The Opposing Law
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is known about this Crothers?
Next: Research supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration finds first-order violation of local Lorentz invariance
From: Ste on 5 Jan 2010 12:27 On 4 Jan, 23:05, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > It doesn't. I agree the world is not characterised exclusively by > > inverse relationships. > > But that is his claim in this and previous posts. Everything is in opposite > pairs, according to him. Well we can agree that he is obviously wrong.
From: Inertial on 5 Jan 2010 18:27 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:60fbfc34-df2f-4107-b33d-a8a46705ab09(a)p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On 4 Jan, 23:05, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> > It doesn't. I agree the world is not characterised exclusively by >> > inverse relationships. >> >> But that is his claim in this and previous posts. Everything is in >> opposite >> pairs, according to him. > > Well we can agree that he is obviously wrong. Yeup. Perhaps you've had the fortune of not read his many many previous post where he list pairs of opposites, and claims that everything in the universe is that way and it is some fundamental law. That one CAN classify things into two sets is just because one CHOOSES to partition things into two sets, because properties of different things can have different values (if they don't, its a useless property), and you can always partition a set of two or more values into two sets. That's just logic and math.
From: Ste on 6 Jan 2010 08:27
On 5 Jan, 14:17, jbriggs444 <jbriggs...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > But the assertion in play (which jdawe's next post raises to the level > of confirmed truth) is that jdawe's work product has zero sense > content. Lol. > It is easy to refute something that makes an unambiguous and incorrect > prediction. > > It is difficult to refute something that cannot even be deciphered. Indeed. > > > One problem with your reading of the posting is that it implies that > > > there's no such thing the square root of four. > > > I fail to see how that could be inferred from my post. > > Because you didn't define your terms either. You wrote "inverse > relationship" and I read "inverse proportionality" on the assumption > that you were smarter than jdawe. You might be. But not by much. Of course. But as I say, I'm not saying *every* concept, however framed, is inversely proportional to everything other concept. What I'm saying is that *many* (if not all) relationships in the physical world are at their root depended on an inverse relationship. Length and width, for example, can be expressed as a ratio of each other, and an increase in both cannot be discerned except by reference to an external measure. In other words, you can't actually tell the difference between a square of sides 1cm, and a square of sides 2cm, by reference only to the properties of the square itself - to tell the difference, you have to introduce an absolute measure, which is external to the square itself. And even then, it is impossible to tell whether the sides of the square grew larger, or the external measure grew smaller (and to resolve that question, you have to refer to yet another external measure, which itself suffers the same problem of being unable to say whether the square's sides grew, or whether both external measures shrank). > > > "an operand is never the same as its opposing operand" > > > > Apply this assertion to the equation: 4 = x * y. > > > > If we take your interpretation of OP's words then he's saying, plain > > > as day: > > > > "if we have a four sided rectangular with an area of four square > > > inches, the width and height of the window may never be two inches > > > each". > > > I think a better re-statement would be to say that, if by definition a > > rectangle (as distinct from a square) always has a longer side, then > > area = longer side * shorter side. Longer side = area / shorter side. > > Shorter side = area / longer side. > > You have a better eye then me if you can read the distinction between > a rectangle and a sqare into jdawe's posting. Perhaps I'm actually filling in the blanks left by Jdawe. But the point is that where something physical is described by two values an inverse relationship, the fact is that neither value can ever become null without the other also being null, and if both values are equal then the values are actually indistinguishable from one another (in other words, the relationship no longer exists - the two values become one and the same thing). > > At > > the point at which longer side = shorter side, the ability to > > distinguish between the sides disappears, and the shape no longer > > takes the form of a rectangle (and the formula becomes meaningless/ > > useless). > > WRONG! > > You do not lose the ability to distinguish the sides. > There is no singularity where the two sides become equal in length. > The formula continues working just fine with width > height, width = > height or with height > width. > > Your poor choice of parameter names is to blame for the poor behavior > of the resulting formula. The point is that you can't distinguish between the width-side and the height-side once the values of both are made equal - they are one and the same thing. > > So yes, by that logic if area is held constant, then adjacent sides of > > a rectangle may never be equal. > > The reason that the two adacent sides of a rectangle may never be > equal is _your_ assertion that a square is not a special case of a > rectangle. Indeed. The point is that the formula for the area of a rectangle requires a longer and a shorter side. With a square, there is no such thing - the formula breaks down, unless you *arbitrarily* call one side long, and one side short (even though all are in fact indistinguishable). That's why we have a different formula for the area of a square: length_of_a_side^2 - instead of long_side*short_side. > No matter. It's only a question of definition. Use different words > if you like. Indeed. I agree this must seem like wordplay, but it illustrates an important principle. > There is a such a thing as a four sided regular polygon with sides of > length 2 and an area of 4. Indeed. > > > > - the only point at which one quantity can become zero, > > > > and the other infinite, is at the point where the weighting platforms > > > > are vertically separated, > > > > So what you're talking about is probably an [un-]equal arm pan > > > balance. > > > Clearly. > > If you had written clearly I wouldn't have to guess. Touche. > > The scale will determine whether the weights are unequal > > and (to a very limited extent) the degree of inequality. > > It will also tell you which of the two is greater. Pay attention to > the _direction_ the needle moves. Indeed. > > Obviously if > > you know absolutely what weight is on one arm of the scale, then you > > can determine absolutely what is on the other, > > Yes. This is the normal mode of operation. I know, but knowing what is one one side by an absolute measure requires more than the scale alone. The scale can only express a relationship. It is with information *external* to the scale that weights can be determined by an absolute measure. > > But a scale with 10 kilos on each arm cannot distinguish from a scale > > with 1 kilo on each arm. Indeed, by the scale's measure, 10 kilos on > > each arm is *equivalent* to 1 kilo on each arm. But that's because the > > scale is designed to measure only relative weight - it performs its > > function by reliance on the inverse relationship between the weight > > placed on each side. > > Brilliant. I shall alert the Nobel prize team at once. As I > understand your assertion now, it is that you can't put the reference > mass and the test mass on the same side of a balance. [Actually most > commercial scales normally operate in just such a configuration. > Maybe that call to the Nobel committee is premature] > > Let me try to read as much sense as I can into your position: > > "In any otherwise isolated system where an equilibrium state is > maintained in the face of two relevant inputs, those inputs must be > (in some sense) equal and opposite". > > Unfortunately, it is easy to falsify that claim. I think you're interpreting my statements insensibly now. |