A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: float..my farts
Next: LHC Math gives a Doomsday.
From: glird on 20 Jan 2010 14:41 On Jan 19, 8:10 pm, cjcountess wrote: > ><I think that you are jealous that I, a self taught individual, came on the seen and turned the physics world upside down, making all your hard work, time, and money, you put into your research, worth less. I do not mean completely worthless, but nevertheless it is worth less than you thought it would be. Don't take this personally, but if you open your mind maybe you can ride the cutting edge of this wave with me. There is really no way around it, it is a tsunami, and will wash you and your work up, unless you get in step with the reality of this wave of discoveries and evidence. There is just too much evidence for it to be wrong. It may not be as perfectly stated as possible, but it is correct. ... You cannot admit when you are wrong either. And I am sure I can find plenty more examples. The evidence is overwhelming and you cannot escape its truth. ... I am a very insightful person, and it may be like boxing with a blind person the way I can show you up because you have so little insight. I would rather shine a light to show you the way, but your foolish pride may just make it necessary to be a little tough with you. You think you are so smart, but you are not. ... I can turn the world of physics upside down, in more ways than one. [snip] And then by making some of the most perplexing ideas in physics so plain and clear, that a child can understand it, but people like you cannot, thereby exalting the child over you. You and your ideas are obsolete. Conrad J Countess > Thank you, Conrad, for expressing exactly how **I** feel about those same things. It shows me that a bit of humility is better than the extreme hubris (??) we both have repeatedly demonstrated. Even so, I CAN turn the world of physics upside down in more ways than one. And then, by making some of the most perplexing ideas in physics so plain and clear that a child can understand them but physicists do not, thereby exalting the child over them. As John Wheeler aptly said, "Someday we'll understand the whole thing as one single marvelous vision that will seem so overwhelmingly simple and beautiful that we will say to each other 'Oh, how could we have been so stupid for so long?'" Amen. glird
From: glird on 20 Jan 2010 14:54 On Jan 20, 12:25 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > cjcountess wrote: > > On Jan 19, 9:49 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "cjcountess" <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >>news:f271ba93-3645-4c49-a424-c3f608008b6f(a)s19g2000vbm.googlegroups.com.... > > >>> A new wave of physics is upon us > >>> ride the wave, or be washed up by it > > >>> Conrad J Countess > >>> Your Captain > > >> You've gone down with your ship .. its already sunk due to the huge > >> gaping holes in it. > > > Look at the things "Al" and "inertia" picked out to nit-pic, as they > > try to unravel my well nitted fabric. > > I tell them that > > > (E=mc^2), tells us, "that alot of energy is trapped inside of matter, > > and that they are equal through mathematical conversion factor c^2" > > . > > It is said that, "c or the speed of light", is highest possile speed > > in the universe. > > > Any child might even ask, "If the speed of light is the highest > > possile speed, than how can it be squared to make matter? > > ............................................______ __ > ....................................,.-'"...................``~., > .............................,.-"..................................."-., > .........................,/................................................":, > .....................,?........................... > ..........................., > .................../.................................................. > .........,} > ................./.................................................. > ....,:`^`..} > .............../.................................................. .,:"........../ > ..............?.....__............................ > .............:`.........../ > ............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../ > .........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`..... ..._/ > ..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....} > ...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../ > ...,,,___.`~,......"~.,....................`..... }............../ > ............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-" > ............/.`~,......`-...................................../ > .............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__ > ,,_..........}.>-._...................................|........... ...`=~-, > .....`=~-,__......`,................................. > ...................`=~-,,.,............................... > ................................`:,,.............. > .............`..............__ > .....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==`` > ........................................_........ ..._,-%.......` > ..................................., Well said.
From: cjcountess on 20 Jan 2010 17:41 "Al", you are so desperate that if someone misspells a word, you actually will not know what that person meant, even if the word is close enough that you should be able to tell what they really meant. But you really can't, you actually get lost on misspelled words, or the substance of my work is so beyond criticism that the only thing you can argue about is technicalities. Man, you are nit picking and that is a sign of frustration or senility. As for your: 0) dimensions 1) units 2) m/s NE (kg)(m^2)/s 3) idiot I could teach you something about that but I am going to see how long it takes you to figure out on your own. Al, stop being so childish, you didn't have to locate and send all those links to incite definitions, unless you think I really need it, do you, because we might have to get you some help. If you feel the need, let someone know, and I am sure they can send someone to your house, with a straight jacket, or some medications. Conrad J Countess
From: cjcountess on 20 Jan 2010 17:55 On Jan 20, 2:41 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > As John Wheeler aptly said, > "Someday we'll understand the whole thing > as one single marvelous vision that will > seem so overwhelmingly simple and beautiful > that we will say to each other 'Oh, how > could we have been so stupid for so long?'" > Amen. > > glird I think that is a good note to leave this conversation on also Conrad J Countess
From: kado on 20 Jan 2010 20:19
On Jan 20, 11:06 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > A lot of stuff are snipped as these are not germane to what I feel is important in this post > > They now call it "metaphysics" and dismiss it > as "beneath' them. Little do they kmow that > in the list of catagories of the ancient Greeks > who invented the words, Phliosophy was at the > top of the list, then came Metaphysics (above > and beyond physics) and THEN came "physics". True from the philosopher's perspective, but we are currently in a physics newsgroup discussing physics. So from this point of view of physics, metaphysics is (I believe it was Aristotle, who stated) above or beyond THE physics, or something like that. Furthermore, this is now changed, and physics, along with mathematics, biology, botany, etc., are subsets of the sciences. And metaphysics is above or beyond the sciences. > Snip again > > Define "nonphysical" versus "physical". > I can define the physical. It's the stuff that you can see, touch, smell, taste, and hear, PLUS all the stuff that the sciences and empirical experimentation and what all the Natural Phenomena demonstrated by Nature IS TO HAVE MASS. As I stated before, I cannot define the nonphysical. > > Define "force". > I employ Newton's definition, as he presented it (actually these) in Principia, with the added concept of a 'static force', i.e., an internal stress wherein there is NO change of momentum of the 'system or entity, body, etc.,' under study. Weight is a such a force. Realize that Newton did really expand into static forces other than just mentioning it, because his principle focus was on the conic section orbits of the planets and comets due to the universal mutual gravitational attraction. So Newton concentrated on the motive forces wherein there is a change of momentum of the two interacting bodies. There's a lot more to this subject disclosed in my treatise that I will not publicly reveal in this post! > > Explain how their findings support the > notion that a force is nonphysical. This will show up later as the understanding of cause and effect. Furthermore, their findings do not directly support my contention that forces are of a nonphysical quality. It's the other way around! I contend that accepting forces as nonphysical ENHANSES their findings. For example, with forces as nonphysical, Isaac Newton's great conundrum of the validity of his 'action at a distance' of the universal mutual gravitational attraction is resolved, because the nonphysical need not comply with his Laws of Momentum that pertain to bodies with mass. (Realize that Newton's concepts are often called Newton's mechanical [physical, with mass] universe). So there CAN be, and there ARE actions at a distance. Also see my bit about Einstein at the University of Leyden in an earlier post. If Einstein just accepted the concept of the nonphysical, he could have steadfastly stood firm on his Theories of Relativity and against Lorentz's ether hypothesis without any trepidation. > > 1. Explain how a nonphysical thing can > cause a mass to accelerate. I tried to make it clear that forces are nonphysical, so do not think of it as a 'thing', because the word 'thing' instantly (in your mind) connotes something physical. Phenomenon or quality may be better, but in truth, no word or words suffice (see the saying of the wise sage). It's the nonphysical forces that makes all physical entities accelerate, jerk snap, etc., and also change temperature, etc. just like before I entered this thread. Nothing changed, except the notion that forces are nonphysical and the correct understanding of cause and effect. In other words; You and all of the sciences were and are mistaking the effect with the cause. > 2. Explain how it can cause that > without touching the mass or anything else. I did not ever state that nonphysical forces do not touch. I stated that these act on the physical. This notion of touch can get real messy in particle physics, wherein the molecules are not in direct contact with (touching) each other, due to the electrons 'swarming' or 'orbiting' about the nucleus. > > 1. Explain how a beam of light is a nonphysical force. It's not the light beam that is not physical, but light itself. As visible or invisible light is just a portion of the Fundamental Electromagnetic FORCES of Nature, it's a force, and I postulated that all forces are nonphysical. > 2. Define "mass"! I use Newton's definition. snip > it is its WEIGHT -- in kilograms. You seem to miss that the SI (i.e., the metric system) DEFINES the kilogram as a unit of MASS, not weight (weight is a static force). I really get into this in my treatise, but it's one of the great big important subjects that I'm going to keep real close to my chest. and will not discuss it any further of this thread. You will have to wait until my manuscript is published. > > As to F = ma, (snip) The truth is the EFFECT of a nonphysical force can be connoted as ma. You and mainline science mistake the effect with the cause! Furthermore, it may help if you reread the bits on the true interpretations of Newton's Three Laws of Momentum, especially the Second Law, posted earlier in this thread. > > And i POSTULATE that your statement is false. ;-) > I think that if you re-evaluate your concept of cause and effect, i.e., the Principle of Causality, cram your philosophical thinking cap on really, really tight, and consider Occam's razor, (I'm sure you can you can do these, but it's not easy, if it was easy, it would have been done long ago), you will change your mind. I really appreciate your post. It's the only one thus far that intellectually, and in a light way, Philosophically addressed and discussed the important topics (i.e., no Bullshit) even if we disagree on some stuff. Furthermore, this brought all the important stuff all together in one single post, so those with a short attention span will not have to go back forth from this to earlier entries as often. D. Y. Kadoshima |