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: 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
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 |