Prev: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ FLIGHT RESERVATIONS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Next: superlatives of Volcano-Electricity #47 Volcano-Electricity: Earth's Energy Future
From: kado on 8 Jan 2010 21:25 I had a fair night's sleep, but really did not sleep well because I kept thinking of what topics I should bring up and how I should word these in this thread. The topic of the mistranslations and misconstruing of Newton's Laws of Momentum are addressed in my book after a lot of background is presented on how modern scientists think. I came to the conclusion that any logical elaboration on this subject of Newton's Laws will fail without this background info. So I will bite the bullet and present what I think are the most important in a condensed, so not necessary complete way. I see that no one has yet argued about my idea that light is a force, not particles, waves, or energy, radiation, etc. This is encouraging. I did not include that all forces are nonphysical in nature in the original response to C. J. Countess, because I knew this would generate a tremendous howl from the readers of this newsgroup. I also did not include that modern science does not yet truly understand mass, force and time. More shouting and hand waving. Nevertheless, I do justify these seemingly audacious claims in my book, and will try to do so in a synopsis manner herein. So here goes, and I hope that I lose all those that Uncle Al chooses to insult, because most of this will just zip well over their heads. A philosophy is a concept of reality and the truths. Philosophy separates into the sciences, metaphysics, and theology. The sciences deal with the natural. Metaphysics address the unnatural. Theology pertain to the supernatural. The ancient Greeks formulated many different philosophies, e.g., The Philosophy of Stoicism, Realism, Idealism, etc. It was during these very early days that the Philosophy of Idealism became the dominate philosophy of the sciences. The fundamental tenets of the Philosophy of Idealism basically maintains that: Since every phenomenon, object, entity, event, thing, etc., exists only in the the mind of man, and as the universe is the sum of its parts, the universe does not exist except as the perception of human (i.e., my,and/or me myself and I, the human observer's, the human looker's, the human knower's, etc.,) understanding. The Philosophy of Idealism places the human above God and/or Nature. Therefore this philosophy devised by the arrogance of man cannot be right. Furthermore, the Philosophy of Idealism is better suited for the scope of schizophrenia than the realm of logical and rational thinking. So if reality, and what is real and what is not are not fixed by human perceptions, how is reality determined? True reality is dictated by what is demonstrated by God and/or Nature as Natural Phenomenon (i.e., the phenomenon of Nature in the vernacular of Newton). The philosophy of Idealism distorts reality and all the concepts of what is real and what is not. The only giants within the scope of physics to reject the Philosophy of Idealism in the past 400 years were Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton. These two based their physics on the Natural Phenomena demonstrated by Nature, supplemented these with empirical experiments and the Natural Phenomena exhibited during and as a result of these empirical experiments, not the suppositions of man. Aristotle was a believer of the Philosophy of Idealism, so supposed that heavier bodies fall faster than lighter bodies. This supposition based on the Philosophy of Idealism was demonstrated as false by Galileo's empirical experiments. Nevertheless, all modern thinking is still based on the false Philosophy of Idealism, so all read what Issac Newton presented in Principia through the foggy and distorting lens of the Philosophy of Idealism. So to get to the true understanding of Newton's Third Law of Momentum, read on. On Jan 6, 9:17 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > Wikipedia has: snip > 3 Whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body > exerts a force ?F on the first body. F and ?F are equal in magnitude and > opposite in direction. > > And also snip > 3 To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. > > And also snip > 3 Whenever a particle A exerts a force on another particle B, B > simultaneously exerts a force on A with the same magnitude in the opposite > direction. The strong form of the law further postulates that these two > forces act along the same line. --action-reaction law > > Another site has > snip > 3 To every action there is always opposed an equal and opposite reaction: or > the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and > directed to contrary parts. snip > > Another site has snip > 3 For every action there is an equal and opposite re-action. > > Another site has snip > 3 For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. > > Its the same concept in all cases .. the difference is in how one chooses to > word it (as english, like most languages, is now very precise, and things > can be expressed in numerous ways). Fortunately, expressing the formulas > mathematically helps resolve any ambiguities of language. That's why 'laws' > in physics are expressed mathematically. Again I say Bullshit. Only the 4th site quotes from Motte's or Cajori's translations. The 1st and 3rd imply in different words that the Third Law is only 'to or for every action there is an equal opposite reaction', and the balance of the sites blatantly state so. There are many more sites on the internet that also parrot this belief. In fact all the current text and reference books maintain that FAPP, Newton's Third Law of Momentum is only 'To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction' and leave off all the text and so all the ideas following the colon found in the quote of the 4th site. This omission has a tremendous impact on the true understanding of the Third Law. The first part, i.e., 'To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction' is only a sort of preamble to the real crux of the Third Law. Newton employed this first part only to justify the second part, just as he used the first part of the First Law, i.e., 'Every bodies continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line (i.e, the effect of inertia that he defined in Definition III), as sort of a preamble to clarify 'unless it is compelled to change that state (of inertia) by FORCES IMPRESSED upon it. In other words; it is the the notion that 'the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts' is the real message of the Third Law. There are many reasons why mainline science got this Law so screwed up. The first is that Motte mistranslated Newton's use of the Latin word 'sive' to be 'or' rather than 'therefore, consequently, thus', etc., and James C. Maxwell further muddied the Third Law by stating " Law III - Reaction is also always equal and opposite to reaction, that is to say, the actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal and in opposite directions." So modern science thinks the that the forces APPLIED by each of any two interacting bodies are equal and opposite. This is not what the Third Law maintains. Newton maintained that the forces ACTING on each of any two interacting bodies are equal and opposite. So the correct, but due to all the existing dogmas, a cumbersome interpretation of Newton's Third Law is: As the action of any body (body A) upon any interacting body (body B) is the force applied by this body A to change the momentum of the subject body B; and for every action force applied by body A, there is always an equal and opposite reactive effect placed upon this same body A due to the inertia of body B resisting any change of its momentum: Therefore (consequently) whenever any two bodies interact and apply action forces (that need not necessarily be, and seldom is equal magnitude, nor always exactly opposite in direction) upon each other, the total motive force (i.e., the cause for the effect [i.e., the change of momentum] described by the Second Law) upon either specific one of any two interacting bodies is the vector sum of the equal and and opposite reaction to the action of this particular one (i.e., the force to change the state of inertia [i.e. momentum] of the other interacting body as explained by the second part of Newton's First Law) and the ACTION OF THE OTHER, and this total impressed motive force is always equal in magnitude and opposite in direction of that directed upon the other. So a true restatement of Newton's Third Law of Momentum in plain English is: LAW III To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction: consequently the total motive force acting upon either one of any two interacting bodies is the vector sum of the reaction to the action of this one and the action of the other, and this is always equal and opposite that directed upon the other. There are many other points, ideas, concepts, etc., of the Classical Newtonian Mechanics that deviate from those presented in Principia. These are covered in detail the treatise 'The Search for Reality and the Truths'. This book addresses even more about Newton's Second Law. But these will have to wait. I'm going to just sit back for now, and read all the flack that this post is bound to generate. D. Y. Kadoshima
From: cjcountess on 9 Jan 2010 14:37 On Jan 8, 2:56 pm, jbriggs444 <jbriggs...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 7, 4:51 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > In light of what Al just said, we can extend the ideas that obstruct > > progress in physics, to people who obstruct progress. > > The idea that progress in physics is engendered to any significant > degree on sci.physics is somewhere to the left of absurd. The idea > that Uncle Al is a key stumbling block preventing that from happening > is even more absurd. > > Uncle Al is intelligent. And does not suffer fools gladly. > > It is no service to "progress in physics" or to an idiot to pretend to > that idiot that his or her ideas are sensible. > > What's the saying -- "it's pointless to try to teach a cat how to do > physics. It only frustrates you and annoys the cat"? > > The idea that c^2 has an interpretation in terms of rotating the speed > of light by 90 degrees and taking a vector cross product that is > somehow more fundamental than its interpretation in terms of a unit > conversion factor required when using an un-natural system of units > where c != 1 is, to me, ludicrous on its face. I dont care about your personal feelings toward me, just state your case for what you have claimed. The same goes for Al. I already made him look foolish and so now you want to join him. When I first encountered Al here: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c3d2094579aeee47?hl=en He stated: > Tell us how affine/teleparallel gravitation makes exactly the same > predictions - qualitative and quantitative to the lst decimal place - > as metric gravitation but without spacetime curvature. You can't have > it both ways, buddy boy. Either the equations are parity-even scalars > and tensors with spacetime curvature or parity-odd pseudoscalars and > pseudotensors with spacetime torsion. > > Go ahead, tell us how a curvature looks like a Lorentz force. Since than I have shown how a wave is compressed by Lorentz force, which is = to Doppler effect measured as E=hf/c^2 or E=m/c^2 into spacetime curvature measured as E=hf=mc^2 as deBroglie stated. Just because you cannot see that c^2, is not just a mathematical conversion factor, with not physical structure, at quantum level, where E=hf=mc^2, and energy equals, and turns into matter, because it takes on a circular and or spherical form, shows your lack of sense. I have analogical, logical, mathematical, geometrical, and statistical, evidence to back it, and there is no way around it, except to deliberately close your eyes, because you refuse to swallow your foolish pride. Just keep on believing what you do and make your case for it. I will do same and enjoy it. When you know you are right it is easy to be confident. I dont blame anyone if they dont see this right away because it is a new discovery, but to deny evidence that is so clear it speaks for itself, and is right in your face, is itself ludicrous on its face. And oh yea, as for advancing physics on sci physics, even Al is trying to advance physics on sci physics, and thinks that mainstream physicist are obstructing its path, did you see his link: http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm And if you think that the so called big boys like Stephen Hawkings, dont have teams data mining, sites like these for ideas, than your a fool. And furthermore, if they truly dont than they are fools. Truth is, some of the greatest ideas come from the out of the box thinking of non professionals and my idea- discovery is one of the greatest, (E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled) and (c=sqrt-1), and I am going to enjoy proving it. You both think your so smart. I am also going to thoroughly enjoy proving you otherwise. Conrad J Countess Remember my name
From: cjcountess on 9 Jan 2010 17:45 Planck discovered E=hf previously E=hv for photons Einstein discovered E=m/c^2 for photons and E=mc^2 for matter deBrolie discovered E=hf=mc^2 for electrons of -1 charge and that electron is also a wave Bohr discovered wavelength of electron = circumference of circle with angular momentum of a multiple integer of h/2pi Therefore it follows from this and other geometrical evidence that (E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled) with wavelength = (cx2pi as energy in circular motion with momentum inversely proportional of h/2pi) and (c = natural unit sqrt-1, of natural unit -1 charged electron) Analogous to a line of 1â in linear direction x a line of 1â in 90 degree angular direction to = 1 square inch, c in linear direction x c pointing straight up in 90 degree angular direction giving rise to 90 degree counter clockwise rotation which if constant creates a circle already matches geometrical description of sqrt-1 given in reference: An Imaginary Tale: The Story of the Square Root of -1  by Paul J. Nahin page 53 paragraph 2: âsquare root of -1 is directed line segment of length 1 pointing straight up along the vertical axis or at long last, [i = sqrt-1 = 1 â 90 degree angle]. This is so important a statement that it is the only mathematical expression in the entire book that I have enclosedâ page 54 paragraph 2: âmultiplying be square root of -1 is geometrically, simply a rotation by 90 degrees in the counterclockwise sense Because of this property square root of -1 is often said to be rotator operator, in addition to being an imaginary number.â page 104 paragraph 2: âIn a revealing article criticizing Einstein's and Minkowski's c x sqrt-1 , a national bureau of Standards physicist admitted that Square root of -1 has a legitimate application in pure mathematic, where it forms a part of various ingenious devices for handling otherwise intractable situationsâ And if I further point out that, just as momentum = (h/2pi) and wavelength = (cx2pi), the radius of the circle or (r = c = h). And still further, if the amplitude is constant, wave will make 2 rotations at 90 degree angle, to complete one wave cycle, making it a standing spherical wave, of (spin 1/2) and momentum of (h/2pi/2). Its reduced Compton wave length or (wavelength / 2pi) = its radius, and also its, Schartzchild radius or (r=Gm/c^2). Its diameter as a spherical particle, = its radius, as a circle, and squeezing it below this, is said to give rise to âBlack Holeâ, according to âGeneral Relativityâ, or âParticle Creationâ, according to âQuantum Theoryâ. Reduced Compton Wavelength and Swartzchild radius, are equal here because the true Planck equality is, (c^2 = G = h/2pi) and (c = h= i=2pi = r) (E=mc^2) = (F=mv^2) and (E=hf/c^2) = (F=mv/r^2) on quantum level and they are directly proportional on macro level The same force that compresses energy into matter due to Lorentz contraction turning to space-time curvature is the same that pushes matter into each-other as gravity. Inertia mass = gravity mass = accelerated motion = (a=v^2/r) = (a=c^2/c), on quantum level. Although gravity on earth does not = gravity on moon gravity on earth = inertia on earth and gravity on moon = inertia on moon And last but not least Einstein and Minkowskie's (cti) = (E=mc^2) Quantum Gravity is found in simplicity not complexity. Conrad J Countess
From: Y.Porat on 10 Jan 2010 01:41 On Jan 3, 10:01 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Look h, is the constant kinetic or relativistic, call it what you > prefer, mass/energy, of the photon due to constant velocity of c. > It is still mass, and it is mass due to motion. And as I demonstrated, > even rest mass, is relative mass, in circular and or spherical > rotation. They are two aspects of the same thing. The whole universe > is in constant motion, and one might say that motion is more of a > constant than anything at rest. All mass come from energy in motion, > even rest mass, which is energy in rotation. > Like I said earlier, in equation (E=hf/c^2), h is constant mass/ > energy due to constant velocity of, c and, f is variable mass/ > energy, due to variable frequency. And higher mass/energy is due to > higher kinetic energy of motion, because higher frequency come from > higher motion of higher cycles per time unit, and translates to more > speed,.and correspondingly higher kinetic energy. In the old days the > equation (E=hf), was written as (E=hv), showing its direct > correspondence to (F=mv), as indeed they are equal on the quantum > level and directly proportional on macro level. And they updated > equation E=hf/c^2 is equal to F=mv/r^2. > Earlier I stated that E=hf/c^2 did not pertain to rest mass but it > does at the high end of the EM spectrum because when E=hf=c^2 or as > deBrolie stated E=hf=mc^2 as 1/1 = 1x1 = 1 /c^2 = x c^2. > > On Dec 30 2009, 6:57 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "cjcountess" <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >news:bdd1649a-aa33-4ac9-b17c-38428f2ede65(a)37g2000vbn.googlegroups.com... > > > > 1) Planck discovered E=hf for photons > > > 2) Einstein discovered E=mc^2 for electron's/matter > > > 3) deBroglie discovered (E=hf) = (E=mc^2) for electron of -1 charge, > > > and that electron was also a wave. > > > 4) Bohr discovered that the wavelength of electron is equal to > > > circumference of circle with angular momentum of a multiple integer of > > > h/2pi > > > 5) Therefore it follows from this and other evidence, that (E=mc^2) = > > > (E= mc^circled) and c=(square root of -1) > > > You were going well up until you started with that last line of nonsense. > > > If c=(square root of -1), then c is no longer a real number, and cannot be > > the speed of anything measured. Further, if c=(square root of -1), then c^2 > > = -2, so E = mc^2 becomes E = -m, and that is absolute nonsense. > > c = the natural unit, sqrt of the natural unit -1, and is no longer > just an imaginary number, but a real natural unit just as the electron > is the real natural unit -1. > And yes E= -m in this special case. > Ever heard of the unity of the constants? As everything in the > universe come from a unified source as we get to the constants in > nature we find that they too extend from a unity. > (c^2 = G = h/2pi) and (h = c= i = 2pi) so far Ive found that all > constants can be traced to a unity with c > In equation E=hf/c^2 and F=mv/r^2, c = r > > Conrad J Countess ----------------------- good for you Countless !! anyway i forgot whop said it first that 'ENERGY IS MASS IN MOTION!! EVEN IN MICROCOSM' !! can you remember who said it first (:-) ATB Y.Porat ------------------------------
From: Y.Porat on 10 Jan 2010 01:47
On Jan 9, 9:37 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jan 8, 2:56 pm, jbriggs444 <jbriggs...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 7, 4:51 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > In light of what Al just said, we can extend the ideas that obstruct > > > progress in physics, to people who obstruct progress. > > > The idea that progress in physics is engendered to any significant > > degree on sci.physics is somewhere to the left of absurd. The idea > > that Uncle Al is a key stumbling block preventing that from happening > > is even more absurd. > > > Uncle Al is intelligent. And does not suffer fools gladly. > > > It is no service to "progress in physics" or to an idiot to pretend to > > that idiot that his or her ideas are sensible. > > > What's the saying -- "it's pointless to try to teach a cat how to do > > physics. It only frustrates you and annoys the cat"? > > > The idea that c^2 has an interpretation in terms of rotating the speed > > of light by 90 degrees and taking a vector cross product that is > > somehow more fundamental than its interpretation in terms of a unit > > conversion factor required when using an un-natural system of units > > where c != 1 is, to me, ludicrous on its face. > > I dont care about your personal feelings toward me, just state your > case for what you have claimed. The same goes for Al. I already made > him look foolish and so now you want to join him. > When I first encountered Al here:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c3d2094579aeee47?hl=en > > He stated: > > > Tell us how affine/teleparallel gravitation makes exactly the same > > predictions - qualitative and quantitative to the lst decimal place - > > as metric gravitation but without spacetime curvature. You can't have > > it both ways, buddy boy. Either the equations are parity-even scalars > > and tensors with spacetime curvature or parity-odd pseudoscalars and > > pseudotensors with spacetime torsion. > > > Go ahead, tell us how a curvature looks like a Lorentz force. > > Since than I have shown how a wave is compressed by Lorentz force, > which is = to Doppler effect measured as E=hf/c^2 or E=m/c^2 into > spacetime curvature measured as E=hf=mc^2 as deBroglie stated. > Just because you cannot see that c^2, is not just a mathematical > conversion factor, with not physical structure, at quantum level, > where E=hf=mc^2, and energy equals, and turns into matter, because it > takes on a circular and or spherical form, shows your lack of sense. > I have analogical, logical, mathematical, geometrical, and > statistical, evidence to back it, and there is no way around it, > except to deliberately close your eyes, because you refuse to swallow > your foolish pride. > Just keep on believing what you do and make your case for it. > I will do same and enjoy it. When you know you are right it is easy to > be confident. > I dont blame anyone if they dont see this right away because it is a > new discovery, but to deny evidence that is so clear it speaks for > itself, and is right in your face, is itself ludicrous on its face. > > And oh yea, as for advancing physics on sci physics, even Al is > trying to advance physics on sci physics, and thinks that mainstream > physicist are obstructing its path, did you see his link:http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm > > And if you think that the so called big boys like Stephen Hawkings, > dont have teams data mining, sites like these for ideas, than your > a fool. And furthermore, if they truly dont than they are fools. > Truth is, some of the greatest ideas come from the out of the box > thinking of non professionals and my idea- discovery is one of the > greatest, (E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled) and (c=sqrt-1), and I am going to > enjoy proving it. > > You both think your so smart. > > I am also going to thoroughly enjoy proving you otherwise. > > Conrad J Countess > > Remember my name ------------------- Good for you Countless !!!! dont let all the imbecile parrot gangsters hold you back we are going to win not them!! (that is why they are in panic !!) ATB Y.Porat |