A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Physics]
|
Prev: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ FLIGHT RESERVATIONS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Next: superlatives of Volcano-Electricity #47 Volcano-Electricity: Earth's Energy Future
From: Inertial on 19 Jan 2010 21:49 "cjcountess" <cjcountess(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.
From: kado on 19 Jan 2010 22:23 On Jan 18, 7:09 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > snip > > Define 'nonphysical' > This response is not directed to Inertia, but for anyone else that may be reading this thread. This is because I really dont know how he thinks or what language he speaks, and will not accept a definition by Isaac Newton is a definition, or that exposing that Newton formulated the Three Laws of Momentum instead of the three laws of motion is not something new and profound. No, I cannot define the nonphysical. I will say it again. No, I cannot define the nonphysical, because no words, pictures, or mathematics suffice. In fact, I cannot even see the nonphysical in my minds eye, and dont even know what it is. I pondered over this conundrum for a very long, but cannot yet say anything absolutely definitive or specific about the nonphysical. So if you do not accept the nonphysical, do not despair, for you are in very good company. Isaac Newton denied the nonphysical and questioned the action at a distance that is fundamental for his own concept of the universal mutual gravitational attraction with this statement to scholar/theologian Richard Bentley: that one body can act upon another at a distance, through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matter a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Albert Einstein totally rejected the nonphysical, and seemed to almost submit to blowing away his Theories of Relativity in favor of Lorentzs Ether Theory at the University of Leyden with the following: but on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adducted in favor of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatsoever. Aristotle loathed a vacuum, and philosophized that Nature too, abhors a vacuum. René Descartes picked up this idea, and is now credited with originating this idea. The Aristotle/Descartes philosophy can be summarized as: empty space is nothing, and nothing, in, and of itself, does not exist. So both supposed that what is commonly called empty space must be filled with some sort of physical substance. In fact, all the sciences that are based on the philosophies of the ancient Greeks seem to deny the nonphysical. Then I realized that these are the philosophies of the West. The philosophies of the West tend to be based on religion, whereas the religions on of the East are based on philosophy. So I looked into (actually remembered) the philosophies of the East. This is where I actually found the sayings of the wise old sage, that are really ancient Chinese proverbs. The philosophies of the East have a sort of a love-hate attitude towards the nonphysical, but most important, do not deny it. So I looked for what else besides forces may be nonphysical, and quickly realized that time, in and of itself, is also nonphysical. Many very brilliant philosophers and thinkers studied time, but none actually claimed to truly understand time. What is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain what it is to him who asks, I do not know. - St. Augustine Furthermore, is a human thought physical? What about the human emotions of love and hate? There may be the nonphysical all about us, without humans ever realizing it, because it is hiding behind the cloak of not being understandable. So I accepted that forces and time are real, but are not truly understandable by humans. Then I took the easy or devious way out and postulated that forces are nonphysical. So if anyone out there can, or even come close to truly defining the nonphysical, I sure would like to know, because I sure cant. Nevertheless if one adheres to the criteria of Occams Razor, (e.g., the action of the nonphysical Newtonian gravitation CAN act a distance, the void of empty space IS nonphysical, etc.), and accepts that the Natural Phenomena demonstrated by Nature dictates what is real, it may be easier to accept that in specific instances the nonphysical is real, and not for just the occult, loonies, crazies, and superstitions as modern science and Western philosophers are so wont to believe. Again, all this is covered in greater detail in my copyrighted treatise titled: The Search for Reality and the Truths. D. Y. Kadoshima
From: cjcountess on 19 Jan 2010 23:54 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? Till today, I have yet to find a professor, or physicist, to explain these seemingly contridictory statements. Even, "linertia and Al", will say that, "c^2 is just a mathematical conversion factor" with no physical structure, and have no idea how energy gets trapped inside of and quals matter at c^2 Just look at Novas PBS show and the explinations of (E=mc^2) therein,http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/expe-text.html Fuethermore, listen to the explinations of, "Uncle Al", and "Inertia", and perhaps even "D.Y.K." Would this be a suitable explination for a child? Would it be suitable for you? It wasn't for me and this is why I out of everyone I know sat out on a quest to answer this question. and this is the answer I obtained after much contemplation and reasearch. I can show you geometricaly, exactly how energy equals, and gets trapped inside of matter, at (c^2), because (c^2), is not just a mathematical conversion factor with no physical structure, but is an actual "frequency/wavelength," with a geometrical structure, of energy in circular and or spherical rotation. And this is how eeergy gets trapped inside of, turns to and equals matter at (c^2) because c^2 = c^circled then even a child can understand how energy equals and turns to matter (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^ circled.) Inertia and Uncle Al cannot even understand this simple most profound idea but I bet a child can. How unvisionary of them The geometrical interpretation of (E=mc^2) contains much more information than just the equation alone and for that matter is a big step forward in the understanding of that equation ,as the geometry gives the equation physical form, and "a picture is worth a thousand words, or even a thousand equations". Conrad J Countess
From: Inertial on 19 Jan 2010 22:36 <kado(a)nventure.com> wrote in message news:c3edc109-31cf-4674-926b-ae8499a99656(a)r10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 18, 7:09 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> > snip >> >> Define 'nonphysical' >> > > This response is not directed to Inertia, But it is a reply to my post > but for anyone else that may be reading this > thread. > This is because I really don�t know how he > thinks or what language he speaks, Don't lie. You can tell damned well that I read and write English > and will > not accept a definition by Isaac Newton is a > definition, Of course it is > or that exposing that Newton > formulated the Three Laws of Momentum instead > of the three laws of motion is not something > new and profound. Not really > No, I cannot define the nonphysical. Didn't think so > I will say it again. No, I cannot define the > nonphysical, because no words, pictures, or > mathematics suffice. So you don't really know what you're talking about [snip more evidence of that]
From: J. Clarke on 20 Jan 2010 00:25
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? .............................................______ __ .....................................,.-'"...................``~., ..............................,.-"..................................."-., ..........................,/...............................................":, ......................,?........................... ............................, ..................../.................................................. ..........,} ................../.................................................. .....,:`^`..} ................/.................................................. .,:"........./ ...............?.....__............................ ..............:`.........../ ............../__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../ ............/(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`..... ..._/ ...........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....} ............((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../ ....,,,___.`~,......"~.,....................`..... }............../ .............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-" ............./.`~,......`-...................................../ ..............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__ ,,_..........}.>-._...................................|........... ...`=~-, ......`=~-,__......`,................................. ....................`=~-,,.,............................... .................................`:,,.............. ..............`..............__ ......................................`=-,...................,%`>--==`` ........................................._........ ..._,-%.......` ...................................., |