Question from johnreed for PD
in [Relativity]
|
From: mpc755 on 27 Jul 2010 11:15 On Jul 27, 10:55 am, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > On Jul 27, 7:53 am, thejohnlreed <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 27, 1:16 am, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 26, 11:00 pm, thejohnlreed <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > You have not explained in anything I have read what is meant by > > > conserved resistance. Resistance to what? How is it measured? > > > > Why include "conserved" in the definition? Isn't that an experimental > > > question? What mass is conserved in the annihilation of particle with > > > anti-particle? > > > jr writes> Weight is a quantity that we feel. Like force. We lift an > > object and we feel resistance to the force we apply. We say we feel > > its weight. In order to determine the magnitude of what we > > feel we have to compare that object to another standardized object of > > such and such a resistance (what we feel and call weight) . We use a > > measuring device the simplest of > > which is a two pan balance scale. We place the object in one pan and > > we blance both pans where the items we use to balance the object we > > lifted have graduated magnitude based on some consistent standard. > > > Balancing the object we lift against a standard object we lift gives > > us a number we can call the weight of an object, which we feel. What > > the balance scale is doing is comparing mass (resistance). Each pan > > has [g] > > acting on it to start. As we increase the magnitude in one pan and > > then another and so on until a balance is obtained [g] has not been a > > part of the action except in terms of what we feel. The magnitude of > > [g] has not changed beyond the miniscule change during the up and > > down > > action of the scale while it is being balanced. The end result on > > balance is not a comparison of [mg]. [g] is not being balanced. Each > > mass is being balanced. We balance the mass and we feel the weight. > > Weight is subjective but the mass is being compared. > > > Consider a pure element. Imagine that we can place one atom at a time > > in a pan. We have a standard mass in the other pan. We can place one > > atom at a time in the pan until it is balanced against the mass in > > the > > other pan. When we lift either the pan with atoms or the pan with the > > standard mass we feel weight. We feel the combination [mg]. The > > balance scale compares the mass (resistance) and we feel the weight. > > The balance scale > > feels nothing. All it can do is compare the mass (resistance). > > Classical atomic mass is conserved. > > Mass measure here is a comparison of resistance. Conserved resistance. > > Current web address:http://groups.google.com/group/thejohnreed > > > The Fireside Chat paper at the URL above is probably the fastest way > > to get a comprehensive handle on my position. > > Thanks for the explanation. I would never have guessed! > > What you call resistance is usually called gravitational force. You > say it is conserved. Conservation is a concept defined with respect to > a process. What process do you have in mind? > > Your 'resistance' is not conserved under transport to another planet, > or even transport on the earth between Mt. everest and Death Valley. > It is not even conserved in the chemical reaction between hydrogen and > oxygen. > > Mass as usually defined is conserved under transport on earth. It is > definely not conserved under nuclear fission. > > I can't find much to recommend in yout new definition. > > Uncle Ben Dark matter and matter are different states of the same material. 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A. EINSTEIN http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as dark matter. As matter converts to dark matter it expands in three dimensional space. The effect this transition has on the dark matter and matter which exists in the neighboring three dimensional space is energy. Mass is conserved under nuclear fission. Mass is conserved.
From: Uncle Ben on 27 Jul 2010 14:39 On Jul 27, 12:30 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > Napoleon Bonehead doesn't know a closing speed from a relative velocity. > Closing speed did not differ from relative velocity before SR. In SR, time depends on one's frame of reference. Closing speed is taken to be w.r.t. the frame of reference in which the two velocities are measured. Relative velocity is taken to be w.r.t. one of the two points. Thus the closing speed of two light beams closing head-on is 2c. The relative velocity of one with respect to the other is 1c. John Parker doesn't believe in SR, so he differs. Even in GB, it's a free country, so God bless you, John Parker. Napoleon Bonehead
From: Androcles on 27 Jul 2010 15:24 "Uncle Ben" <ben(a)greenba.com> wrote in message news:1a76fcb0-ca5d-42f3-8c8e-e98079d01d74(a)j19g2000vbh.googlegroups.com... On Jul 27, 12:30 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > Napoleon Bonehead doesn't know a closing speed from a relative velocity. > Closing speed did not differ from relative velocity before SR. In SR, time depends on one's frame of reference. =================================================== In SR: It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in the stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to the stationary system we call it ``the time of the stationary system.'' -- Albert Einstein Any system approaching the stationary system must be the moving system. The velocity of light approaching the stationary system from the moving system is c+v. The red, green and blue pointers are all stationary systems in one's frame of reference. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/closing.gif Babbling Napoleon Bonehead doesn't know a closing speed from a relative velocity, nor can he state the difference, nor can he quote Einstein to support his lunacy. Closing speed does not differ from relative velocity after SR.You are fucked, Napoleon Bonehead Green. May your Devil curse you, stupid religious bigot.
From: thejohnlreed on 27 Jul 2010 23:58 On Jul 27, 7:55 am, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > On Jul 27, 7:53 am, thejohnlreed <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 27, 1:16 am, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 26, 11:00 pm, thejohnlreed <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > You have not explained in anything I have read what is meant by > > > conserved resistance. Resistance to what? How is it measured? > > > > Why include "conserved" in the definition? Isn't that an experimental > > > question? What mass is conserved in the annihilation of particle with > > > anti-particle? > > > jr writes> Weight is a quantity that we feel. Like force. We lift an > > object and we feel resistance to the force we apply. We say we feel > > its weight. In order to determine the magnitude of what we > > feel we have to compare that object to another standardized object of > > such and such a resistance (what we feel and call weight) . We use a > > measuring device the simplest of > > which is a two pan balance scale. We place the object in one pan and > > we blance both pans where the items we use to balance the object we > > lifted have graduated magnitude based on some consistent standard. > > > Balancing the object we lift against a standard object we lift gives > > us a number we can call the weight of an object, which we feel. What > > the balance scale is doing is comparing mass (resistance). Each pan > > has [g] > > acting on it to start. As we increase the magnitude in one pan and > > then another and so on until a balance is obtained [g] has not been a > > part of the action except in terms of what we feel. The magnitude of > > [g] has not changed beyond the miniscule change during the up and > > down > > action of the scale while it is being balanced. The end result on > > balance is not a comparison of [mg]. [g] is not being balanced. Each > > mass is being balanced. We balance the mass and we feel the weight. > > Weight is subjective but the mass is being compared. > > > Consider a pure element. Imagine that we can place one atom at a time > > in a pan. We have a standard mass in the other pan. We can place one > > atom at a time in the pan until it is balanced against the mass in > > the > > other pan. When we lift either the pan with atoms or the pan with the > > standard mass we feel weight. We feel the combination [mg]. The > > balance scale compares the mass (resistance) and we feel the weight. > > The balance scale > > feels nothing. All it can do is compare the mass (resistance). > > Classical atomic mass is conserved. > > Mass measure here is a comparison of resistance. Conserved resistance. > > Current web address:http://groups.google.com/group/thejohnreed > > > The Fireside Chat paper at the URL above is probably the fastest way > > to get a comprehensive handle on my position. > > Thanks for the explanation. I would never have guessed! > > What you call resistance is usually called gravitational force. You > say it is conserved. Conservation is a concept defined with respect to > a process. What process do you have in mind? > > Your 'resistance' is not conserved under transport to another planet, > or even transport on the earth between Mt. everest and Death Valley. > It is not even conserved in the chemical reaction between hydrogen and > oxygen. > > Mass as usually defined is conserved under transport on earth. It is > definely not conserved under nuclear fission. > > I can't find much to recommend in yout new definition. > > Uncle Ben Uncle Ben View profile More options Jul 27, 7:55 am On Jul 27, 7:53 am, thejohnlreed <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: - Show quoted text - Thanks for the explanation. I would never have guessed! What you call resistance is usually called gravitational force. jr writes> Now that is penetrating. That is how far back I have had to go to start to straighten this mess out. Gravitational force is the force we feel when we act on resistance. The planet attracts matter. We act on the cumulative resistance of that matter. The force we feel is not acting on our resistance. We feel the cumulative resistance of our atoms as the planet attractor pulls on our atoms. We call these atoms our mass. And that works for us so well because mass is the resistance we work against. Whatmore do we require? We can define the universe in terms of the force we feel since it is that force we work against and quantify in units of conserved mass. We don't need toknow that we are working against the cumulative resistance of atoms and we can maintain our limited mathematically supported functional ignorance. I know you would never have guessed. You are right what I call resistance you call gravitational force. It sure took you a long time to get that. We feel the same atoms when we accelerate in opposition to the direction the planet pulls on our atoms. We feel our atoms when we act in opposition to a state of rest or in opposition to a state of constant motion. In all cases the force we feel is the resistance of atoms. We act on resistance and we feel an equal and opposite force because our effort is equal and opposite to the resistance we act on. Somewhere you start a rant on relativistic. I never used that term to describe anything. Have a good time Ben jr
From: thejohnlreed on 28 Jul 2010 01:19
On Jul 27, 7:02 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 26, 10:00 pm, thejohnlreed <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > jr writes> Yes. The property is conserved resistance. I don't think this works as a good definition, either. See the two- photon example I mentioned earlier, where this is no ability whatsoever to impose an acceleration on this system with an applied force, but there is nonetheless mass. jr writes> Let me provide a broad overview of my intent. 1) I intend to redefine atomic structure in terms of compacted electromagnetic fields. No particals internal to the atom. That cannot be done as long as we think there is a universal gravitational force. 2) I am redefining gravitational force as a force we feel as living objects in response to resistance. We act on resistance and we feel the force we exert. The cause of that resistance is undoubtably universal, it just is not the force we call gravity. - Show quoted text - I think you missed my point. > Newton's > notion of mass is 400 years old and we've learned some interesting > things about matter. > jr writes> Here you write of Newton's mass as 400 years old, and write > that we have learned more about matter since Newton. You appear to be > referencing matter and mass as a near synonymous interchangeable pair > of words. Sorry, that was a typo. I meant we've learned a lot about mass since Newton. > If your definition for mass was the quantitative measure of > the conserved cumulative resistance of atoms no ambiguity would exist. > Mass is a measure of the resistance of matter. > An example is light. > jr writes> You speak of light as though it is a quantity not dependent > on our sense of vision. Do you mean the quantity we detect > illuminating an object. Or do you mean electromagnetic radiation? The > difference is in the fact that we can see the illuminated object but > we can't see EMR (light?). This is wrong. We do not "see" an object directly. We see light (electromagnetic radiation) emitted or scattered from the object. Our eyes are sensitive to electromagnetic radiation within a certain range of frequencies. jr writes> Yes I know. There is the band we call visible light. But our eyes see objects illuminated at these frequencies. We do not see the actual naked EMR. Look at the night sky. EMR gushing every which a way. We only see illuminated objects. Consider the high school physics lab demonstration where the beam of light passes through the evacuated bell jar and we see the point of entry and exit but the light beam is broken to our vision inside the evacuated jar. Our eyes are sensitive to illuminated objects at certain frequencies but we require the illuminated object. Which is effective in terms of natural selection. Now I know that you will protest this because you believe that our brains react to naked EMR (somehow) and build old historical images from that old arriving EMR. Like a geiger counter or other passive receptive device that relies on arriving or reflecting EMR rather than a capability to respond directly to a distance object's frequency. The Fizeau experiment sets up such a synchronous frequency response. But it is a matter of interpretation. You know that the eye brain connection is mind boggling in its complexity. Our eyes see through space. If our eyes had to wait for old photons (Einstein's billiard balls) to deliver a historical image, that no longer exists, what is the purpose of the capability to see through space? I guess it is on that point we disagree here. You think the eye is passive and must receive photons that carry old images in some kind of electromagnetic code and I consider that notion quite absurd. John, I'm afraid this is all high school physics stuff, nothing new. jr writes> The point is I am bringing something new to the table. It happens to consist of a re-interpretation of high school physics stuff. I did not invent the problem. I back tracked to find it. And was much disappointed when I recognized how far back I had to go. And how broadly I had to sweep. > Light is not matter. Light comes in energy chunks > called photons. > jr writes> Are the magnitude of these energy chunks calculated in > Planck units? You mean EMR comes in those chunks. What if EMR > (frequencies) were chopped up by the atom according to its rules and > then released by the atom according to its rules? Where would photons > be? > Interestingly, a single photon does not have mass, but > a system of two photons usually DOES. > jr writes> From two nothings come a something. Nice. Photons are not nothing. But what is important to draw from this is that mass is not an additive property of objects. If you have object A with mass mA and object B with mass mB, the mass of a system containing only A and B will not necessarily be mA+mB. jr writes> I have no disagreement with this in the particle world. Mass is not conserved in that world. Therefore using mass and momentum and energy in the particle world is effective only to the extent that these quantities are consistent with least action motion. Frequency and wavelength are internal atomic quantities. Electromagnetism is the stuff of atoms. Have a good time jr - Show quoted text - |