A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: float..my farts
Next: LHC Math gives a Doomsday.
From: Inertial on 18 Jan 2010 16:43 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:5b3d2cad-9ac0-41f8-b96f-36f1445413bd(a)a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 18, 3:00 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:f3814381-d66e-4267-ab00-ebaf3ed5357b(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Jan 18, 2:22 pm, "Inertia > assombly more mass because of that >> > assembly >> >> >> Some gain, some loss. I'm not sure you can say that electrons 'move' >> >> in >> >> their orbitals though. Also note my earlier comments were about >> >> movements >> >> of atoms and molecules within a larger object .. things that more >> >> clearly >> >> 'move'. >> >> >> > so >> >> > waht is bigger >> >> > the mass that the nuc lost >> >> > or the mass that electrons 'gained ?? >> >> >> Obvious answer >> >> > -------------------- >> > just say it loud and clear !! >> >> If there is less mass than the total, there is obviously more mass loss >> due >> to some mass being converted to energy than there is gain from any motion >> of >> the particles. > > -------------- > you must be quantitqative > because quantitative > IS THE NAME OF THE GAME HERE!! Nope > SO WAHT PORTION IS LOST BY THE NUC > AND AGAINT IT > WAHT IS THE ENERY THAT WAS RADIATED > AND WHAT IS TRHE RELATIVISTIC MASS'' > THAT WAS GAINED BY YOUR ELECTERONS Not possible as i do not have figures for the how fast electrons 'move' (as I said, I don't think they do 'move' anyway, no for the speed of any movement of sub-atomic particles in the nucleus. > if you dont do it quantitatively > youar3just mumbling!! > now > take an Atom of say 80 electrons > yell us waht is their orbits > their velocity > disatnce from nuke > and show ud a calculation of that mess > add on it the lost mass by radiation > and equtteit to th emass before creatin and after creation of that > Atom with 80 electrons No need . .there is quantitative evidence that heating an object .. which produces more movement of the atoms within it .. increases its mass. Read the article I have linked you to before.
From: cjcountess on 18 Jan 2010 19:10 On Jan 18, 1:12 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Jan 18, 9:17 am,cjcountesswrote: > > >< Everything in the universe is in constant motion> > > All of us long ago agreed about that. > > >< even so called rest mass is energy in circular and or spherical rotation on quantum level, as expressed in equations (h/2pi), representing momentum of energy in circular motion or (h/2pi/2) for energy making two rotations at right angles, creating spherical paticle of, (spin 1/2), such as electron.> > > "wadevrDATmeenz" > > >< Even on the macro level, as the moons orbit the planets, the planets orbit the stars, the stars orbit the galaxies, and so on, as all is in motion, and rest mass is relative.> > > Therefore, as I finally realized a year or so ago, there is no such > thing as an "inertially moving system" so the Restricted Theory of > relativity is a useless aberration. That's a very fortunate > thing! > Why? Because it is so filled with mathematical and conceptual > errors that it is a lot of nonsense. Why is that "fortunate:? > Because once everyone understands its many simple errors the Theory > can be discarded without affecting the far better physics beneath the > General theory. > > >< Just as any object moving in a straight line at constant speed is, equivalent to being at rest, and if an object moves away from you at certain speed, you also move relative to it also at that speed, > > concerning the speed of light in a straight line at constant speed of > "c", with constant (energy/mass) of "h", whose to say that it is not > us who move away from light at c?> > > 1. Since "all is in motion" and "rest mass is energy in circular and > or spherical rotation on quantum level" then there is no such thing as > "the speed of light in a straight line at constant speed of 'c'". > 2. Regardless of its speed, the quantity of energy per photon is equal > to hf, in which f denotes the number of waves that pass a stipulated > point per second. > 3. If we divide e by m we don't get h, we get > e/m = hf/m = f(2pirmc')/m = (#/sec)(2prft/sec) > = 2 pi ft^2/sec^2. > 4. Whatever that means, it has nothing to do with our speed wr light > nor versa vice. > > >< Furthermore, if the speed of light is constant at "c", (in linear direction), regardless of motion of observer, with corresponding constant (mass/energy) of "h", than the constants which are equal to (c=h), in nature, are the stibility in motion, that keeps the universe in a certain order.> > > 1. The speed of light is a function of the density of its conducting > material. Since the latter is variable everywhere, so is the speed of > light. > 2. There is no such thing as c=h. > In physics, c = 2.99,793 x 10^10 cm/sec and > h = 6,46 x 10^27 ft lb/sec. > > >< Therefor these constants might be considered the rest frame of the universe.> > > I agree. > (Since the given constants don't exist, THERE IS NO rest frame in the > universe. :-) > > glird glird Something moving at constant speed, in straight line, is equal to being at rest, but both are relative, not an absolute, for just as nothing is trully at rest, nothing moves in absolute straight line, at constant speed either. Furthermore, the speed of light is not constant, as it has different speeds in different mediums. But the speed of light in a "vacuum," is constant in the linear direction, reguardless of motion of souce and observer, but not in angular, frequency direction. Frequency speed of "cycles per time unit", changes with motion of source and observer. That is how radar is able to tell speed and direction of source, due to "Doppler effect", change in frequency. I am agreeing somewhat with you, although maybe for different reasons. But "c" does = "h", in natural units at the Planck level. Ever heard of the unity of the constants? More and more things are unified as we get to the constants, just as E or "energy" = m or "mass/ matter", at c^2. (c = h), is also a sort of energy/mass equivalence Conrad J Countess
From: Inertial on 18 Jan 2010 19:38 "cjcountess" <cjcountess(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:883d7b35-324c-42b9-8667-ac39b7299bd5(a)k35g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > Something moving at constant speed, in straight line, is equal to > being at rest, but both are relative, not an absolute, Yeup > for just as > nothing is trully at rest, nothing moves in absolute straight line, at > constant speed either. No .. straight lines are straight lines in all inertial frames (if we are talking SR) if we're talking about GR, then a straight path for one frame may be curved to another > Furthermore, the speed of light is not > constant, as it has different speeds in different mediums. A red herring and well known that the net speed of light changes in different mediums. The 'speed of light' refers to an ideal 'in vacuum' sceanrio. > But the > speed of light in a "vacuum," is constant in the linear direction, > reguardless of motion of souce and observer, but not in angular, > frequency direction. What is an "angular frequency direction" ?? > Frequency speed of "cycles per time unit", changes with motion of > source and observer. Of course.. that is just Doppler shift > That is how radar is able to tell speed and > direction of source, due to "Doppler effect", change in frequency. > I am agreeing somewhat with you, although maybe for different reasons. > > But "c" does = "h", in natural units at the Planck level. Well, derrr .. Seeing 'natural' units are chose so such constants have the value '1', they would be the same. That has no significance though as to any relationship betwenn them. > Ever heard of the unity of the constants? The units are chosen explicitly to give some constants a value of 1. But that doesn't mean the constants are somehow unified. > More and more things are > unified as we get to the constants, Nope > just as E or "energy" = m or "mass/ > matter", at c^2. (c = h), is also a sort of energy/mass equivalence E = mc^2 shows a simple relationship between energy and mass. It doesn't really mean energy is actually identical to mass. Just because you can change the units to where c has a value 1, and so does not need to appear in the equation) does not change that.
From: kado on 18 Jan 2010 21:56 Although this is placed as a response to cjcountess, it also applies to Inertia, Y. Porat , all who read this thread, and in fact, all of mainline science. For the sake of true science: heed the words of the wise old sage, i.e.,: Learn the meanings of the words, and use these correctly. This does not mean just the dictionary definitions. This means when reading Newtons writings, learn the definitions he used. When reading Einsteins writings, learn the definitions he used, and so on. Verify the truths you have and use. So use some degree of logic and rational thinking, rather than just taking on FAITH the ideas, concepts, and the words of others. Accept that the truth that you can put into words, pictures, and MATHEMATICS is not the whole absolute truth. On Jan 15, 5:09 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: snip > 1) Planck discovered (E=hf), for photons > > 2) Einstein discovered (E=m/c^2) for photons and (E=mc^2) for > electrons (snip) > in 1905 thought experiment, yielding that famous equation > > 3)deBroglie discovered (E=hf=mc^2) for electrons, and that electron is > also wave, > as demonstrated by diffraction, constructive and destructive > interference, > which is also know for waves light and other forms of waves > This also indicated a smooth from waves to particles, energy to > matter > along the same EM spectrum, which might even be called the "energy/ > matter", > as well as "electromagnetic", spectrum > > 4) Bohr discovered, that wavelength of electron > = circumference of circle, with an angular momentum of, a multiple > integer of > h/2pi. These are all wet. Planck SUPPOSED that the equation E=hf applies to photons. Einstein SUPPOSED E=m/c^2 is a valid concept due to the fundamental tenets of Special Relativity. deBroglie accepted on FAITH that Einsteins equation is gospel, and SUPPOSED that a single particular photon has the properties of both waves and particles, and also SUPPOSED that the equation E=hf=mc^2 applies to photons (not electrons). So ASSUMED that this was demonstrated by diffraction, constructive and destructive interference, so MISTAKENLY BELIEVED that the waves of light and other forms of waves indicated a smooth from waves to particles, or a smooth energy to matter exchange, THAT MIGHT, (not IS) be called the "energy/matter" duality. Your #4 is pure Bullshit. The kinetic energy equation of Newtonian Mechanics is: KE = 1/2mv^2. When Dr. Dicke demonstrated by EMPIRICAL experimentation that mass is not relativistic, current post Einsteinian Relativity replaced Einsteins inertial mass with the notion of invariant mass, and that the momentum and/or energy are relativistic. So these confused people SUPPOSED that all was still in accord with Special Relativity, and SUPPOSED all was still honky-dory. What a bunch of idiotic thinking. No one, I mean no one, seems to realize that both momentum AND energy are relativistic within the tenets of Einsteins Special Relativity. In fact, BOTH ARE DOUBLY RELATIVISTIC! The 1st due to mass being relativistic, and the 2nd due to time (i.e., the time component of velocity, the denominator of ds/dt) being relativistic. So do you get (understand) how Einstein was able to rationally inflate the ½ of the common 1/2mv^2 equation of Newtonian kinetic energy into unity, drop the ½, and use just kinetic energy=mv^2? But as the notion of relativistic qualities applies only at speeds near that of light, and as the doubly relativistic qualities double the effects of gamma, this equation can reasonably be stated as E=mc^2. However, if you take away one of the causes for momentum and energy to be relativistic (i.e., with invariant mass) youre back at the Newtonian equation for kinetic energy (i.e., KE=1/2 mv^2), that must modulated by gamma whenever the effects of the relativity of time is meaningful, because time is still relativistic. And there is a lot of empirical evidence that this is so. In other words; when Dicke empirically proved that mass is that defined in Newtons Principia, he also empirically demonstrated that Einsteins most famous and enduring equation of E=m/c^2 is a fallacy! This regardless whatever shouting, jumping up and down, and hand waving mainline science may do! This also demonstrates that mainline scientists are not as smart as they think, and that modern post Einsteinian relativists do not even really understand Special Relativity! Now to address the posts of Y.Porat and Inertial This is not a simple as the above, and much more fundamental to the sciences. Now everyone may not agree with me, and I may be in error, but if I am, I think I am close. On Jan 15, 2:00 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > snip > if you cant measure anything > there is no physics at all ....(:-) > you must measure something common > > Y.Porat On Jan 15, 2:41 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: snip > > Measuring doesn't mean or require understanding the deeper questions of what > mass actually is etc. It is simply a defined procedure and calculation. Empirically measuring (empirical measurements) usually implies comparing the unknown (i.e., sought after quality) against a known standard. (e.g., weight by the use of a balance scale; length, width and height measured with a vernier caliper; the passage of time with an accurate clock, etc.) Only the tangible (i.e., those that you can touch and feel), see, smell, hear, or taste, that is, the physical and the enigmatic phenomenon that we call time can be empirically measured. (To make it clearer, we touch the physical to empirically measure the physical. We look at a clock to empirically measure time.) Many connote the mathematical calculations used to measure the dynamic qualities such as momentum, energy, impulse, etc., as measurements. These dynamic qualities are not true physical qualities in the true sense of the word tangible. This is where a whole lot of philosophical thinking becomes necessary. Now a lot of unthinking people bad mouth and reject the use of inductive/deductive reasoning, logic, rational thinking, etc., and any mention of philosophy within physics without realizing that they are really using the past inductive/deductive reasoning, logic, rational thinking, etc., of exceptionally smart people that preceded them. All the current ideas of mass, inertia, and all the dynamic qualities such as momentum, kinetic energy are human mental cognizant ideas, conceived through the inductive/ deductive logic, reasoning, and rational thinking of past geniuses. The ideas and conclusions of these past geniuses are the starting point for these specific notions of interest. Thats why physics has the idea of postulates and mathematics has the concept of axioms. These two are commonly the starting point, and are stated (proposed, supposed, assumed, etc.,) to be true without further justification. So the validity of the inductive/deductive notions are based on the truths and the exactness the definitions of the words used when these geniuses formulated these ideas. Thats why the understanding of the words is so crucial to advancing knowledge. Galileo could not have conceived the notion of the effects of inertia without inductive/ deductive logic and rejecting the Philosophy of Idealism. Isaac Newton could not have conceived all the new and novel Ideas of that particular time in history presented in Principia without first rejecting the Philosophy of Idealism and a whole lot of inductive/ deductive logic. Furthermore, what the heck is the thought experiment that Einstein used to formulate his Theories of Relativity but Inductive/ deductive reasoning. Nevertheless, there is a great danger in inductive/deductive reasoning, logic, etc. This is that if the conclusion is not true, everything you or anyone else develop based on this supposition that you deem true are not. Furthermore this places a great responsibility on the exactness and preciseness of the definitions. So the true understanding of the words is paramount. Current science is very lax in this area, as are the posters on this newsgroup Anyway, to get back to the subject of the validity of my idea that forces are of a nonphysical quality: The nonphysical cannot be empirically measured. In fact, the nonphysical cannot be directly studied. As numbers alone (as such) cannot define the nonphysical, mathematics does not really help in this matter. So the only avenue remaining for anyone contemplating the nonphysical within physics is by inductive/deductive contemplation. The concept of force is fundamental to science, especially physics. So while the nonphysical cannot be directly studied, the EFFECTS OF THE NONPHYSICAL ON THE PHYSICAL CAN BE. Consequently not mistaking the effect with the cause is crucial. It is by this process of inductive/deductive logic that I came to the conclusion that all the forces within Nature are nonphysical. This is not a pie in the sky conclusion, but is based on studying the findings of the past geniuses and the many Natural Phenomena demonstrated by Nature. So the validity of my postulate is established by the fact that Newtons conundrum of an action at a distance of Newtonian gravitation that is fundamental to Newtonian Mechanics is resolved, because the nonphysical need not obey Newtons mechanical (physical) laws. That is, the action at a distance is a viable concept, thus true Newtonian Mechanics really works, but not the BS Classical Newtonian Mechanics of mainline sciens. The mystery whether light accelerates to the speed of light or just starts and stays at the speed of light is also put to rest. In fact, the idea that light (a force) is nonphysical explains why light can pass through the void of space without the ether, and why it is without mass. So you no longer have to deal with the idiotic ideas of the ether or a massless mass. There are even greater effects on Einsteins Special and General Relativity, all of quantum mechanics/quantum electrodynamics, cosmology, and astrophysics. So not only does it solve many of the puzzles, it assists in resolving most of the paradoxes within mainline science. Furthermore, incorporating this idea into tenets of science does not at all contradict or conflict with any Natural Phenomenon demonstrated by Nature and/or God, so is still in accord with Newtons Philosophy of Nature. Therefore I do not just state that forces are nonphysical, I POSTULATE that forces are of a nonphysical quality. So this statement (i.e., postulate) needs no further justification. All this and a lot more (especially about how mainline science handled gravitation and the effects of this nonphysical Fundamental Force of both science and Nature are addressed in my copyrighted treatise titled: The Search for Reality and the Truths. I revealed some stuff that is new to science, exposed some of the dogmas, and corrected a bunch of ideas wherein mainline science is just plain wrong in this thread. These that I posted herein are just some of the truths I felt necessary to prove that I am not a kook. These truths are just a very small percentage of that contained in my manuscript. Heck, do you think that I am dumb enough that I will reveal the real important and significant stuff in my manuscript for free? I erred in a couple of my past posts by calling my manuscript a book. This treatise exists only a MS Word file in my computer, and a couple of hard copies of this file. Posting on this newsgroup is not my most important endeavor at this point in my life. The most important is to connect with a reputable AAR literary agent to get a respected publishing house to publish this work. This I have yet to do. I am not a regular reader of this newsgroup. I just read it periodically to see if there is anything that might be pertinent to the truths presented my manuscript. In fact, the last time I posted anything on this newsgroup was almost 15 years ago when I introduced the idea that the tides at the far side of the earth from the moon are the effects of inertia due to the earth co-orbiting about the barycenter with the moon. This idea was new to oceanography at this time. (Yes, I know that most of the stuff now on the internet have reverted back to the silly idea that all the tides are caused only by the gravitation of the moon These stupid notions cannot explain the low tide at the places that experience the single low and single high tide of the diurnal tidal cycle when these places are at the far side from the moon.) The responses I got then were much harsher than those I got on this thread. I got very few that were not derogatory, and the only one that I can remember that was at all encouraging or complimentary was from Uncle Al ! Believe it or not, Uncle Al can be nice. So although I dont always agree with Uncle Al, I ask him to lighten up sometimes, and just laugh at the foibles of the dumb, because they have no choice but to post idiotic stuff. In other words; loosen up, lower your blood pressure, and you will live longer. I would like you to be around for a long time to keep blasting the idiots, so I wont have to. Then I can at least pretend to honor what my father kept impressing on me, i.e.: If you cant say anything nice, dont say anything at all. D. Y. Kadoshima
From: Inertial on 18 Jan 2010 22:09
<kado(a)nventure.com> wrote in message news:bf56b2fc-43fd-471f-aa6a-0054fb05de77(a)t12g2000vbk.googlegroups.com... > > Although this is placed as a response to > �cjcountess�, it also applies to �Inertia�, > �Y. Porat� , all who read this thread, and > in fact, all of mainline science. > > For the sake of true science: heed the words > of the wise old sage, i.e.,: > > Learn the meanings of the words, and use > these correctly. This does not mean just > the dictionary definitions. This means when > reading Newton�s writings, learn the > definitions he used. When reading Einstein�s > writings, learn the definitions he used, and > so on. I do > Verify the truths you have and use. So use > some degree of logic and rational thinking, > rather than just taking on FAITH the ideas, > concepts, and the words of others. I do > Accept that the truth that you can put into > words, pictures, and MATHEMATICS is not the > whole absolute truth. Its all that counts > > On Jan 15, 5:09 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > snip > >> 1) Planck discovered (E=hf), for photons >> >> 2) Einstein discovered (E=m/c^2) for photons and (E=mc^2) for >> electrons� (snip)� >> in 1905 thought experiment, yielding that famous equation >> >> 3)deBroglie discovered (E=hf=mc^2) for electrons, and that electron is >> also wave, >> as demonstrated by diffraction, constructive and destructive >> interference, >> which is also know for waves light and other forms of waves >> This also indicated a smooth from �waves to particles�, �energy to >> matter� >> along the same EM spectrum, which might even be called the "energy/ >> matter", >> as well as "electromagnetic", spectrum >> >> 4) Bohr discovered, that wavelength of electron >> = circumference of circle, with an angular momentum of, a multiple >> integer of >> h/2pi. > > These are all wet. > > Planck SUPPOSED that the equation E=hf > applies to photons. No .. he found they did > Einstein SUPPOSED E=m/c^2 is a valid > concept due to the fundamental tenets > of Special Relativity. He deduced it did , experiment confirmed it > deBroglie accepted on FAITH that Einstein�s > equation is gospel, and SUPPOSED that a > single particular photon has the properties > of both waves and particles, and also > SUPPOSED that the equation E=hf=mc^2 > applies to photons (not electrons). So > ASSUMED that this was demonstrated by > diffraction, constructive and destructive > interference, so MISTAKENLY BELIEVED that > the waves of light and other forms of waves > indicated a smooth �from waves to particles�, > or a smooth �energy to matter� exchange, > THAT MIGHT, (not IS) be called the > "energy/matter" duality. > > Your #4 is pure Bullshit. > > The kinetic energy equation of Newtonian > Mechanics is: KE = 1/2mv^2. Yeup, a limiting case when v << c of the better model from SR > When Dr. Dicke demonstrated by EMPIRICAL > experimentation that mass is not > relativistic, current post Einsteinian > Relativity replaced Einstein�s inertial mass > with the notion of invariant mass, Nope .. there are two concepts that both work, the formulas of SR are simply differently expressed in terms of one compared to the other > and that > the momentum and/or energy are relativistic. They both are. Its not been claimed by SR that they weren't > So these confused people SUPPOSED that all > was still in accord with Special Relativity, > and SUPPOSED all was still honky-dory. It is > What a bunch of idiotic thinking. On your part .. yes. > No one, I > mean no one, seems to realize that both > momentum AND energy are relativistic within > the tenets of Einstein�s Special Relativity. Of course they are .. noone (ignoring the cranks here) says otherwise > In fact, BOTH ARE DOUBLY RELATIVISTIC! The > 1st due to mass being relativistic, and the > 2nd due to time (i.e., the time component of > velocity, the denominator of ds/dt) being > relativistic. Wrong > So do you get (understand) how Einstein was > able to rationally inflate the � of the > common 1/2mv^2 equation of Newtonian kinetic > energy into unity, He didn't .. you clearly do not know how one can derive 1/2mv^2 from SR as the limiting case. > drop the �, and use just > kinetic energy=mv^2? Wrong .. that is NOT the formula for kinetic energy is SR. Please .. learn some physics before having the presumption to criticize others > But as the notion of > relativistic qualities applies only at > speeds near that of light, and as the > doubly relativistic qualities double the > effects of gamma, Wrong > this equation can > �reasonably� be stated as E=mc^2. You are completely confused. > However, if you take away one of the causes > for momentum and energy to be relativistic > (i.e., with invariant mass) you�re back at > the Newtonian equation for kinetic energy > (i.e., KE=1/2 mv^2), Oh dear > that must modulated by > gamma whenever the effects of > the relativity of time is meaningful, > because time is still relativistic. And > there is a lot of empirical evidence that > this is so. > > In other words; when Dicke empirically > proved that mass is that defined in Newton�s > Principia, he also empirically demonstrated > that Einstein�s most famous and enduring > equation of E=m/c^2 is a fallacy! Nope .. you're confused > This regardless whatever shouting, jumping > up and down, and hand waving mainline > science may do! The one hand-waving here is you .. and basically completely missing the boat on what E=mc^2 means > This also demonstrates that mainline > scientists are not as smart as they think, No .. it demonstrates that YOU do not understand physics as well as you would like to think you do. > and that modern post Einsteinian > relativists do not even really > understand Special Relativity! No .. that would be YOU who doesn't understand. hence your claims that it is wrong. It is only your misunderstood idea of what you THINK it says that is wrong. The other cranks here have the same problems .. though each misunderstands it a little differently > Now to address the posts of Y.Porat and > Inertial > > This is not a simple as the above, and much > more fundamental to the sciences. Now > everyone may not agree with me, and I may > be in error, but if I am, I think I am > close. We'll see > On Jan 15, 2:00 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> snip > >> if you cant measure anything >> there is no physics at all ....(:-) >> you must measure something common >> >> Y.Porat > > > On Jan 15, 2:41 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > snip >> >> Measuring doesn't mean or require understanding the deeper questions of >> what >> mass actually is etc. It is simply a defined procedure and calculation. > > > Empirically measuring (empirical > measurements) usually implies comparing the > unknown (i.e., sought after quality) against > a known standard. Yeup [snip a lot of waffle about rational thinking and an incorrect presumption that none in else in the newsgroup uses it] > Anyway, to get back to the subject of the > validity of my idea that forces are of a > nonphysical quality: Define 'nonphysical' [snip more waffle and nonsense ... post WAY too long for the little content it has] |