Question from johnreed for PD
in [Relativity]
|
From: thejohnlreed on 28 Jul 2010 14:58 I missed part of this post when I responded last. Sorry. 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 us. We feel the cumulative resistance of our atoms as the planet attractor pulls on our atoms. We call these atoms 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 resistance of the cumulative resistance of atoms and we can maintain our limited mathematically supported functionalignorance. 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 pullsonour atoms. We feel our atoms when we act in opposition to a state of rest or in opposition to a state ofconstantmotion. In all cases the force we feelis 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. You say it is conserved. jr writes> What are you referring to with "it". Mass is conserved in classical mechanics. Mass is resistance in classical mechanics. Mass is conserved resistance in classical mechanics. Conservation is a concept defined with respect to a process. What process do you have in mind? jr writes> The measure of the conserved cumulative resistance of atoms. Your 'resistance' is not conserved under transport to another planet, jr writes> What? The measure of mass is identical on any planet or moon such a measure can be made. Our measure of weight changes but mass does not. or even transport on the earth between Mt. everest and Death Valley. jr writes> You are confusing what you feel and what is measured. Mass stays the same. Resistance. What you feel changes. Resistance. Objectively we discount what you feel. It is not even conserved in the chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen. jr writes> I draw a distinction between conserved and unconserved mass to eliminate the celestial and the particle uses of mass inclusively when describing what is being acted on by the earth attractor. What is being acted on are atoms and molecules. What we measure is mass. What we feel is weight (force) Mass as usually defined is conserved under transport on earth. jr writes> Mass is conserved on any planet or moon measure anywhere. Weight it not. It is definely not conserved under nuclear fission. jr writes> No problem there. I can't find much to recommend in yout new definition. jr writes> I'll keep trying. Thanks. Have a good time jr
From: PD on 28 Jul 2010 15:19 On Jul 28, 12:19 am, thejohnlreed <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. This is exactly what I was telling you. It's the reason the sky is blue, by the way. The light is passing from left to right, not on a path that would intercept your pupil or your retina. But the glass *scatters* some of that light sideways so that some of the light does come toward your eyes. The same is true for blowing smoke in the path of a laser. The smoke particles divert some of the light toward your eyes. Without the illumination (the incidence of light), you cannot see objects. The only reason you can see objects is because light incident on those objects caroms off the object and some of it enters your eye. > 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. Yes, indeed. This light propagation time is *measurable*. > 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? It doesn't HAVE a purpose to see through space. The purpose is to see things in the immediate vicinity (for our survival), where the propagation time is so small it doesn't matter. > 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. But WHY do you think it is absurd? Because it offends you that we cannot see distant objects as they are right now? >
From: thejohnlreed on 29 Jul 2010 17:16 This is exactly what I was telling you. It's the reason the sky is blue, by the way. The light is passing from left to right, not on a path that would intercept your pupil or your retina. jr writes> This appears to be a bit too idealized. Surely some of the light makes it through straight on, if only as a result of scattering. The sky looks large and significant from the surface of the earth, where it is merely a thin and thinning layer of gas when viewed from space. I think that where we can theorize neutrinos small enough to pass through the earth without being scattered, certainly a bit of light can pass through a thin layer of gas. But the glass *scatters* some of that light sideways so that some of the light does come toward your eyes. jr writes> Don't we require some objective measure confirming this? That light has to reach our eyes for us to see what it illuminates. If we are in a dark cave and round a corner of the cave and see in the distance a light. Or in a tunnel. Where the light casts precise shadows that are headed away from the tunnel or cave opening. You say that the function of our vision depends on the reflection or scattering of light (Photons) down that tunnel to our eyes even when the shadow of the tree near the opening is near its maximum projected size in the opposing direction. So not that unlike Rutherford's amazement, we have photons traveling straight down the tunnel perfectly avoiding its sides to arrive at our eyes revealing a perfect shape of the hole the scattered opposing light enters. Well we can stretch our quantities as far as required to support our prevailing ignorance. And this is an area where spandex rules. The same is true for blowing smoke in the path of a laser. The smoke particles divert some of the light toward your eyes. Without the illumination (the incidence of light), you cannot see objects. jr writes> This is good information. Are you confirming here that we also cannot see the laser light as it passes through the evacuated bell jar? You see this (no pun here) as invisible little photons carrying information that passes through our binocular eyes into our brains. But you see it also as something we see at a distance through binocular vision. If the eye had to wait on photons containing old information what is the property of these traveling photons that conveys depth of vision. If we cannot see through the distance, how is it the physical photons know that and compensate for that utilizing our binocular eyes to make it appear so? The only reason you can see objects is because light incident on those objects caroms off the object and some of it enters your eye. jr writes> I have read just about every publication on science I have been exposed to. I have learned that when author's say "The only reason..." or some similar directing phrase they are seldom correct, if ever. So when I shine a light on someone I must wait for the light to reflect back to me to see what I have illuminated. Where what I have illuminated must wait for that light to return to its source to be seen. > 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. Yes, indeed. This light propagation time is *measurable*. jr writes> I really wanted to do the gravity thing and then the atomic structure thing and then the light thing, but when they are all entwined and loosely supporting each other I suppose my path is directed accordingly. I have at my side say, an emitter and a receiver of "light". I emit a signal aimed at a target that reflects that signal back to me where my receiver detects its return. An interval has passed which I record and from that I can measure the speed and/or distance etc. I acquire a speed for "light" and because I believe that my binocular eyes must wait for photons to arrive I calculate the transmission of information correctly wrt my mechanical detection and submission aparatus, and because my eyes depend on the same transmission principle, I see the universe as a fairy might cast it upon me to see. > 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? It doesn't HAVE a purpose to see through space. The purpose is to see things in the immediate vicinity (for our survival), where the propagation time is so small it doesn't matter. > 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. But WHY do you think it is absurd? Because it offends you that we cannot see distant objects as they are right now? jr writes> I had the good fortune of spending my 2nd 3rd and 4th grades in Japan. Japan is one of the places on Earth where the Rubaiyat delivers a powerful message. The night sky was pristine and awesome to a 3rd grader. And that 3rd grader had been told that all those stars up there were just a figment of his imagination. I was like the child that said: "but Mama the emperor is naked", only I said nothing. I knew I had a job to do, I just had no clue as to the effort it would require. Have a good time PD jr
From: thejohnlreed on 30 Jul 2010 01:11
On Jul 27, 8:15 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 27, 10:55 am, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > > mpc755 View profile More options Jul 27, 8:15 am On Jul 27, 10:55 am, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: - Show quoted text - 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. jr writes> It appears to me that you are describing a star as it radiates away into space. It may leave darkmatter behind but it fills its surround with energy and this energy rebuilds matter. Those who look for dark matter seek to find the matter that should be there based on Newton's and Einstein's theories. Forget the idea that you can calculate celestial quantities based on magnitudes of mass theorized from Gravitational principles. Gravity is a force you feel. It does not act on you or anything else. You feel a force that you exert. It is pure presumptive foolishness to think that you are a fundamental object. Inanimate objects don't feel anything. |