A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: float..my farts
Next: LHC Math gives a Doomsday.
From: cjcountess on 21 Jan 2010 09:03 On Jan 20, 8:19 pm, k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > 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 D.K.Y., You say glird's post is the only one that is intellectial, because he put you in a cornner, and you can't talk your way out of it. You say you won't discuss why force is nonphysical here, but will in your copyrighted material as though it is a product, and, "revalation of knowledge", that you can sell, but it is not correct, so maybe you really need time to figuer it out. I say these things respectfully, just as you stated that "glird's", post was the only one that is intellectial. I know that I let some of these posters draw me into silly arguments, and that does not look good, or mesh well with the main body of a serious argument. But I know that the main and majority of my statements are correct, although lacking the nessesary explination that a revolutionary theory requires, in order to be fully comprehended. Besides we are being bombarded by many competing ideas, some designed to reveal, and some designed to conceal, and as such, my idea may require certain incites and/or explinations to conprehend. So I don't blame anyone if they don't comprehend it right away. And I am confident that it will become crystal clear as we go on, as will the truth and untruth, of what we all say. Conrad J Countess
From: cjcountess on 21 Jan 2010 10:46 My Discovery (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled), (c=sqrt-1, in natural units), and (h/2pi/ 2), is measure of certainty of both, "momentum and wavelength", of particle. This discovery quantifies "Gravity", brings "sqrt-1", out of realm of "imaginary numbers", into real world of "natural units", and demysifies "The Uncertainty Principle" This is such a beautiful discovery, and the petty arguments that go on in the news group only take from the astetics of it .. Blow your own horn, but not too loud - be confident and dignified, but not to proud Conrad J Countess
From: glird on 21 Jan 2010 13:06 On Jan 21, 10:46 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >< My Discovery (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled), (c=sqrt-1, in natural units), and (h/2pi/ 2) is measure of certainty of both, "momentum and wavelength", of particle. This discovery quantifies "Gravity", brings "sqrt-1", out of realm of "imaginary numbers", into real world of "natural units", and demysifies "The Uncertainty Principle" > 1. In what way is your discovery a measure of "the certainty" of mv and/or the number of fronts that pass a point per second, or anything else at all? 2. Newton quantified gravity centuries ago. Unless your discovery presents a better way than his or Einstein's, it is valueless. If it DOES; can it explain the mechanism of gravity. If not, it may give better answers on a minuscule level, but is otherwise useless. > This is such a beautiful discovery, and the petty arguments that go on > in the news group only take from the aesthetics of it. Some are petty; but others may be due to the lack of clarity in your words AND mathematics. > Blow your own horn, but not too loud - be confident and dignified, but > not to proud. Amen > Conrad J Countess glird
From: cjcountess on 21 Jan 2010 18:28 Inertia, your name represents your thought process right now. So I will apply some force or "F," to the "E" or energy in your mind, directing it to (hf=mc^2), so that you can overcome this inertia of thought of how energy attains rest mass at (c^2). I explained this to you before The speed of light as "c", is not highest speed because as frequency rises and wavelengths get shorter, the speed of light also increases in the angular direction, which increases the (wave/particles), "relative mass/ kinetic energy, and momentun". The higher the frequency, the more particle like the wave becomes, and at (c^2), the wave particle attains rest mass. In the process the )wave/particle), moves from (E=hf/c^2) to (E=hf=mc^2) At this point where the frequency or (hf = mc^2), "E", or energy, equals, and turns to "m" or (restmass/matter) Simple Conrad J Countess
From: cjcountess on 21 Jan 2010 19:48
Do you think that the more you refute my arguments, the less true it will become? The truth of it is a constant, and the evidence and logic, will become ever more clear as I proceed. You still cannot see that (E=hf/c^2) is a valid equatuion = to (E=m/ c^2). You seem to be stuck here. A wave with "m", as relativistic mass, aquires rest at the "frquency/ wavelengh", where (hf = mc^2), orr (c^2) for short, sense it can be stated (Ec^2) or (mc^2). This is where "c" in liniear direction, equals and balences "c" in the 90 degree angular direction, for a balence of centrifugal and centripital forces, enabling circular and or spherical motion. This is a geometrical interpretation of (E=mc^2), which contains more information than just the equation alone. It amazes me at how many people lack the imagination, based on sound logic and mathematics, that enables this plain and clear picture of (c^2), as the point on "EM spectrum", where energy turns to matter, because it takes on circular and or spherical form. It really isn't that hard to picture, is it ? Maybe it is for some. Conrad J Countess |