Jump to content

Time is fractured


elle
 Share

Recommended Posts

Einstein,

 

..... But what I see right now is that I need to write down the modified force equation that reflects the gravitational weight vector. Now I don't know if this is new for you or not. But the assignment is to formulate that equation.

As with Darby, I grow tired of your unquantified verbalizations and distractions, not to mention your assignments. When presented with facts about how your past words were incorrect, you just want to brush them off and leave them as more dead carrion in your march of ill-formed science. Darby showed where your units of your basic equation were wrong, I also showed you where the units of "cubed acceleration" do not match proper calculus derivatives, which is what you described.

 

We cannot progress in anything new you say, because of all the incorrect stuff you have already presented, but left un-addressed. This not merely a game of "Rainman's vs. Einstein's way of deriving equations." While you stand alone with your theories (and equations whose units do not balance), Darby & I present verfied equations and laws of physics that have stood the test of time, and many greater minds that came before us. You can't keep merely ignoring the scientific facts that Darby and I point out and expect for us to wish to continue to engage you.

 

Deal directly with the points we have made above. Don't run off starting something new.

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If I measure 12 grams of carbon 12 I have 1 mole of carbon 12. How do I measure it in a weightless state. I can't count molecules to 6.02 x 10^23 and then say I have 1 mole and therefore 12 grams of carbon 12...

Of course you can't count a Mol of atoms. You put a mass of n Mols of a substance on a scale and measure the effect of the gravitational acceleration on it as the mass impinges on the scale apparatus and determine its weight. You're not really measuring its mass with the scale. Rather, you're extrapolating the mass using an equation specific to the gravitational field (Earth). You know the weight (W) and the force (g) so all you need do is rearrange the equation and isolate mass: m = W/g (m = F/a).

 

Take the same mass to the Moon and it will weigh only 1/6th but the mass will be the same. Why? The gravitational acceleration is only 1/6th with reference to Earth but n Mols is n Mols is n Mols: 6.02 * 10^23 n atoms (discounting radionuclide decay).

 

What's actually going on with mass versus weight is that in common use we tend to use the wrong term. It's not a problem because we understand what we mean when talking informally. But in a physics or chem lab the terms are not interchangeable and using them loosely introduces unintentional vagueness and errors. Mass is a scalar and rest mass is a constant in the Newtonian weak field, low velocity limits. Weight is the "F" in F = ma. Mass is included as part of the definition of weight. If mass is one part of a two part definition of weight then mass, obviously, cannot be weight.

 

Eistein's problem understanding much of physics is his misapprehension that standing on the surface of the Earth you are not subject to a constant gravitational acceleration. You are. I've told him on more than one occassion that he fails to fully analyze his physics problems, specifically the forces involved and conservation laws. The same is true with this one. I'll ask you: You're receiving a constant gravitational acceleration while standing on the surface. Why don't you fall to the center of the Earth? Think about tall, marble Roman "poles" used in their buildings. The missing link's name is similar to the proper name for the "poles". Another hint: X is to one as Y is to 10^38.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rainman

 

Deal directly with the points we have made above. Don't run off starting something new.

I am going to deal with all the points you have made above. But the path I choose is going to be to reeducate myself with the truth. Getting that truth will be fun. Where does one go to get a calculus book dated before the suspected change took place? And the equations wont be that hard for me to look at in a converted form using weight instead of mass. Apparently I was educated with algebra that does work in the real world. I did the homework assignment if you're interested. There does appear to be an attempt to remove all mention of the term weight in my physics education. Centrifugal force was one such term, that a very hearty attempt was made, to make me think centrifugal force was a fictitious force. And then there was the mention by one of my instructors about a centrifugal force term that Lorentz used in his Lorentz force equation. I was told that no one knew or understood why Lorentz included the term in his equation. So the term was removed. So I really have to ask, just what is a centrifuge, if centrifugal force doesn't exist? So what about those unbalanced equations? Did you take a look at my above example of a hover-able aircraft? Apparently from the observation, the only time gravitational weight can be set equal to inertial weight is when no acceleration is present. The two types of weight don't add together. It's like a sharing is taking place. You did slip up you know. I saw you comprehend and say something about each one of my observations. That kind of tells me you can visualize. Sort of like tasting the forbidden fruit. Now Darby is another matter altogether. Kind of like a slippery snake. He's good. I still don't know if he's tasted the forbidden fruit. But I'll get him. He'll slip up eventually.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darby

 

Einstein's problem understanding much of physics is his misapprehension that standing on the surface of the Earth you are not subject to a constant gravitational acceleration. You are. I've told him on more than one occassion that he fails to fully analyze his physics problems, specifically the forces involved and conservation laws. The same is true with this one. I'll ask you: You're receiving a constant gravitational acceleration while standing on the surface. Why don't you fall to the center of the Earth? Think about tall, marble Roman "poles" used in their buildings. The missing link's name is similar to the proper name for the "poles". Another hint: X is to one as Y is to 10^38. ]

You know I'm just using the observable facts to support my claim. The fact that there is no measurable acceleration through space, while an object sits on the surface of the earth, is readily verifiable. So if you do want to make the statement that an acceleration is present, you'll have to show where it is. I think that's a fair requirement. I myself have given the idea of extra dimensions as a possible solution to where that assumed acceleration could be. But then I would have to prove the extra dimensions exist. I haven't heard of anyone doing that yet. So just where is this acceleration?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I myself have given the idea of extra dimensions as a possible solution to where that assumed acceleration could be.

Oh, for Christ's sake. Extra dimensions? Really? A "problem" this simple for an Einstein and you have to resort to extra GD dimensions to attempt an explanation? It's a lot simpler than that.

 

Am I going to give you the answer right now? Nope. Hopefully Gpa will see the answer. It realy is simple. Embarassingly so.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darby, if you visualized it correctly then you have probably realized that the acceleration of any falling body is halted. And what results is the property of weight takes its place. But the inertial weight and the gravitational weight appear to share with each other. There is a distinction between the two if you pay attention to the the force and weight vectors. With my hypothetical hovering aircraft the applied inertial force vector is exactly balanced against the gravitational weight vector. They oppose each other with no measurable acceleration. Not so with gravitational weight and gravitational force vectors, both of which line up in the same direction. A distinction which the other Einstein tried to pass off as equivalent with his equivalency principal. A lie. And that lie would implicate him in this deception. Just remember mass is a scalar and doesn't have a vector associated with it. So the next time you are in your car and decide to press down on the gas pedal, you will feel the presence of weight which pushes you back in your seat as the vehicle accelerates. Both the weight and acceleration have opposing vectors. And of course there is the applied force vector as well. Just look at the vectors. Gravitational weight and inertial weight are not the same animal. But it appears there is no distinction when applying an inertial force. The big difference I see is inertial weight only occurs with acceleration through space time. Gravitational weight disappears with gravitational acceleration through space time. I'm going to stick with the observed facts on this one. And yes, I did the math.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what results is the property of weight takes its place.

But weight equals mass times gravitational acceleration, doesn't it? I mean, after all, you said so in a few posts back.

 

Anyway, the question wasn't really for you. You'll never get the answer, well, because you have no interest in the answer. It's contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism that's only important for you.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darby;

 

I wasn't sure if the question was to me or Einstein and I will give it a shot.

 

The only thing I could come up with for the reason I don't continue on to the center of the earth is that everything that got here before me stops me and the force of gravity is insufficient to cause me to overcome the surface tension of the ground. So I am at equalibrium with both. Am I close? Or am I embarassed?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darby;I wasn't sure if the question was to me or Einstein and I will give it a shot.

 

The only thing I could come up with for the reason I don't continue on to the center of the earth is that everything that got here before me stops me and the force of gravity is insufficient to cause me to overcome the surface tension of the ground. So I am at equalibrium with both. Am I close? Or am I embarassed?

Exactly. It's the Coulomb repulsion of the electrons between the ground and your feet. That's a force vector exactly opposed to gravitational acceleration. You're at equilibrium but you are being accelerated in both directions. An engineer would say that you were being strained and Hooke's Law applies to the situation - harmonic oscillation, just like a spring. The forces are not actually cancelled. An engineer would not ingore that fact. If we set the gravitational force to 1 then the EM force is 10^38. It takes every gram of Earth's matter to attract you with an acceleration of 9.8 m/sec^-2. It takes just the electrons under your feet to give you an equal but opposite acceleration. And Hooke's Law applies to scales. Stand on the scale and the spring mechanics compresses under your 9.8 m/sec^-2 acceleration - until the You + Scale system together reaches equilibrium...and you measure your weight which by implication allows you to calculate your mass.

 

But some say that's not acceleration. Some have forgotten the Principle of Equivalence. If you were in a large room with no windows and no other way to "look outside" at the environment (look, feel, hear or otherwise detect what's going on outside) there's no way you could determine whether the room was sitting on the ground or being towed through space with an acceleration of 1 g. No experiment that you could run would determine whether you were sitting on the Earth being accelerated toward the center of gravity (while being equally repelled by the Coulomb Force) or being towed out in space.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That reminds me of a discussion in Physics class. If you could drill a hole thru the earth and then drop in a bowling ball it would fall thru the center and the 'out' the other side until gravity over came its (velocity, or inertia?) and would fall the other direction and on and on. Each time the distance traveled would decrease until it finally 'appeared' motionless (Einstein's scientific method) while in reality (Darby or Rainman's scientific method and nearly everyone else's) it would actually be oscillating at an increasingly higher frequency (for infinity?). Sometimes things are not as they appear.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gpa comes through with the right answer. Well done, sir. But as Darby says, I am sure Einstein will come back with his contrary observations. It is too bad he cannot see that his observations lead to his own, erroneous, assumptions which are not in concert with the facts.

 

Sometimes things are not as they appear.

Indeed this is very true. Our eyes (with the help of our brains) can deceive us. That was the purpose of the shooting video I shared.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That reminds me of a discussion in Physics class. If you could drill a hole thru the earth and then drop in a bowling ball it would fall thru the center and the 'out' the other side until gravity over came its (velocity, or inertia?) and would fall the other direction and on and on. Each time the distance traveled would decrease until it finally 'appeared' motionless (Einstein's scientific method) while in reality (Darby or Rainman's scientific method and nearly everyone else's) it would actually be oscillating at an increasingly higher frequency (for infinity?). Sometimes things are not as they appear.

And your teacher was correct. Assuming that the hole was evacuated so there was no friction on the shuttlecock the "orbit" would decay through gavitational energy loss (an equation that states that the gravitational binding energy between the Earth and the shuttlecock itself gravitates but with a negative sign, i.e. an energy leak). It would take billions of years for the orbit to decay but it would, eventually. Hooke's Law (harmonic oscillators) and Kepler's 3rd Law (orbital mechanics) plus General Relativity (gravitational energy).

 

Another good job with analysis, Gpa.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...