Prev: The Black Knight Satelite
Next: SR is not wrong but it is incomplete
From: Sue... on 21 Jun 2010 09:55
On Jun 21, 4:30 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> On Jun 20, 11:50 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 19, 3:13 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >  > Some recent experiments may decide the issue and It seems related
> >  > to how light's momentum was handled (or mishandled)  in this thread.
> >  >
> > Yes, I did browse that page awhile back, and there is a reference to
>
> >http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/EM/pfiefer_rmp_79_119...
>
> > Timo et al do claim to resolve the issue, as does another paper I linked
> > to somewhere in this thread.
>
> FWIW, we don't resolve the issue, or claim to resolve it. As far as an
> issue exists in this, it was resolved in the '60s (we cited de Groot
> and Suttorp 1972 and Penfield and Haus 1967). Since then, it hasn't
> been (or shouldn't have been considered as) a question of physics, but
> a question of nomenclature.

IMHO the *nomenclature" will again be a question with
more sensitive experiments like:

"Sub-millimeter Tests of the Gravitational Inverse-square Law"
Authors: C.D. Hoyle et al
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0405262

"A quantum trampoline for ultra-cold atoms"
Authors: Martin Robert De Saint Vincent met al
http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.0203

Of course there is plenty of effort in the LHC that
takes a different view.

Sue...


>
> --
> Timo

From: NoEinstein on 23 Jun 2010 13:40
On Jun 20, 9:54 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
Dear Sue: KE = 1/2mv^2 has the "KE" varying, exponentially, while the
input energy, the velocity, is varying linearly. That's a clear
violation of the Law of the Conservation of Energy, just like SR is.
You are a "slow learner", Sue. If you don't understand this reply,
please explain your problem. — NoEinstein —
>
> On Jun 20, 8:34 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com"
> [...]
>
>
>
> >  >
> >  > > Hey Sue.
> >  >
> >  > > Yes, I did browse that page awhile back, and there is a reference to
> >  >
> >  > >http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/EM/pfiefer_rmp_79_119...
> >  >
> >  > > Timo et al do claim to resolve the issue, as does another paper I
> > linked
> >  > > to somewhere in this thread. I don't know what to believe. If
> > propulsion
> >  > > takes place, then the perfect reflector does not exist within that
> >  > > situation, since work was done on the reflector. Characterizing how
> > this
> >  > > transfer works is troubling, and I would just as soon deny that
> >  > > propulsion takes place. Still, the radiometer experiments turned
> >  > > radiation pressure experiments(e.g. Nichols in strong vacuum) are
> >  > > supposedly upheld, though I have not gotten decent access to some of
> >  > > these. I can see how to an etherist the odor would be strong here.
> >  >
> >  > This paper also claims both are
> > correct.
>
> http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v104/i7/e070401
>
> >  > ~a matter of preference~
> >  >
>
> > Too bad I can't access it. As you suggest, or at least your crypic way
> > makes me think, that like the trousers with an extra leg this
> > informational problem does suggest that a collapsed form could exist, so
> > that these two theories would not be able to arise.
>
> Nature always has the ultimate collapsed version.
> It would be easier to see her cards if we had experiments
> that could distinguish changes of less than 10^40.
>
> Consider the U.S. census. A statistical method would far
> more accurate than present counting methods.  Physics
> is not that different. Obberknockey tunes but once and
> Avogadro counts but once.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > > This topic is very interesting, especially for the many interpretations
> >  > > that can be offered up, starting within the imperfect vacuum and
> > the gas
> >  > > effects, but then supposedly eliminating those on into the
> > fundamentals.
> >  > > I accept that parallel theories can exist, but these should be cleanly
> >  > > isolated, almost as a curricular activity, so that within one of these
> >  > > theories the fundamentals are clearly stated, and then the
> > parallels can
> >  > > be identified, rather than mashing them up homogeneously and calling it
> >  > > one consistent theory.
> >  > > I believe that I have accurately identified this as a mechanism of
> >  > > confusion, where radiation pressure is an EM wave concept whose
> > parallel
> >  > > within the photon theory is momentum.
> >  >
> >  > If the supply of one and one half child's trousers per family keeps
> >  > all the children clothed, do we know all there is to know about
> >  > trousers and anatomy?  Probably not.
> >  >
> >  > I expect there is more to learn about momentum in dielectrics
> >  > from from faster better simulations. Tweezers and trousers are
> >  > both useful so their implementation need not wait while we
> >  > debate if and where to divide them.
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > > We already accept the electromagnetic basis when discussing light. In
> >  > > that these are physical forces then we already have multiple force
> >  > > fields imposed in an isotropic space, since electricity and magnetism
> >  > > are treated as unique, and thus allowing the characterization. Beyond
> >  > > here things get murky, and the original expressions presumed that raw
> >  > > charges exist free of magnetism, which has been disproven by the
> >  > > observance of electron spin. We might call this Maxwell's Snake; eating
> >  > > its own tail in the ultimate Maxwellian feedback.
> >  >
> >  > There is probably something like magnetic force that allows
> >  > the   e+ e- to exist separately so tail eating might be expected
> >  > behavior.
> >  >
> >  > > The claim that these forces(E&M) exist uniquely, though
> > interrelated, is
> >  > > consistent with isotropic theories of spacetime. Still, it is easy to
> >  > > see that spacetime itself is not isotropic, particularly under any
> >  > > unification implementing unidirectional time.
> >  >
> >  > Ohhh... Don't get too hung up on that. All Porsches don't
> >  > move at the same speed.  That is sufficient to consider an
> >  > anisotropic  space-time.
>
> > I am willing to go so simple as looking left and seeing a boot, looking
> > right I see a tree, and so space is not the same in all directions. This
> > may sound naive, but the space devoid of all objects is the only
> > isotropic space that there is, and it is not at all what we study. This
> > simplistic challenge to isotropic space only comes to me after seeing a
> > structured spacetime basis and how much sense it makes.
>
> If your rocket obeys:
>
>     K.E. = 1/2 mv^2
>
> then space is isotropic. If not
> the  a boot or tree too close to the path.
>
> Also, if the best vacuum is 1 atom per cc, then we
> really don't have any experiments in *space*.
> They usually involve ensembles that are not
> as controllable as we would like.
>
> > Still, this
> > naive form can stand freely on its own.
>
> Pi stands on its own and explains the inverse
> square law.  What are you going to explain or
> clarify with a different space-time?
>
> General relativity approximates gravity and
> inertia with a volume of space-time. But that
> is a useful formalism to extrapolate from
> measurements.
>
> Does a space-time explain Pauli exclusion, or is
> it the other way round?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle#Stability_of_m...
>
> Sue...
>
>
>
> >   - Tim
>
> [...]- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 23 Jun 2010 18:35
On Jun 23, 1:40 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jun 20, 9:54 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> Dear Sue: KE = 1/2mv^2 has the "KE" varying, exponentially, while the
> input energy, the velocity, is varying linearly. That's a clear
> violation of the Law of the Conservation of Energy, just like SR is.
> You are a "slow learner", Sue. If you don't understand this reply,
> please explain your problem. � NoEinstein �
>

I'm going to partially disagree with your statement here Noein. Down at
momentum, velocity, and energy things seem so fundamental that we should
not challenge the laws. Still, maybe there is some new way of looking at
things, and if that new way does exist then it could possibly involve
some reinterpretation. Long ago we have memorized
p = m v
E = m v v / 2
as fundamental equations of classical physics. Yet which one is
fundamental? They appear to be informationally redundant, in that their
components are redundant.

The derivative relationship is clearly present but in terms of v so that
dE/dv = p
Another trouble is that this E is limited to kinetic energy, and we know
that other energy forms exist. Somehow the momentum does too. This is
the point that Timo was making, though modified slightly by me here.
Momentum does not necessarily just mean
m v .
A photon has no mass and so from a naive perspective its momentum must
be zero by this line above. What we are grappling with is the question
of what is fundamental because so many concepts have arisen.

If we accept conservation of energy then we are discussing change in
energy, as in the change in energy is zero. Well, dE/dv is a change in
energy figure. To me part of what is open is that there are many energy
types. This may mean that momentum, as a word, takes on new meaning to
someone like me who thinks that momentum is strictly
m v .
There is a bifurcation here that I do not believe is properly discussed
yet. I would rather attempt a replacement theory that will not have
these problems. By the lines above mass and velocity are more
fundamental than energy and momentum, and yet mass remains mysterious.

I am not done with this analysis. I'm happy to leave it open. I can see
how some would see this approach as foolhardy, yet I have witnessed
fundamentals overlooked in mathematics. I feel certain that physics is
capable of the same behavior.

- Tim

>
>
> > On Jun 20, 8:34 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com"
> > [...]
>
> > > >
> > > > > Hey Sue.
> > > >
> > > > > Yes, I did browse that page awhile back, and there is a
reference to
> > > >
> > > >
>http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/EM/pfiefer_rmp_79_119...
> > > >
> > > > > Timo et al do claim to resolve the issue, as does another
paper I
> > > linked
> > > > > to somewhere in this thread. I don't know what to believe. If
> > > propulsion
> > > > > takes place, then the perfect reflector does not exist
within that
> > > > > situation, since work was done on the reflector.
Characterizing how
> > > this
> > > > > transfer works is troubling, and I would just as soon deny that
> > > > > propulsion takes place. Still, the radiometer experiments turned
> > > > > radiation pressure experiments(e.g. Nichols in strong
vacuum) are
> > > > > supposedly upheld, though I have not gotten decent access to
some of
> > > > > these. I can see how to an etherist the odor would be strong
here.
> > > >
> > > > This paper also claims both are
> > > correct.
>
> >http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v104/i7/e070401
>
> > > > ~a matter of preference~
> > > >
>
> > > Too bad I can't access it. As you suggest, or at least your
crypic way
> > > makes me think, that like the trousers with an extra leg this
> > > informational problem does suggest that a collapsed form could
exist, so
> > > that these two theories would not be able to arise.
>
> > Nature always has the ultimate collapsed version.
> > It would be easier to see her cards if we had experiments
> > that could distinguish changes of less than 10^40.
>
> > Consider the U.S. census. A statistical method would far
> > more accurate than present counting methods. Physics
> > is not that different. Obberknockey tunes but once and
> > Avogadro counts but once.
>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > This topic is very interesting, especially for the many
interpretations
> > > > > that can be offered up, starting within the imperfect vacuum and
> > > the gas
> > > > > effects, but then supposedly eliminating those on into the
> > > fundamentals.
> > > > > I accept that parallel theories can exist, but these should
be cleanly
> > > > > isolated, almost as a curricular activity, so that within
one of these
> > > > > theories the fundamentals are clearly stated, and then the
> > > parallels can
> > > > > be identified, rather than mashing them up homogeneously and
calling it
> > > > > one consistent theory.
> > > > > I believe that I have accurately identified this as a
mechanism of
> > > > > confusion, where radiation pressure is an EM wave concept whose
> > > parallel
> > > > > within the photon theory is momentum.
> > > >
> > > > If the supply of one and one half child's trousers per family
keeps
> > > > all the children clothed, do we know all there is to know about
> > > > trousers and anatomy? Probably not.
> > > >
> > > > I expect there is more to learn about momentum in dielectrics
> > > > from from faster better simulations. Tweezers and trousers are
> > > > both useful so their implementation need not wait while we
> > > > debate if and where to divide them.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > We already accept the electromagnetic basis when discussing
light. In
> > > > > that these are physical forces then we already have multiple
force
> > > > > fields imposed in an isotropic space, since electricity and
magnetism
> > > > > are treated as unique, and thus allowing the
characterization. Beyond
> > > > > here things get murky, and the original expressions presumed
that raw
> > > > > charges exist free of magnetism, which has been disproven by the
> > > > > observance of electron spin. We might call this Maxwell's
Snake; eating
> > > > > its own tail in the ultimate Maxwellian feedback.
> > > >
> > > > There is probably something like magnetic force that allows
> > > > the e+ e- to exist separately so tail eating might be expected
> > > > behavior.
> > > >
> > > > > The claim that these forces(E&M) exist uniquely, though
> > > interrelated, is
> > > > > consistent with isotropic theories of spacetime. Still, it
is easy to
> > > > > see that spacetime itself is not isotropic, particularly
under any
> > > > > unification implementing unidirectional time.
> > > >
> > > > Ohhh... Don't get too hung up on that. All Porsches don't
> > > > move at the same speed. That is sufficient to consider an
> > > > anisotropic space-time.
>
> > > I am willing to go so simple as looking left and seeing a boot,
looking
> > > right I see a tree, and so space is not the same in all
directions. This
> > > may sound naive, but the space devoid of all objects is the only
> > > isotropic space that there is, and it is not at all what we
study. This
> > > simplistic challenge to isotropic space only comes to me after
seeing a
> > > structured spacetime basis and how much sense it makes.
>
> > If your rocket obeys:
>
> > K.E. = 1/2 mv^2
>
> > then space is isotropic. If not
> > the a boot or tree too close to the path.
>
> > Also, if the best vacuum is 1 atom per cc, then we
> > really don't have any experiments in *space*.
> > They usually involve ensembles that are not
> > as controllable as we would like.
>
> > > Still, this
> > > naive form can stand freely on its own.
>
> > Pi stands on its own and explains the inverse
> > square law. What are you going to explain or
> > clarify with a different space-time?
>
> > General relativity approximates gravity and
> > inertia with a volume of space-time. But that
> > is a useful formalism to extrapolate from
> > measurements.
>
> > Does a space-time explain Pauli exclusion, or is
> > it the other way
round?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle#Stability_of_m...
>
> > Sue...
>
> > > - Tim
>
> > [...]- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 24 Jun 2010 11:44
On Jun 23, 6:35 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
Dear Tim: From reading some of your daily ‘back-and-forth’ with Timo,
I can generalize that you like conversations about ‘science’ that
isn’t yet firmly and correctly explained. In your reply to me, you
continue to discuss p (or F) = mv (true!) and KE = 1/2mv^2 (wrong!) as
though these things haven’t yet been determined. Please Note: I
easily disproved the latter kinetic energy equation upon realizing
that the KE was accruing exponentially (semi-parabolically), while the
input energy—the uniform force of gravity, that’s equal to every
object’s static weight—increases uniformly. Can’t a smart fellow like
you see that the energy OUT is exceeding the energy IN? *** No energy
equation can EVER be exponential without violating the LCE! And that
includes Einstein’s SR, E = mc^2 / beta!

Your problem, Tim, is that you are so used to discussing things that
haven’t been figured out, that you treat my daily explanations of my
New (true) Science as if that hasn’t been figured out, either. A high
percentage of those making ‘+new posts’ on sci,physics ask some
question. Asking questions means the person either doesn’t know, or
the person wishes to start an open-ended conversation on some subject
that is ’vague’ and not yet firmed-up as science. *** None of my +new
posts ask a question, because I already know the correct science!
For too many in this group, they love vagueness because they get to
pontificate, knowing the other side can’t win. All they have to do is
to continue to… disagree. Have you ever succeeded in getting someone
to change their mind about science, Tim?

Like I told Sue, if she doesn’t understand why the Coriolis KE
equation AND Einstein’s SR equation invalidates the LCE, to please
explain. If I could get you to realize simple truths in science, one-
by-one, and if you would let that modify your… too vague overall
notions about science, you could become a leader in science—rather
than just another “recreational”, armchair physicist who likes to
converse just for the sake of conversing. If you understand the Law
of the Conservation of Energy, say so. If you don’t understand it,
then, there isn’t much purpose in my replying to you, again. —
NoEinstein —

>
> On Jun 23, 1:40 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
>  > On Jun 20, 9:54 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>  >
>  > Dear Sue:  KE = 1/2mv^2 has the "KE" varying, exponentially, while the
>  > input energy, the velocity, is varying linearly.  That's a clear
>  > violation of the Law of the Conservation of Energy, just like SR is.
>  > You are a "slow learner", Sue.  If you don't understand this reply,
>  > please explain your problem.  — NoEinstein —
>  >
>
> I'm going to partially disagree with your statement here Noein. Down at
> momentum, velocity, and energy things seem so fundamental that we should
> not challenge the laws. Still, maybe there is some new way of looking at
> things, and if that new way does exist then it could possibly involve
> some reinterpretation. Long ago we have memorized
>     p = m v
>     E = m v v / 2
> as fundamental equations of classical physics. Yet which one is
> fundamental? They appear to be informationally redundant, in that their
> components are redundant.
>
> The derivative relationship is clearly present but in terms of v so that
>     dE/dv = p
> Another trouble is that this E is limited to kinetic energy, and we know
> that other energy forms exist. Somehow the momentum does too. This is
> the point that Timo was making, though modified slightly by me here.
> Momentum does not necessarily just mean
>     m v .
> A photon has no mass and so from a naive perspective its momentum must
> be zero by this line above. What we are grappling with is the question
> of what is fundamental because so many concepts have arisen.
>
> If we accept conservation of energy then we are discussing change in
> energy, as in the change in energy is zero. Well, dE/dv is a change in
> energy figure. To me part of what is open is that there are many energy
> types. This may mean that momentum, as a word, takes on new meaning to
> someone like me who thinks that momentum is strictly
>     m v .
> There is a bifurcation here that I do not believe is properly discussed
> yet. I would rather attempt a replacement theory that will not have
> these problems. By the lines above mass and velocity are more
> fundamental than energy and momentum, and yet mass remains mysterious.
>
> I am not done with this analysis. I'm happy to leave it open. I can see
> how some would see this approach as foolhardy, yet I have witnessed
> fundamentals overlooked in mathematics. I feel certain that physics is
> capable of the same behavior.
>
> - Tim
>
>  >
>  >
>  > > On Jun 20, 8:34 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com"
>  > > [...]
>  >
>  > > >  >
>  > > >  > > Hey Sue.
>  > > >  >
>  > > >  > > Yes, I did browse that page awhile back, and there is a
> reference to
>  > > >  >
>  > > >  >
>  >http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/EM/pfiefer_rmp_79_119....
>  > > >  >
>  > > >  > > Timo et al do claim to resolve the issue, as does another
> paper I
>  > > > linked
>  > > >  > > to somewhere in this thread. I don't know what to believe.. If
>  > > > propulsion
>  > > >  > > takes place, then the perfect reflector does not exist
> within that
>  > > >  > > situation, since work was done on the reflector.
> Characterizing how
>  > > > this
>  > > >  > > transfer works is troubling, and I would just as soon deny that
>  > > >  > > propulsion takes place. Still, the radiometer experiments turned
>  > > >  > > radiation pressure experiments(e.g. Nichols in strong
> vacuum) are
>  > > >  > > supposedly upheld, though I have not gotten decent access to
> some of
>  > > >  > > these. I can see how to an etherist the odor would be strong
> here.
>  > > >  >
>  > > >  > This paper also claims both are
>  > > > correct.
>  >
>  > >http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v104/i7/e070401
>  >
>  > > >  > ~a matter of preference~
>  > > >  >
>  >
>  > > > Too bad I can't access it. As you suggest, or at least your
> crypic way
>  > > > makes me think, that like the trousers with an extra leg this
>  > > > informational problem does suggest that a collapsed form could
> exist, so
>  > > > that these two theories would not be able to arise.
>  >
>  > > Nature always has the ultimate collapsed version.
>  > > It would be easier to see her cards if we had experiments
>  > > that could distinguish changes of less than 10^40.
>  >
>  > > Consider the U.S. census. A statistical method would far
>  > > more accurate than present counting methods.  Physics
>  > > is not that different. Obberknockey tunes but once and
>  > > Avogadro counts but once.
>  >
>  > > >  >
>  > > >  >
>  > > >  > > This topic is very interesting, especially for the many
> interpretations
>  > > >  > > that can be offered up, starting within the imperfect vacuum and
>  > > > the gas
>  > > >  > > effects, but then supposedly eliminating those on into the
>  > > > fundamentals.
>  > > >  > > I accept that parallel theories can exist, but these should
> be cleanly
>  > > >  > > isolated, almost as a curricular activity, so that within
> one of these
>  > > >  > > theories the fundamentals are clearly stated, and then the
>  > > > parallels can
>  > > >  > > be identified, rather than mashing them up homogeneously and
> calling it
>  > > >  > > one consistent theory.
>  > > >  > > I believe that I have accurately identified this as a
> mechanism of
>  > > >  > > confusion, where radiation pressure is an EM wave concept whose
>  > > > parallel
>  > > >  > > within the photon theory is momentum.
>  > > >  >
>  > > >  > If the supply of one and one half child's trousers per family
> keeps
>  > > >  > all the children clothed, do we know all there is to know about
>  > > >  > trousers and anatomy?  Probably not.
>  > > >  >
>  > > >  > I expect there is more to learn about momentum in dielectrics
>  > > >  > from from faster better simulations. Tweezers and trousers are
>  > > >  > both useful so their implementation need not wait while we
>  > > >  > debate if and where to divide them.
>  > > >  >
>  > > >  >
>  > > >  >
>  > > >  > > We already accept the electromagnetic basis when discussing
> light. In
>  > > >  > > that these are physical forces then we already have multiple
> force
>  > > >  > > fields imposed in an isotropic space, since electricity and
> magnetism
>  > > >  > > are treated as unique, and thus allowing the
> characterization. Beyond
>  > > >  > > here things get murky, and the original expressions presumed
> that raw
>  > > >  > > charges exist free of magnetism, which has been disproven by the
>  > > >  > > observance of electron spin. We might call this Maxwell's
> Snake; eating
>  > > >  > > its own tail in the ultimate Maxwellian feedback.
>  > > >  >
>  > > >  > There is probably something like magnetic force that allows
>  > > >  > the   e+ e- to exist separately so tail eating might be expected
>  > > >  > behavior.
>  > > >  >
>  > > >  > > The claim that these forces(E&M) exist uniquely, though
>  > > > interrelated, is
>  > > >  > > consistent with isotropic theories of spacetime. Still, it
> is easy to
>  > > >  > > see that spacetime itself is not isotropic, particularly
> under any
>  > > >  > > unification implementing unidirectional time.
>  > > >  >
>  > > >  > Ohhh... Don't get too hung up on that. All Porsches don't
>  > > >  > move at the same speed.  That is sufficient to consider an
>  > > >  > anisotropic  space-time.
>  >
>  > > > I am willing to go so simple as looking left and seeing a boot,
> looking
>  > > > right I see a tree, and so space is not the same in all
> directions. This
>  > > > may sound naive, but the space devoid of all objects is the only
>  > > > isotropic space that there is, and it is not at all what we
> study. This
>  > > > simplistic challenge to isotropic space only comes to me after
> seeing a
>  > > > structured spacetime basis and how much sense it makes.
>  >
>  > > If your rocket obeys:
>  >
>  > >     K.E. = 1/2 mv^2
>  >
>  > > then space is isotropic. If not
>  > > the  a boot or tree too close to the path.
>  >
>  > > Also, if the best vacuum is 1 atom per cc, then we
>  > > really don't have any experiments in *space*.
>  > > They usually involve ensembles that are not
>  > > as controllable as we would like.
>  >
>  > > > Still, this
>  > > > naive form can stand freely on its own.
>  >
>  > > Pi stands on its own and explains the inverse
>  > > square law.  What are you going to explain or
>  > > clarify with a different space-time?
>  >
>  > > General relativity approximates gravity and
>  > > inertia with a volume of space-time. But that
>  > > is a useful formalism to extrapolate from
>  > > measurements.
>  >
>  > > Does a space-time explain Pauli exclusion, or is
>  > > it the other way
> round?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle#Stability_of_m...
>  >
>  > > Sue...
>  >
>  > > >   - Tim
>  >
>  > > [...]- Hide quoted text -
>  >
>  > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>  >
>  > > - Show quoted text -

From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 24 Jun 2010 15:55
NoEinstein wrote:
> On Jun 23, 6:35 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> Dear Tim: From reading some of your daily �back-and-forth� with Timo,
> I can generalize that you like conversations about �science� that
> isn�t yet firmly and correctly explained. In your reply to me, you
> continue to discuss p (or F) = mv (true!) and KE = 1/2mv^2 (wrong!) as
> though these things haven�t yet been determined. Please Note: I
> easily disproved the latter kinetic energy equation upon realizing
> that the KE was accruing exponentially (semi-parabolically), while the

I haven't seen this developed so I'd appreciate a stronger explanation.
In this way we are in the same camp.You say KE accrues exponentially,
but exponential to what? As I understand kinetic energy objects can gain
of lose kinetic energy over time, especially with interactions with
other objects, and the reference frame does matter. I'd appreciate a
more careful explanation from you. I am interested and do enjoy
reviewing and encourage alternative theories. Still, from a skeptical
position we should challenge each other's views to help refine them.

- Tim

> input energy�the uniform force of gravity, that�s equal to every
> object�s static weight�increases uniformly. Can�t a smart fellow like
> you see that the energy OUT is exceeding the energy IN? *** No energy
> equation can EVER be exponential without violating the LCE! And that
> includes Einstein�s SR, E = mc^2 / beta!
>
> Your problem, Tim, is that you are so used to discussing things that
> haven�t been figured out, that you treat my daily explanations of my
> New (true) Science as if that hasn�t been figured out, either. A high
> percentage of those making �+new posts� on sci,physics ask some
> question. Asking questions means the person either doesn�t know, or
> the person wishes to start an open-ended conversation on some subject
> that is �vague� and not yet firmed-up as science. *** None of my +new
> posts ask a question, because I already know the correct science!
> For too many in this group, they love vagueness because they get to
> pontificate, knowing the other side can�t win. All they have to do is
> to continue to� disagree. Have you ever succeeded in getting someone
> to change their mind about science, Tim?
>
> Like I told Sue, if she doesn�t understand why the Coriolis KE
> equation AND Einstein�s SR equation invalidates the LCE, to please
> explain. If I could get you to realize simple truths in science, one-
> by-one, and if you would let that modify your� too vague overall
> notions about science, you could become a leader in science�rather
> than just another �recreational�, armchair physicist who likes to
> converse just for the sake of conversing. If you understand the Law
> of the Conservation of Energy, say so. If you don�t understand it,
> then, there isn�t much purpose in my replying to you, again. �
> NoEinstein �
>
>> On Jun 23, 1:40 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > On Jun 20, 9:54 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> >
>> > Dear Sue: KE = 1/2mv^2 has the "KE" varying, exponentially, while the
>> > input energy, the velocity, is varying linearly. That's a clear
>> > violation of the Law of the Conservation of Energy, just like SR is.
>> > You are a "slow learner", Sue. If you don't understand this reply,
>> > please explain your problem. � NoEinstein �
>> >
>>
>> I'm going to partially disagree with your statement here Noein. Down at
>> momentum, velocity, and energy things seem so fundamental that we should
>> not challenge the laws. Still, maybe there is some new way of looking at
>> things, and if that new way does exist then it could possibly involve
>> some reinterpretation. Long ago we have memorized
>> p = m v
>> E = m v v / 2
>> as fundamental equations of classical physics. Yet which one is
>> fundamental? They appear to be informationally redundant, in that their
>> components are redundant.
>>
>> The derivative relationship is clearly present but in terms of v so that
>> dE/dv = p
>> Another trouble is that this E is limited to kinetic energy, and we know
>> that other energy forms exist. Somehow the momentum does too. This is
>> the point that Timo was making, though modified slightly by me here.
>> Momentum does not necessarily just mean
>> m v .
>> A photon has no mass and so from a naive perspective its momentum must
>> be zero by this line above. What we are grappling with is the question
>> of what is fundamental because so many concepts have arisen.
>>
>> If we accept conservation of energy then we are discussing change in
>> energy, as in the change in energy is zero. Well, dE/dv is a change in
>> energy figure. To me part of what is open is that there are many energy
>> types. This may mean that momentum, as a word, takes on new meaning to
>> someone like me who thinks that momentum is strictly
>> m v .
>> There is a bifurcation here that I do not believe is properly discussed
>> yet. I would rather attempt a replacement theory that will not have
>> these problems. By the lines above mass and velocity are more
>> fundamental than energy and momentum, and yet mass remains mysterious.
>>
>> I am not done with this analysis. I'm happy to leave it open. I can see
>> how some would see this approach as foolhardy, yet I have witnessed
>> fundamentals overlooked in mathematics. I feel certain that physics is
>> capable of the same behavior.
>>
>> - Tim
>>
>> >
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: The Black Knight Satelite
Next: SR is not wrong but it is incomplete