
news:3dl36.208034$hk4.7...@news.infostrada.it...
>
> <and...@attglobal.net> wrote in message 3A4C13...@attglobal.net...
> > beda pietanza wrote:
> > >
> > > Boyan <sp...@mail.com> wrote in message
> k2l26.121$Io4....@news.siol.net...
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > With speeding up mass of a body increases (per E=mc2),
> > > > so what is the fastest speed a human body can take to
> > > > not crash down? (Of course, mainly in space travels...)
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > Boyan
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > According to SR a moving body doesn't increase its mass
> > > so for SR there should be no problems.
> >
> > Congratulations. You finally posted something that's correct.
> >
> > > To my opinion there is a speed limit
> >
> > But the posting just goes downhill from here.
> > Your opinions don't mean anything unless you
> > can back them up with testable experimental
> > predictions that agree with experiments.
> >
> > John Anderson
>
>
> I strongly disagree with you: since logic
This is not logic, this is reality and physics. Go home.
and...@attglobal.net
>
> <and...@attglobal.net> wrote in message 3A4C13...@attglobal.net...
> > beda pietanza wrote:
> > >
> > > Boyan <sp...@mail.com> wrote in message
> k2l26.121$Io4....@news.siol.net...
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > With speeding up mass of a body increases (per E=mc2),
> > > > so what is the fastest speed a human body can take to
> > > > not crash down? (Of course, mainly in space travels...)
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > Boyan
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > According to SR a moving body doesn't increase its mass
> > > so for SR there should be no problems.
> >
> > Congratulations. You finally posted something that's correct.
> >
> > > To my opinion there is a speed limit
> >
> > But the posting just goes downhill from here.
> > Your opinions don't mean anything unless you
> > can back them up with testable experimental
> > predictions that agree with experiments.
> >
> > John Anderson
>
> I strongly disagree with you: since logic has to point
> out the experiment and then logic has to explain experiments
> logic is the most important part to take care of.
>
What "logic" are we talking about? You presented your opinion,
as you said yourself. Formulate your opinion into a
logically consistent theory and then we're talking about logic.
Jon Anderson
and...@attglobal.net
>
> and...@attglobal.net kirjoitti viestissä <3A4D69...@attglobal.net>...
> contradictions, and that is just one of them. I am aware of the way that you
> would explain it, but it doesn't make sense.
>
You're claiming that there are contradictions and that I
ought to know about them, so I can't ask you what your
point is. That's self serving crap.
What are the contradictions? Spell them out so I can
reply. Otherwise, I can only come to the conclusion
that you're full of shit.
John Anderson
BD
An apple never falls, it just gives back same love as it gets.
Not sure for our master Michael though :-)
"Henry Haapalainen" <mon...@icon.fi> wrote in message
news:W2R36.283$9p....@read2.inet.fi...
>
> and...@attglobal.net kirjoitti viestissä <3A4EC1...@attglobal.net>...
> HH: Those contradictions have been discussed here over and over again. If
> you can't see them it is your problem not mine.
> I have never seen any proper answer to questions concerning contradictions
> in relativity theories. But if you want to answer some question, please
tell
> me this: Why does an apple fall?
>
> Henry Haapalainen
>
>
BD
<and...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:3A4EC1...@attglobal.net...
BD
"BD" <sp...@mail.com.x> wrote in message
news:GHU36.325$Io4....@news.siol.net...
and...@attglobal.net
>
> HH: Those contradictions have been discussed here over and over again. If
> you can't see them it is your problem not mine.
So am I so supposed to answer every question that has ever
been posted here? Post something that I can reply to.
> I have never seen any proper answer to questions concerning contradictions
> in relativity theories.
Because you don't understand them.
> But if you want to answer some question, please tell
> me this: Why does an apple fall?
>
Because, when the stem breaks, there is no force on it
so it becomes inertial. Therefore, it ceases to
accelerate wrt the local inertial frame which is
accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2 toward the center of the
earth (ie. it starts accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2
toward the center of the earth).
I don't understand why you think that this question
reveals some inconsistency in relativity.
John Anderson
Henry Haapalainen
and...@attglobal.net kirjoitti viestissä <3A4EC1...@attglobal.net>...
HH: Those contradictions have been discussed here over and over again. If
you can't see them it is your problem not mine.
I have never seen any proper answer to questions concerning contradictions
in relativity theories. But if you want to answer some question, please tell
me this: Why does an apple fall?
Henry Haapalainen
Henry Haapalainen
and...@attglobal.net kirjoitti viestissä <3A5120...@attglobal.net>...
HH: Some explanation!
Henry Haapalainen
Wayne Throop
: Those contradictions have been discussed here over and over again.
: If you can't see them it is your problem not mine.
And thousands of highschool students state that Virginia City is the
capital of Virginia, and New York City is the capital of New York,
Washington D.C. is the catal of Washington, and Kansas City is the
capital of Kansas on tests every year.
If you disagree with them, it's YOUR problem, not theirs.
Right? Same reasoning that you've applied here, after all.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
"He's not just a Galaxy Ranger... he's a Super-Trooper!"
and...@attglobal.net
Please tell us why the Newtonian interpretation of
the same thing is a better explanation. The two
just differ by the interpretation of what the local
inertial frame is. There is no physical difference
in the prediction of what occurs.
You appear to be under the illusion that physics
explains why things happen, in the sense that
it gives ultimate reasons. This is not so.
It relates observations using concepts and
math to instantiate the concepts. Newton did
NOT explain gravity by saying that it's due
to a postulated force that depends on mass distributions
and the positions of objects in the distribution. He
gave equations for predicting the motions of test particles
in a given distribution.
John Anderson
Darrin A. Yarbrough
Darrin: Have you ever considered a sewing newsgroup?
>
>
Quantum Bumps
speed in just aboud 1 year, another year to slow down and itll take you just
about 2 years +a couple of days to visit any spot in the universe.
IF your question is about speed, speed doesnt matter to the human body,
only acceleration.
has to the faster speed a human can travel, its very very close to the speed
of light but never the speed of light. The tech we have today we could
build a space craft travelling 1 tenth the speed of light operational in
6-20 years. in another 40-50 years 90% light speeds will be possible. The
only problem is that time dilation effects only take place to any
significance that unless you can get to 99% the speed of light, youd have
to raise children and grandchildren on yout journey cause youd be dead from
old age before you got a quarter out of out galaxy.
"Boyan" <sp...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:k2l26.121$Io4....@news.siol.net...
Michael Varney
"Quantum Bumps" <nod...@whocares.com> wrote in message
news:N1d46.198877$_5.44...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com...
> id recommend 1 G.
You mean 1g. G is the universal gravitational constant.
> at this very natural acceleration wwwwed reach light
> speed in just aboud 1 year,
1. The ship would not *reach* the speed of light.
2. Using:
v = c tanh(at/c)
In one year ship time you would reach 0.774c at 1g
Short table:
v (c) t (year) on ship
------------------------------
0.90 c 1.429 Year
0.99 2.569
0.999 3.689
> another year to slow down and itll take you just
> about 2 years +a couple of days to visit any spot in the universe.
Also incorrect.
Assume a static universe 15 billion light years in diameter. (I know, I
know.)
Using:
t0 = c/a sinh(at/c)
where t0 is Earth time frame and t is ship board time.
At 1g acceleration, it would take about 45 years ship board to reach any
point in the universe assuming a turn around deceleration.
<SNIP>
BD
"learning" to give a proper reply! Where you spent 3 min.
"Michael Varney" <mva...@muswest.net> wrote in message
news:99i46.3$6O3....@news.uswest.net...
Michael Varney
"BD" <sp...@mail.com.x> wrote in message
> Incredible, so many hours wasted for arguing about
> "learning" to give a proper reply! Where you spent 3 min.
Are you still hung over from new years?
Henry Haapalainen
and...@attglobal.net kirjoitti viestissä <3A5160...@attglobal.net>...
HH: I haven't said a word about Newton. I asked you to tell, why an apple is
falling. I want you to tell it using the theories of relativity. It
shouldn't be too diffucult, because you see no contradictions in the theory.
Henry Haapalainen
Wayne Throop kirjoitti viestissä <9785...@sheol.org>...
>: "Henry Haapalainen" <mon...@icon.fi>
>: I haven't said a word about Newton. I asked you to tell, why an apple
>: is falling. I want you to tell it using the theories of relativity.
>: It shouldn't be too diffucult, because you see no contradictions in
>: the theory.
>
>Are you still claiming there's a self-contradiction in SR or GR?
>If so, stop being coy and state what it is.
>
>
>Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
>"He's not just a Galaxy Ranger... he's a Super-Trooper!"
HH: You just told about a "self-contradiction". Or do you really believe on
what you said? If so, then tell me about the mechanism of making those
geodesics, and tell me the reason of a non-force gravity mechanism.
Yes, I am claiming that relativity theories are full of contradictions.
Saying that I am not speaking of some mathematical world, I mean the real
one.
Henry Haapalainen
and...@attglobal.net
They don't contradict themselves. They certainly don't
contradict themselves because they disagree with Newtonian
gravity concepts.
Your arguments depend solely on your prejudices.
John Anderson
Henry Haapalainen
and...@attglobal.net kirjoitti viestissä <3A5405...@attglobal.net>...
HH: You say that relativity theories "certainly don't contradict themselves
because they disagree with Newtonian gravity concepts". Is that science?
Henry Haapalainen
Henry Haapalainen
Wayne Throop kirjoitti viestissä <9786...@sheol.org>...
>: "Henry Haapalainen" <mon...@icon.fi>
>: You just told about a "self-contradiction".
>
>So far, you have been remarkably reluctant to do so. Your claim
>that a description in terms of inertial motion on a curved manifold
>is "self-contradictory" seems to be pure bluster, with no substance.
>
>: Yes, I am claiming that relativity theories are full of
>: contradictions. Saying that I am not speaking of some mathematical
>: world, I mean the real one.
>
>of inertial motion on a manifold contradicts "the real world", either.
>
>Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
>"He's not just a Galaxy Ranger... he's a Super-Trooper!"
HH: If you want to discuss the contradictions in relativity theories, you
have to give proper answers to my questions. Doing so you will start to see
the contradictions yourself. The question was: Why does an apple fall? Let's
leave out the geodesics of an apple. Are you afraid of using words
spacetime curvature? Explain the non-force acceleration of an apple using
spacetime curvature of the Earth. Then we can get started.
Henry Haapalainen
and...@attglobal.net
It sure is. Science is about concepts that agree with experiment.
I can do experiments whose results can't be predicted by Newtonian
gravity but which can be predicted by GR.
John Anderson
Henry Haapalainen
and...@attglobal.net kirjoitti viestissä <3A5543...@attglobal.net>...
HH: Then we are not talking the same language. As I see it, there has been
no correct theory of gravity, not Newtonian and not GR.
Henry Haapalainen
Darrin A. Yarbrough
"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
news:9786...@sheol.org...
> : "Henry Haapalainen" <mon...@icon.fi>
> : You just told about a "self-contradiction".
>
> So far, you have been remarkably reluctant to do so. Your claim
> that a description in terms of inertial motion on a curved manifold
> is "self-contradictory" seems to be pure bluster, with no substance.
>
> : contradictions. Saying that I am not speaking of some mathematical
> : world, I mean the real one.
>
> of inertial motion on a manifold contradicts "the real world", either.
Darrin: Hmm, looks like we found Pinky.
Darrin A. Yarbrough
Henry Haapalainen
>: have to give proper answers to my questions.
>
>you will have to point them out. Asking me to guess at what answers
>you think are "proper" is pointless and stupid.
>
>: Are you afraid of using words spacetime curvature?
>
>No. "Spacetime curvature, spacetime curvature, spacetime curvature."
>There. I was not struck by lightning. And you still haven't
>pointed out any self-contradictions, or any contradictions
>between theory and experiment.
>
>
>Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
>"He's not just a Galaxy Ranger... he's a Super-Trooper!"
HH: I would have done so if our discussion could have started. It seems to
be finished now. I am not going to discuss in your terms, because doing so I
know your answers in advance.
Henry Haapalainen
Henry Haapalainen
Wayne Throop kirjoitti viestissä <9787...@sheol.org>...
>: "Henry Haapalainen" <mon...@icon.fi>
>: As I see it, there has been
>: no correct theory of gravity, not Newtonian and not GR.
>
>is incorrect. They might well be incorrect, for all I know (it seems
>improbable, but can't be totally ruled out). But what you claimed is
>that they were self-contradictory. Perhaps you need to consult a
>dictionary at this point, and find out what "contradictory" means?
>
>Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
>"He's not just a Galaxy Ranger... he's a Super-Trooper!"
HH: This was posted to another person. I have answered to you elsewhere.
Jim Carr
}
} With speeding up mass of a body increases (per E=mc2),
} so what is the fastest speed a human body can take to
} not crash down? (Of course, mainly in space travels...)
In article <3A4A2A...@attglobal.net>
and...@attglobal.net writes:
>
>What does "crash down"? What are you trying to say would
>happen?
Sounds like a vague version of the Relativity FAQ on
turning into a black hole just by moving fast.
--
James Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/
"The half of knowledge is knowing where to find knowledge" - Anon.
Motto over the entrance to Dodd Hall, former library at FSCW.
and...@attglobal.net
There is no "correct" theory of anything. There are only theories
whose predictions agree with experiments done up till now.
GR does this, Newtonian gravity doesn't.
The word "correct" has no meaning in science.
John Anderson
James Hunter
and...@attglobal.net wrote:
You forgot the politically correct "renormalizers" @ t=0,
where GR doesn't agree with anything.
Henry Haapalainen
and...@attglobal.net kirjoitti viestissä <3A5D49...@attglobal.net>...
HH: What about my original question: why does an apple fall? If we talk
about gravity, what question can be more simple than that. If you still
refuse to answer, let's stop this discussion.
Henry Haapalainen
and...@attglobal.net
>
> and...@attglobal.net wrote:
>
> > The word "correct" has no meaning in science.
>
> You forgot the politically correct "renormalizers" @ t=0,
> where GR doesn't agree with anything.
I assume that you're referring to the big bang. It don't see
how that's relevant to what I said. Theories have
to be consistent with observations. We can observe the aftermath
of the big bang but not the event itself. We can't even
directly observe the time immediately. To even interpret
what we observe now we have to
make assumptions that are extraneous to GR.
John Anderson
James Hunter
and...@attglobal.net wrote:
I know, that's why I reminded the NG that
although GR may agree with experiments,
since it does not agree with observations,
there is obviously something wrong with it.
Andrew Wade
---snip---
>HH: What about my original question: why does an apple fall? If we talk
>about gravity, what question can be more simple than that. If you still
>refuse to answer, let's stop this discussion.
As I intuit GR, the apple doesn't fall, the surface of the earth
rises (relative to a local inertial frame). The surface accelerates upwards
(relative to a local inertial frame) due to the pressure inside the earth. The
earth isn't getting any bigger due to the curvature of the spacetime it's in.
The relation between the spacetime curvature and the matter of the earth is
described by General Relativity for people who know more math than I. I am not
aware of any theories as to why spacetime should curve in the presence of
matter/energy.
Andrew
>Henry Haapalainen
Henry Haapalainen
Wayne Throop kirjoitti viestissä <9792...@sheol.org>...
>: "Henry Haapalainen" <mon...@icon.fi>
>: What about my original question: why does an apple fall? If we talk
>: about gravity, what question can be more simple than that. If you
>: still refuse to answer, let's stop this discussion.
>
>
>Now, you claim there's a self-contradiction in relativity.
>Not something incorrect, not something ridiculous; a self-contradiction.
>If you still refuse to state what it is, then I'd say you are not
>about to convince anybody that there IS one. Seeing as you won't
>even *describe* it, let alone defend your thesis.
HH: I think that this is enough. You are not going to give any answer to the
simple question asked. And let me tell you why: because there isn't any. GR
does not explain gravity.
Henry Haapalainen
beda pietanza
>HH: ............GR does not explain gravity.
>
> Henry Haapalainen
>
Beda pietanza reply:
Exactly, GR (and SR) don't explain anything or add anything,
they just are math model to represent approximately the reality
in the wrong assumtion to do without the "postulate ether".
In order to avoid the "postulate ether" (that does give us a better
and easier visualization of reality), SR introduces a Space-Time
mixture that doesn't exixt in nature.
GR goes farther in the misshaping reality, instead to put gravity
in Space it shapes Space (Space-Time) to gravity:
It is a tragic metodological error, and this error has nothing
to do with the correctness of SR-GR predictions, ( which are
foulty for the misuse of frames ).
The Space and Time, in which we should situate our abstract
model of reality, are them self abstractions we cannot do without.
The pretence of relativists to do without the abstract Space and
Time and without the "postulate Ether"(another abstract concept)
is so confusing for themself and for us all that common logic and
common sense is almost banned from science.
Recovery science to common sense is our task and our goal.
It is very simple: just put your law, you are so bright to discover,
into a abstract Space and Time with the abstract Ether, these
abstractions are so neutral that can contain everything you can
imagine real or unreal now and forever.
best regards
beda pietanza
Henry Haapalainen
Wayne Throop kirjoitti viestissä <9793...@sheol.org>...
>: "Henry Haapalainen" <mon...@icon.fi>
>: I think that this is enough.
>
>
>: ou are not going to give any answer to the simple question asked.
>
>I've already answered you twice. You don't like the answer?
>Supply your own for all I care. But answer or no, you still
>haven't described any self-contradiction in relativity.
>
>: And let me tell you why: because there isn't any.
>: GR does not explain gravity.
>
>
>But then, you also said you had a self-contradiction you could describe.
>Since the latter seems not to be the case, why should we believe the
former?
HH: A good friend of mine is a member in a religious sect that claims, that
man was created 6000 years ago. I tried to make him realize that he and the
sect where wrong. But he had heard all my claims hundreds of times before
and he learned to answer to all of them. All my efforts were in vain. I
couldn't show any "self-contradictions" in his beliefs. I decided not to use
my time to that kind reasoning since.
Henry Haapalainen
and...@attglobal.net
What observations does it disagree with? Can you
enumerate these for us?
It seems that you're trying to distinguish measurements
made in a person-made experiment from ones made of
things that we can't control. If I make measurements
of the latter (such as observations of the rest of the universe
which we obviously don't control) then I have no idea what
the value of those measurements "ought" to be. I can only
test GR against those measurements by adding additional
hypotheses about the physics that produces what I'm
trying to measure. The measurements aren't a clean
test of ANY experiment. You need to add additional
information and assumptions.
Once again, I will paraphrase Professor Paul Hodge.
"You can't do cosmological experiments because you
can't control what you're measuring".
John Anderson
Foobar T. Clown
Henry Haapalainen wrote:
>
> I think that this is enough. You are not going to give any answer to
> the simple question asked. [why does an apple fall to the ground] And
> let me tell you why: because there isn't any. GR does not explain
> gravity.
You're right. General relativity can tell you *HOW* an apple falls to
the ground, but it can not tell you *WHY*. "Why" is a slippery question
which is not often answered in Science, and seldom in any deeply
satisfying way.
Johannes Kepler's laws of planetary motion explained HOW the planets
moved in their orbits, but Kepler could not say WHY. Issac Newton
answered why, but only in a very weak sense: Newton discovered a deeper
law which predicted not only HOW the planets move, but also HOW objects
(e.g., apples) move on Earth. Kepler's laws then were true because they
are a demonstratable consequence of Newton's simpler laws, but Newton
could not say WHY his own laws were true.
Turns out they weren't exactly true. General relativity does a better
job of predicting how things move, especially when things are moving
really fast or when they are moving in the neighborhoods of really
massive bodies. It also gives the same weak validation of Newton that
Newton gave to Kepler: The fact that Newton's laws are a good
approximation of how things move in some cases is a demonstratable
consequence of GR. (Please, don't ask *ME* to demonstrate it.)
Apparently, theorists on the bleeding edge of physics have discovered
new theories (e.g., strings) that are supposed to predict not only all
of the HOWs of GR, but also all of the HOWs of all of the other known
ways in which matter interacts. *IF* any of those new theories is
accepted as physical law, then you'll be able to say that the
predicitons of GR are true because they're a consequence of it; but
you'll still be left with a big gaping "Why?"
Why is the new law true? Why isn't something else true? Physics can
push those questions to ever deeper layers (apparently at an increasing
cost in mental effort and physical energies each time) But is there a
bottom layer? Will they ever reach the bottom? I don't think they
will.
Chemists happily accept that all of the known laws of chemistry are true
because they are validated by quantum mechanics and whatever lies
beneath it. Some day, maybe enough layers will support GR for you to
happily accept its predictions. Until then, your only choices are to
grudgingly accept the empirical evidence, or go out and find some
evidence against it.
-- Foo!
James Hunter
"Foobar T. Clown" wrote:
Engineering and technology are evidence against it, since
neither is validated by chemistry or physics.
Henry Haapalainen
Wayne Throop kirjoitti viestissä <9794...@sheol.org>...
>:: But then, you also said you had a self-contradiction you could
>:: describe. Since the latter seems not to be the case, why should we
>:: believe the former?
>
>: A good friend of mine is a member in a religious sect that claims,
>: that man was created 6000 years ago. I tried to make him realize that
>: he and the sect where wrong. But he had heard all my claims hundreds
>: of times before and he learned to answer to all of them. All my
>: efforts were in vain. I couldn't show any "self-contradictions" in
>: his beliefs. I decided not to use my time to that kind reasoning
>: since.
>
>wasn't so hard, now was it? But it does leave me to wonder;
>if you'd already learned that lesson, why did you claim there WERE
>self-contradictions in relativity, instead of just claiming, as is true
>of the 6000 year old earth, that it's prohibitively implausible?
HH: I spoke of contradictions, you spoke of self-contradictions.
Henry Haapalainen
Henry Haapalainen
Foobar T. Clown kirjoitti viestissä <3A622187...@gazonk.del>...
>http://chooser.mp3.com/cgi-bin/play/play.cgi/AAICQrY6BQDABG5vcm1QBAAAAFLoEA
HH: Sorry to say, but you have not understood the point. It is not the only
problem, that GR doesn't tell WHY. The problem is that GR is impossible to
describe gravity. The reason to this is as follows. Curvature of space needs
interaction between mass and space to be possible. But then, no interaction
could explain the non-force essence of gravity. That means that the very
basics of the theory are wrong.
Most of the "relativity people" believe (at least in this news group), that
as to gravity GR tells also WHY. Why don't you yourselves correct these
misunderstandings?
Did you know that there is a theory that tells also WHY? According to it
space is falling not curving. Falling and curving are not very far from each
other, but falling (space falling into an atom) does not need any
interaction to happen. If you want to read it, I warn you that the
translation was made by a person who does not know much about science. And
as to myself, I am not a professional of physics either. But I am happy to
give any more information needed.
Theory of Gravity of Falling Space (GOFS)
www.wakkanet.fi/~fields
Henry Haapalainen
and...@attglobal.net
>
> Engineering and technology are evidence against it, since
> neither is validated by chemistry or physics.
They don't have to be. Engineering and technology can be based
on purely empirical results.
They don't have to be though. And in order to do either one
on a leading edge basis, there needs to be understanding of
the basic scientific principles that underly the technology.
To design a transistor radio, you need to know what a transistor
does, not how it works. To design a better transistor, you need
to understand the device physics.
John Anderson
and...@attglobal.net
>
> HH: Sorry to say, but you have not understood the point. It is not the only
> problem, that GR doesn't tell WHY. The problem is that GR is impossible to
> describe gravity. The reason to this is as follows. Curvature of space needs
> interaction between mass and space to be possible. But then, no interaction
> could explain the non-force essence of gravity. That means that the very
> basics of the theory are wrong.
The Einstein field equations describe the interaction between
energy-momentum (including mass) and spacetime curvature.
The non-force aspect of gravity merely says that test particles
which are not interacting with other fields interact
with gravity by following geodesics of the curved spacetime.
You're playing word games with something that you don't understand.
As usual, you're trying to be judge, jury and executioner on this.
The conceptual basis of GR predictions of experiments is well
understood, even if you don't understand it.
John Anderson
James Hunter
and...@attglobal.net wrote:
> James Hunter wrote:
> >
> > Engineering and technology are evidence against it, since
> > neither is validated by chemistry or physics.
>
> They don't have to be. Engineering and technology can be based
> on purely empirical results.
Since mathematics is not emprical, neither one is empirical,
mainly because empiricism something to do with "science"
rather than engineering.
beda pietanza
<and...@attglobal.net> wrote in message 3A6282...@attglobal.net...
Beda pietanza reply:
Exactly, GR (and SR) don't explain anything or add anything,
they just are math model to represent approximately the reality
in the wrong assumtion to do without the "postulate ether".
In order to avoid the "postulate ether" (that does give us a better
and easier visualization of reality), SR introduces a Space-Time
mixture that doesn't exixt in nature.
GR goes farther in the misshaping reality, instead to put gravity
in Space it shapes Space (Space-Time) to gravity:
It is a tragic metodological error, and this error has nothing
to do with the correctness of SR-GR predictions, ( which are
faulty for the misuse of frames ).
beda pietanza
James Hunter
Joel wrote:
> I think there may be some confusion with words here. "Experiments" yield
> "observations" with the supposition that the experiment you are running
> approximates natural phenomena.
If you mean by "running" an experiment, a Gedanker experiment,
I prefer to think of them as mother nature's grand delusion.
So there's no confusion of words on *my* part.
>
>
> "James Hunter" <James....@Jhuapl.edu> wrote in message
> news:3A5E732F...@Jhuapl.edu...