Aether Displacement Rebuttal
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: CERN is your potential killer. I’ll send my last 100 baxes to that CERN worker, who will destroy the LHC.
Next: Confirm or deny
From: mpc755 on 30 Dec 2009 13:27 On Dec 30, 12:28 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 26, 4:57 pm, Paul Stowe wrote:> On Dec 26, 1:15 pm, glird <gl....(a)aol.com> wrote: > > >< How does ANYONE state an amount of pressure in units of measure other than grams or pounds? Indeed, since one discovers the "mass" of an object by weighing it, and since weight is given in grams, a gram is a unit of WEIGHT (which is the quantity of PRESSURE a body exerts against a restraining surface usc on Earth). Therefore a gram is a unit of pressure and weight and -- since the textbooks agree that weight is a force -- of force, none of which are quantities of matter. > > Accordingly, since "mass" denotes "a quantity of matter", and since > the aetheric mode of matter has no weight, a gram is the WRONG unit of > measure of mass. > > > > > >< Wow, I think now understand what you were trying to get at. Your writing style is as clear as mud to most. > > > i told my daughter what you said and asked her if it was true. To my > surprise, she said YES. When I asked her why, she said, "Because your > sentences are so long and convoluted that few people can understand > them. You ought to write short ones. Maybe three words long. AND not > take side trips in or with your logic." > > >< [snip] If you wish to communicate to the general audience you will have to learn how to express your ideas more clearly and how to translate them into terms that are standard. > > > I try to always define any of my words that might otherwise be > misleading. As to using standard terms, such as matter, mass, force, > pressure, time, empty space, particle, dimension, etc, they are so ill- > defined in present physics that almost nobody understands what they > mean. Therefore, equations in which they appear are misunderstood. > Indeed, the words NEVER appear in equations. Symbols do. Such as m, > F, p, t. And v, and c. > Worst of all: In calculus, NObody understands that "in the limit" is > forbidden. Why? Because the limit is a point. A point has no length. > Since a differential equation gives a relation between, say, length > and time -- as in v = delta l/delta t -- if either length or time is > taken to the limit, it ALWAYS equals zero. Oppenheimer found that out. > But didn't know why. > > glird What makes it hard to read is whatever it is you use to post. It makes it difficult to know what you are saying vs. what you are responding to. Why not try Google groups?
From: Paul Stowe on 30 Dec 2009 16:52 On Dec 30, 9:28 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 26, 4:57 pm, PaulStowewrote:> On Dec 26, 1:15 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > How does ANYONE state an amount of pressure in units of measure other > > than grams or pounds? Indeed, since one discovers the "mass" of an > > object by weighing it, and since weight is given in grams, a gram is a > > unit of WEIGHT (which is the quantity of PRESSURE a body exerts against > > a restraining surface usc on Earth). Therefore a gram is a unit of > > pressure and weight and -- since the textbooks agree that weight is a > > force -- of force, none of which are quantities of matter. > > Accordingly, since "mass" denotes "a quantity of matter", and since > the aetheric mode of matter has no weight, a gram is the WRONG unit of > measure of mass. > Well, yes and no... If you think of it in terms of that which is necessary to change the current state of certain types of fluidic structures of the aether, mass is the measure of resistance to that change, that's all. Thus the essence of Newton's first law... Force expresses the means of said changes thus the essence of Newton's second law. When one realises that mass is an artifact of our perception the aether QM structures and not a 'real' physical 'solid thing' then it become clearer. One then realizes E = pc = h(nu) = qV all boil down to exactly the same EXACT underlying primitives and unification occurs, naturally. That there is only, really, momentum and energy and everything manifested is artifacts of such. Mass and energy are truly the same thing, just perceived differently 'by us'... > > Wow, I think now understand what you were trying to get at. Your writing > > style is as clear as mud to most. > > i told my daughter what you said and asked her if it was true. To my > surprise, she said YES. When I asked her why, she said, "Because your > sentences are so long and convoluted that few people can understand > them. You ought to write short ones. Maybe three words long. AND not > take side trips in or with your logic." > > > [snip] If you wish to communicate to the general audience you will have to > > learn how to express your ideas more clearly and how to translate them into > > terms that are standard. > > I try to always define any of my words that might otherwise be > misleading. As to using standard terms, such as matter, mass, force, > pressure, time, empty space, particle, dimension, etc, they are so ill- > defined in present physics that almost nobody understands what they > mean. Therefore, equations in which they appear are misunderstood. > Indeed, the words NEVER appear in equations. Symbols do. Such as m, > F, p, t. And v, and c. > Worst of all: In calculus, NObody understands that "in the limit" is > forbidden. Why? Because the limit is a point. A point has no length. > Since a differential equation gives a relation between, say, length > and time -- as in v = delta l/delta t -- if either length or time is > taken to the limit, it ALWAYS equals zero. Oppenheimer found that out. > But didn't know why. Actually the concept of 'limit' is to limit collapse to a finite element. One must accept that the limit isn't an abstraction but an actual finite epsilon.
From: glird on 31 Dec 2009 11:42 On Dec 30, 1:27 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > What makes it hard to read is whatever it is you use to post. It makes it difficult to know what you are saying vs. what you are responding to. Why not try Google groups? > Thanks for the helpful suggestion. How do I do that? What difference will it make? glird
From: mpc755 on 31 Dec 2009 12:01 On Dec 31, 11:42 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 30, 1:27 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > What makes it hard to read is whatever it is you use to post. It makes it difficult to know what you are saying vs. what you are responding to. Why not try Google groups? > > > Thanks for the helpful suggestion. How do I do that? What > difference will it make? > > glird Go here: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/topics Not sure if you need a Google account or not, but you probably do. The problem with your posts is the following: ">< How does ANYONE state an amount of pressure in units of measure other than grams or pounds? Indeed, since one discovers the "mass" of an object by weighing it, and since weight is given in grams, a gram is a unit of WEIGHT (which is the quantity of PRESSURE a body exerts against a restraining surface usc on Earth). Therefore a gram is a unit of pressure and weight and -- since the textbooks agree that weight is a force -- of force, none of which are quantities of matter. Accordingly, since "mass" denotes "a quantity of matter", and since the aetheric mode of matter has no weight, a gram is the WRONG unit of measure of mass. > >< Wow, I think now understand what you were trying to get at. Your writing style is as clear as mud to most. >" Do you see how in the above where "quantities of matter." ends and "Accordingly" starts? Well who knows if that is left over from the post your are replying to or if it is your post. You have to search your post for "<" and ">" and "><" to have any idea who is saying what. Here is what google did to my previous reply: "> > a restraining surface usc on Earth). Therefore a gram is a unit of > > pressure and weight and -- since the textbooks agree that weight is a > > force -- of force, none of which are quantities of matter. > Accordingly, since "mass" denotes "a quantity of matter", and since > the aetheric mode of matter has no weight, a gram is the WRONG unit of > measure of mass. >" It puts a ">" at the beginning of every line so I know this is the post being replied to. And if you look at the top of this post you should see a ">" in front of every line from the post I am replying to.
From: glird on 31 Dec 2009 16:10
On Dec 31, 12:01 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > The problem with your posts is the following: > > ">< How does ANYONE state an amount of pressure in units of measure > other than grams or pounds? Indeed, since one discovers the "mass" of > an object by weighing it, and since weight is given in grams, a gram > is a unit of WEIGHT (which is the quantity of PRESSURE a body exerts > against a restraining surface usc on Earth). Therefore a gram is a > unit of pressure and weight and -- since the textbooks agree that > weight is a force -- of force, none of which are quantities of matter. > > Accordingly, since "mass" denotes "a quantity of matter", and since > the aetheric mode of matter has no weight, a gram is the WRONG unit of > measure of mass. > > > Do you see how in the above where "quantities of matter." ends and > "Accordingly" starts? Well who knows if that is left over from the > post your are replying to or if it is your post. You have to search > your post for "<" and ">" and "><" to have any idea who is saying > what. This is worse. > Here is what google did to my previous reply: > > "> > a restraining surface usc on Earth). Therefore a gram is a unit > of > > > > pressure and weight and -- since the textbooks agree that weight is a > > > force -- of force, none of which are quantities of matter. > > Accordingly, since "mass" denotes "a quantity of matter", and since > > the aetheric mode of matter has no weight, a gram is the WRONG unit of > > measure of mass. >" > > It puts a ">" at the beginning of every line so I know this is the > post being replied to. And if you look at the top of this post you > should see a ">" in front of every line from the post I am replying to. In what way is that better? Here's how I would have written Google's prior two paragraphs: ><< Accordingly, since "mass" denotes "a quantity of matter", and since the aetheric mode of matter has no weight, a gram is the WRONG unit of measure of mass. > > >< It puts a ">" at the beginning of every line so I know this is the post being replied to. And if you look at the top of this post you should see a ">" in front of every line from the post I am replying to. > Or sometimes like this: glird: Accordingly, since "mass" denotes "a quantity of matter", and since the aetheric mode of matter has no weight, a gram is the WRONG unit of measure of mass. > mpc: It puts a ">" at the beginning of every line so I know this is the post being replied to. And if you look at the top of this post you should see a ">" in front of every line from the post I am replying to. > glird |