Reality
in [Logic]
|
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: funkenstein on 23 Jun 2010 22:01 On Jun 15, 11:19 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Jun 13, 7:00 pm,funkenstein<luke.s...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 11, 10:06 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > There is a space filling medium. It is capable of motion and > > > resilience. It exerts an expansive pressure in all directions. > > > Perhaps you mean to say there is an electromagnetic field (tensor) > > and gravitational field (tensor) which exist everywhere in space, > > which have real physical properties. > > A tensor is a mathematical device. Other than as that, it doesn't > physically exist. That which a tensor describes, though, does > physically exist. The question is: WHAT ARE those real things? > Good question. One possible answer: a field is a moment of a distribution of some property of atomic constituents. > > >< It is but a small step from there to the recognition that this very same material substance is what is formed into the atoms and molecules of gross matter. To take that step, however, a vast conceptual chasm has to be crossed.> > > > Not really. Maxwell's equations + GR do the job, they specifically > > define charge and mass in terms of the space-filling fields. > > What are those definitions? (That is asked seriously, not > disdainfully.) > For a simplified setup not in motion, we have Charge density rho = k1*div E Mass density rho = k2*G_00 E = electric field G_uv = metric tensor where k1 and k2 are constants for your system of units. If charges and masses are in motion we also must define currents and momentums, in terms of the other components of G_uv and the magnetic field. > > >< Look around you. Look at a glass, a metal one-piece wrench, or any other one-piece object. I am now going to ask you to do something that will do violence to every instinct of a trained scientist:- Recognize that it is indeed one piece! > > An object isn't a collection of separate particles moving randomly > within a local space. It is one big particle with no empty places > inside it. Think of it as exactly what it looks like, all the way > through. It is no different than it looks. > There are, of course, very fine grained density gradients all > through the unit, and you can't see them overtly. But if you look > closely enough, you can see them too (with a little help from some > instruments.)>> So, you just contradicted yourself in that paragraph? > > > > Note. Today's theorists would say that anyone who made this claim is either uneducated or insane. {In a lunatic asylum a sane man is abnormal!} A later generation that understands the structure of the physical world will know that a material continuum fills space.> > > > I disagree. Today's theorists -are- comfortable with using the tools > > of fluid mechanics to model quantum systems, and -are- comfortable > defining fields that exist everywhere in space. It is only your > terminology that will be argued.> > > As written, "False or inadequate semantics destroyed theoretical > physics." > Do you have a reference for the quote? :) > > Replace "material continuum" with "quantum foam" or "grid" or "space-time manifold".. though of course a later generation will use other language still.> > > ANY generation that wants to understand the structure of reality > will know the meaning of "material continuum' (which means "a place > totally filled with matter"). What is a "quantum foam" and what is > "space-time", other than a mathematical abstraction invented by > Minkowski? > if you want to know WHY a moving object's path is curved by > minkowski's "curved 4d space-time manifold", (in which - since 1911 - > all four dimensions are considered equivalent, thus as spatial), don't > ask Professor Everitt - an excellent physicist.. ask a person who > knows that a void space has zero properties; thus cannot be "curved". > Members of "a later generation" will know that a void space cannot > conduct light or anything else; thus - since light goes everywhere in > the universe -- there is no such thing as a void space. > We need to be clear about what we are void of. Interesting concept, this void space without light. Perhaps it could exist on very small scales, between the components whatever they may be that make up vacuum space (in which light can travel). However, a macroscopic object's path is not void space, as clearly light can exist at every point of it's trajectory and there are real properties of the space it travels, such as E, B, and G_uv. > Either way, Luke, thank you for answering me. > > Goodbye. > glird
From: Sam on 23 Jun 2010 22:50
On Jun 13, 5:19 pm, bert <herbertglazie...(a)msn.com> wrote: > On Jun 13, 3:05 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 6/13/10 11:55 AM, glird wrote: > > > > The constructions in this book are based on the alternative premise: > > > > MATTER IS COMPRESSIBLE. > > > See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole > > Sam, Neutron stars have a [surface] gravity force that in reality proves this. > O ya TreBert Nice Example of compressibility, Herb! far from the surface the force of gravity F = GMm/r^2 is the same for main no matter what the state of the body's matter. |