Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


RainmanTime last won the day on June 4

RainmanTime had the most liked content!


220 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. As usual, all you've got are vague generalities. You do realize that no one takes you seriously when all you do for "debate" is throw out generalizations? But congrats for getting taken in by the video's click bait title. And the answer to the click bait question is : No. Not in the slightest! You see, because I don't stop at observing (which I did do. Watched the whole video before commenting). The next functional steps after observing are analyzing, modeling, and quantifying. It's safe to say you've done none of those because, much like a child who is amazed by a magic trick, you are under the mistaken assumption that observing with your senses can never lie to you. The video is not a statics problem. It involves dynamics from the moment the slinky is released at the top. Additionally, there is precisely zero point in identifying or tracking the center of gravity of the slinky, because this is also not a rigid body problem. The slinky is, obviously, elastic. And as such you cannot assume a 1 Degree Of Freedom (DOF), rigid body formulation to predict the slinky's motion. Although, the gentleman in the video does allude to how this problem must be solved in order to explain the aspects of the slinky motion in this situation. Prior to release the slinky is in a stressed state. It is not in its natural, relaxed spring state. Once you release it from the top, the stress will flow. Yes, stress can & does actually flow through an elastic structure. You need to model the stress flux within the slinky to predict it's motion. If you even know the elements of Einstein's general relativity equation you will see there is a stress-energy term that is used to predict things exactly like this. Of course, since I teach a class in kinematics I can actually model the situation of the slinky in that video. But showing you how to do it would be casting pearls before swine. So rather than throwing out your usual, vague, unspecific nonsense, how about you make some risky claims for what you believe is happening in the video? Because observation alone doesn't cut it in the real world RMT
  2. Yeah, ummmmm, no...none of the above fantasies. Let's recall: YOU are the one with demonstrable "schizophrenic delusions of grandeur": 1) You are the one elevating yourself without any demonstrable engineering knowledge with the "Einstein" moniker. 2) You are the one who actually believes you have falsified battle-tested physics which have been proven through their implementation in many engineering products. 3) You are the one looking at a decidedly Newtonian object as a slinky believing you have an alternate, unproven observation about it despite the fact that spring dynamics were known well before you were even a challenged sperm swimmer in your Mama's coochie. It's all you, man. RMT
  3. And this is your typical bullshit. Pretend generalized debunking. You can't do anything specific, because you do not even understand the underlying physics of what you claim to debunk. Hell, it's even worse, you don't understand the math. And that really is the height of your arrogance: you don't understand something, ergo you conclude it is bullshit. How mature! How scientific! Not only do you not understand the mathematical construct of a tensor (nor what makes a tensor covariant or contravariant) you do not even have an intuitive (much less technical) understanding of Einstein's metric tensor and how fundamental it is to the battle-tested, still not falsified, general relativity tensor equation. And your slinky video? LMAO. Yep, another exhibition of your lack of understanding! And the funny thing is, you think it is insightful, amazing, and you want people to pay attention to you because you think you've found something unexplained. In reality, any engineering graduate with a knowledge of flexible (non-rigid) structural mechanics can explain it perfectly. But they would do it with tensor math, and that's where the blank stare would appear on your face because you do not understand tensors as mathematical explanations of physical reality. Keep thinking you're on the bleeding edge. Keep congratulating yourself. The height of ignorant arrogance! RMT
  4. World War Three Scorecard? Axis = China, Russia, Iran, Nork, + client states. Allies = US, Europe (NATO-Turkey?), Balkans, Israel, Canucks, Aussies, Japan, SouK, etc. Recall, according to my reading of the actions of the last 4 years that WW III technically started in Dec 2019 with China act of bio war. WW II was Pearl Harbor WW III was COVID This also correlates with my discussion of the Age of Information that we live in, and how the end of this age would see a massive information event used in war. COVID is a DNA (information) weapon. Internet yields information weapons (the recent cyber attacks on US). The war is upon us. When will we all admit it & act like it? RMT
  5. @Einstein Go ahead. Try picking out any one of the scientific facts I've pointed you to, and try to convince me they are wrong. Why don't you start by exposing the fallacies of Emmy Noether by explaining what's wrong with Noether's Theorem? It is merely the foundation of all conservation laws of physics, which have yet to be Popper-falsified. Hell, you could win a Nobel Prize if you could Popper-Falsify any of the battle tested physics mathematics. RMT
  6. Yawn. You've eviscerated absolutely nothing. But you do like to talk big & pretend. But once again, I can & do align with the gist of this idea, because as I have made clear above, any of the three primary dimensions (Mass Space Time) are nothing but approximations when taken by themselves. So sure, I'll play along with that name game: Mass cannot & does not exist without SpaceTime. That's because Mass tells SpaceTime how to bend, and SpaceTime tells Mass how to move. It's an intricate dance, and when you try to separate them you introduce errors & (the big clue) you uncover contradictions at some level. But the effects that we see from Mass, namely inertia, are very real & very much quantified in the laws of physics that include SpaceTime, such as those I've cited above, and more. Still cannot point to anything specific I've said & explain why it's wrong? Yep, cuz that's your one trick pony. RMT
  7. Unfortunately, your questions are not "real" because they are founded upon the fallible belief that your human senses always report "the truth" to you. There is a giant difference between a "math model" and the foundational mathematics that quantify physical interactions. I completely agree that both climate, and to a lesser extent, weather models are highly fallible, especially as to how "experts" arrive at conclusions about what those math models tell them. The mathematics used in GPS for relativistic corrections to position and time, while not perfect, are much more accurate than all prior position determinating systems, combined. This is because no physical implementation of any pure mathematical concept can ever be completely precise. The N-body problem in orbital mechanics should make this obvious to any casual observer. Let's take the climate models. They are ALL based upon the battle tested Navier-Stokes partial differential equations. These are battle tested because they have never been falsified. The reason there are so many variations of climate models is the problem, and it stems from the assumptions & considerations of simplifications that individual model developers must make in order to get their models to execute. There is always the problem of the "unknown unknowns." Even if one could accurately describe all the variations in atmospheric temperature, pressure, density, humidity, & ionization, there would still be the problems of knowing initial conditions to a sufficient degree of accuracy. By far, the largest (and we are talking massive) hole in ALL the climate models is they cannot account for how precipitation occurs & how it modifies local temperates on their finite difference grids. For example: NONE of the climate models can simulate or explain the very simple concept of virga, which is rain that falls from clouds as droplets but never strikes the ground before it turns from droplets to water vapor. But the fact you conflate approximate math model implementations with formalized mathematical descriptions of physical reality is not surprising to me. It reveals the limitations of your knowledge. And all you do is attempt to cover up those limitations with your hubris. Perfect example is using a blanket assessment of "bullshit" to everything I write without pointing out precisely what aspect of my writing you believe is erroneous. You haven't changed a bit. Moreover, unlike you, I KNOW all of my descriptions contain some levels of errors & imprecision. And if, instead of making blanket assessments to dispel what I write, if you actually pointes to specific statements, you would find that I am more than willing to admit to where the errors of approximations are contained in my writings. You should try it sometime. RMT
  8. I had mentioned this in another post. It is an important fact to understand which will enlighten serious students that Time, as separate from Space & Mass, is merely a figment of our imagination. The sooner we all understand that space & time are inseparable (along with mass!) the sooner we will all make progress in understanding the true structure of our universe, and how our limited senses cannot tell us The Whole Truth. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity#:~:text=8 External links-,Description,events are separated in space. RMT
  9. The belief that time "flows" independent of space & mass is an erroneous conclusion delivered to you by your limited (imperfect) senses. Spacetime is a much closer approximation to reality than treating time as an independent dimension. But even spacetime is still an approximation. Spacetime, independent of mass is not a conserved quantity. Only those metrics which include all three fundamental dimensions (mass, space, AND time) can exhibit conservation laws. Study the work of Emmy Noether, as her work in differential calculus (specifically Noether's Theorem) represent a fundamental underpinning of why only mathematical treatments that include mass, space, and time can ensure continuity of physical states, and thereby prove physical conservation laws. If you examine the fundamental units of ALL important, validated physics equations you will see they all share one thing in common. Namely, they all express fundamental facts about physics as integrated measures on the manifold I call Massive SpaceTime. Towhit: F = ma yields units of Mass*Length/Time^2 E = mc^2 yields units of Mass*Length^2/Time^2 P = mV yields units of Mass*Length/Time Unfortunately, you will never be successful in convincing anyone you have discovered some new aspect of the physics of Massive SpaceTime until you can quantify the mathematics that describe those new aspects. If the math doesn't work (balance) the odds of it being factual are very, VERY low. RMT
  10. Indeed a very astute observation! Now, put this thought of "a Hitler" into the context of the "two Paula's" I just discussed in my latest reply to my time/frequency thread! 😳 The being we know as Hitler was a single instantiation of an "ethereal being" that lives across many times & many frequency bands. Hitler is just as much alive today, although we might call that being a different name. But there is a concept called intent or intention. These are truly eternal things. An intention to subvert & control other beings is an idea that can, and does, last for an eternity. Which is why quite literally the fight against evil intentions shall go on forever. We must begin to come to grips that the intentions we hold as individuals live well beyond our limited bodies which express only limited lifespans. RMT
  11. That's the right way to begin to think about it. But now, expand your thinking beyond sound! The sounds that humans can hear are a small (DRASTICALLY SMALL) part of the infinite band of frequencies. The same goes for the limited frequency band of the human eyes. Understand that we, as beings, can only comprehend time via our observations of how matter moves (I've explained in other posts that one mathematical definition of time is literally Matter in Motion). This means that the bandwidth limits on our human senses restrict our knowledge about time to only those things we can observe. That is why humans have designed devices (sensors, like RADAR as one example) that help us observe phenomena outside the bandwidth limits of our human senses. Here is a thought experiment for you: Imagine what your eyes would perceive if their ability to sense was not limited to the red thru violet frequency bands! What if your eyes had "infinite bandwidth?" Not only would you be able to "see what sound looks like" (your eyes would image the lower frequencies where our ears hear sound), but your eyes would also be able to see all of the high frequency signals flying around our planet resulting from our high tech radio devices. When you start to consider this thought experiment, you may come to understand that the ordering of events that we perceive as the mundane definition of "time" really cannot be the entire picture of how the universe works. This thought experiment can also help you approach an understanding of what the REAL Einstein proved to us about time in his statements about relative simultaneity not being a "real" (palpable) truth in our scientific world. Said another way, what we as humans observe as two events happening simultaneously is not real. It is an illusion that falls out of the bandwidth limitations of our sensory apparatus, and how our minds use those limited apparatuses to place events in a time sequenced order. Time, when considered separate from the other dimensions of space & mass, is not truth, but an approximation of truth. The actual truth is that mass, space, & time are mutually interacting dimensions. To try to pull one away from the others leads to errors in the underlying truth. While your mind may only be perceiving a single timeline that you exist upon, the reality of you, as a complete being, is so much more rich than what your mind reports to you. Imagine the truth that there is "another Paula." One you may believe is separate from you, but you are intimitaley connected! That "other Paula" has sensory apparatuses that operate in DIFFERENT frequency bands from yours. You both exist in what appear to be "different worlds." But in reality you both exist in the same world, and the only reason you believe you are different is because you live in different, isolated frequency wells. RMT
  12. One great thing about facts is that they still remain facts even if you don't accept them. Everything I marked as a fact IS a fact. And the Laplace & Fourier Transforms have proven the mathematical connection between time & frequency domains over & over again by predicting the outcome of actual experiments. The fundamentals of control system analysis to predict time domain system response via frequency domain analysis are why airplanes fly safely today. It's nice to see (not) that even after more than 10 years since our last disagreements that you've remained steadfastly opposed to the facts of how mathematics models & predicts aspects of the physical world. Your namesake would be shaming you for your arrogant ignorance. RMT
  13. FACT: Time is a dimension whose multiplicative inverse (reciprocal) dimension we call Frequency. FACT: Where we describe & quantify Time in metrics of seconds, fractions of seconds, and collections of seconds (minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years)... We also describe & quantify Frequency in metrics of Hertz (or Rads) and collections of those units. PROPOSED: Whatever intention you can describe for the concepts of Time Travel can, should, and do have a reciprocal description (& engineering definition) in the Frequency Travel concept. CHALLENGE: Learn how to achieve the intent of TT by exploring Frequency Travel...and all it's implications. Your Thoughts in Response? RMT
  14. From the article: "Last month, he joined over 100 AI experts in calling on the United Nations to ban robotic weapons. " Banning anything without having means to enforce said ban is equivalent to ensuring that evil people will most assuredly employ that which is being banned for their own perceived benefit. We have learned this in spades from the rash of " gun bans" and " gun free zones" in major cities across the US. In fact, part of the "need" for a WW III is inherent in the belief that government by edict & fiat is effective in achieving a just & safe society. Nothing could be further from the truth. The more governmental entities which hold power (real or perceived) believe that the best way forward is to keep restricting freedoms by edict, the more oppressed people's of the world are certain to fight back. The two previous World Wars came about because of tyrannical government movements that sought to oppress certain groups of people. You cannot blame that kind of thinking & action on AI. Mankind will always have ultimate control & veto power over AI. The suggestion that AI could "accidentally" trigger the next world war is nothing but an excuse to explain why it happened, after the fact, by a ruling elite who will forever seek to keep their explicit decisions & actions from becoming public knowledge. Claiming "the AI started the war" is tantamount to saying "the gun killed all those victims." Rubbish. There is always human intent that is ultimately responsible for such things. And the sooner we realize we have already passed the threshold from the Age of Information to the Age of Intention, the sooner we will discover how to minimize the impact of false information. It shall also herald a time where human intent can never again be hidden as a means to obfuscate information surrounding events in Massive SpaceTime. RMT
  15. Imaginary numbers mean very real things (pun obviously intended) in the dynamics of any multivariate system. Being a control systems engineer, I utilize the concept of frequency domain (the reciprocal or inverse of the time domain) to analyze any system's natural response (its transfer function) to stimulus (inputs). The solutions to the primary dynamic modes of a system (e.g. solutions to their transfer function characteristic equation) can involve mathematical roots of even orders (e.g. exponents of 2, 4, 6, etc...). And any 2nd order characteristic equation can result in complex conjugate roots that describe the system's dynamic response. When a system has imaginary roots (an imaginary numerical portion in addition to its real-valued portion) this tells us that the response of that system can oscillate between at least two different states as time progresses. This math that helps us analyze and develop control systems for physical systems is well known, well understood, and very applicable to the Massive SpaceTime universe we all inhabit. RMT
  • Create New...