Prev: EINSTEINIANS AS MARAUDERS
Next: All you have to do is c o m p r e h e n d this statement and diagonalisation falls apart
From: Evans Winner on 12 Jun 2010 00:03
,------ glird wrote ------
| There are, of course, very fine grained density
| gradients all through the unit, and you can't see them
| overtly.

The concept of density would seem to imply a duality in this
medium. Density relates to a ratio of stuff to non-stuff in
a volume. If the stuff you postulate contains no non-stuff,
how can it have variations in density?
From: glird on 12 Jun 2010 12:32
On Jun 12, 12:03 am, Evans Winner <tho...(a)unm.edu> wrote:
> ,------ glird wrote ------
> |     There are, of course, very fine grained density
> |   gradients all through the unit, and you can't see them
> |   overtly.
>
> The concept of density would seem to imply a duality in this
> medium.  Density relates to a ratio of stuff to non-stuff in
> a volume.  If the stuff you postulate contains no non-stuff,
> how can it have variations in density?

In my terms, "density" denotes "mass per unit volume", where "mass"
denotes "a quantity of matter".
In present theory, matter is made of incompressible particles
separated by void spaces; and mass is measured (in grams) by weighing
an object. Since unstructured (thus non-particulate) matter has no
weight, though, its density cannot be measured in grams.
Given that the material has no empty spaces in it, but a volume of
it may have particles present, a "gram" or a "pound" is the wrong unit
of measure for density. Even so, the quantity of COMPRESSIBLE matter
in a given volume is variable; so the density is too. I therefore
invented a new unit, a "densum", to measure density = mass per unit
volume = quantity of matter per unit volume; whether or not any of it
has weight.

If that doesn't answer your question, please let me know.

glird
From: Evans Winner on 12 Jun 2010 15:32
,------ glird wrote ------
| Since unstructured (thus non-particulate) matter has no
| weight, though, its density cannot be measured in grams.

I don't understand. If matter does not have weight, what
phenomenon is it that grams measure?

| Given that the material has no empty spaces in it, but a |
| volume of it may have particles present, a "gram" or a |
| "pound" is the wrong unit of measure for density. Even |
| so, the quantity of COMPRESSIBLE matter in a given |
| volume is variable; so the density is too.

I am not sure I understand what the operation of compression
would actually mean in the case of the form of material you
are suggesting. If density means, as you put it, "quantity
of matter per unit volume," and if matter is an
undifferentiated solid in the sense that I think you mean,
what does it mean to say that there can be more or less of
it in a given volume? It would seem that differences in
density would not be possible.
From: glird on 13 Jun 2010 11:32
On Jun 12, 3:32 pm, Evans Winner <tho...(a)unm.edu> wrote:
> ,------ glird wrote ------
> |   Since unstructured (thus non-particulate) matter has no
> |   weight, though, its density cannot be measured in grams.
>
> I don't understand.  If matter does not have weight, what
> phenomenon is it that grams measure?

Grams measure weight! Particles of matter do have weight, but
undifferentiated matter does not. That's WHY a gram is the wrong unit
to measure a quantity of matter.

> | Given that the material has no empty spaces in it, but a |
> | volume of it may have particles present, a "gram" or a   |
> | "pound" is the wrong unit of measure for density. Even   |
> | so, the quantity of COMPRESSIBLE matter in a given       |
> | volume is variable; so the density is too.
>
> I am not sure I understand what the operation of compression
> would actually mean in the case of the form of material you
> are suggesting.  If density means, as you put it, "quantity
> of matter per unit volume," and if matter is an
> undifferentiated solid in the sense that I think you mean,
> what does it mean to say that there can be more or less of
> it in a given volume?  It would seem that differences in
> density would not be possible.

If, as you said, "matter is an undifferentiated solid", you'd be
right.
Indeed, that's exactly why the ancient Greek philosophers invented the
kinetic atomic theory that matter consists of ultimate particles
individually moving in and separated by empty space.
The human mind thinks in terms of "Given this, then that follows."
The "given" is generally what a person is taught. For over 5 thousand
years, the secret answer "No" to the unasked question, "Is matter
compressible", is what everyone, including me, was taught,
One day, while trying to figure out the mechanism of gravity using
the theory that an ether made of infinitesimally small incompressible
particles fills space, I heard a voice say "Jerry! Let matter be
compressible." THAT was a totally new "given", which neither I nor
any other person would have thought of.
Within a month I solved the question of how gravity works. Along the
way i realized that if my etheric particles were compressible, then
there was (is) no reason to think they are separated by empty spaces.
Indeed, there is no reason to believe that empty space exists anywhere
in the known universe!

Rather than being "an undifferentiated solid", matter is everywhere
permeated by wave systems moving about at c; thus is differentiated
everywhere. (A wave system, such as light. is a pressure-density
gradient - grad s-d. Because a grad p cannot stand still in an easily
compressible material, it travels from point to successive point,
until and unless it meets a bit of matter -- an atom -- with exactly
the opposite grad s-d; whereupon a quantum of energy will be absorbed
and the ray will no longer exist.)
For the moment, E Winner, forget about what light etc are and think
about the ramifications of LET MATTER BE COMPRESSIBLE.
It means that "there can be more or less of it in a given volume"!

If interested in learning more, let me know.

glird
From: glird on 13 Jun 2010 11:57
On Jun 11, 6:42 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:

> On Jun 11, 3:19 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> > But nobody is willing to think out of the box
> > anymore.
>
> They do.  What they don't do is limit their imaginations to models that either violate observation, make no new predictions, or simply mirror simpler theories.>

My theory is based on "observation", i.e. experimental results
reported in the literature. It made several "predictions" -- i.e.
statements re the structures and mechanisms of nature -- that were
later confirmed by experimental physics, by people who found their own
such results unexpected and amazing.
Rather than mirroring the ignorance of present theories, mine
explains the mechanism of gravity, what light is and how a quantum of
energy operates, the intricate structure of atoms, etc etc etc.

> > Why do they keep insisting that we knew
> > everything back in the 1920's?
>
> "They" don't.  Why is it we keep testing theories, making observations, challenging models?  If we "knew everything", why would this continue? >

Because all present theories are either inadequate or downright
false.

> > Even Einstein doubted his stuff until he died.
>
> Scientists know they only have theories, not Truth.
> Cranks forget this, and Natural Philosophers snicker.
> David A. Smith

Which are you, David, a crank who forgets that his theories may be
false, or a Natural Philosopher who snickers at the idea that anyone
might understand things better than most people?
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: EINSTEINIANS AS MARAUDERS
Next: All you have to do is c o m p r e h e n d this statement and diagonalisation falls apart