Around five years ago I asked this question and the whole exercise was turned into a farce by know it Al's and trolls, where in the end no one answered what should be an easy question to answer..
OK first I would appreciate it if, one could brush up on force and motion laws..
If we consider how force and motion rely on the other to be possible, how can a magical force such as attraction be possible?
Don't get me wrong, I fully understand that when two densities be they electromagnetic or not are observed to be converging, I can only see the two densities and or Potentials are with momentum only by the result of some Repulsion, but when I converse with others here in this forum, including those who claim to be actual active Physicists, they casually refer to attraction as if its a force..
What am I missing about this "what I consider" magical force - that has me thus far convinced attractive force simply is not possible?
And yes when I refer to gravity, I consider it as a result from push or repulsion, and the same goes to magnetic interactions, to me they are all from the result of repulsion..
Having said that I have considered what thought experiment would point out my point and the result was a Vacuum cleaner will serve me well here..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
PS
That vacuum cleaner experiment needs a vacuum cleaner with an input as well as an output socket, so that one can mess around with two hoses connected to both of the sockets of the Vacuum cleaner, in order that the two ends of the hoses present as poles of a magnet do..
QUOTE
And yes when I refer to gravity, I consider it as a result from push or repulsion, and the same goes to magnetic interactions, to me they are all from the result of repulsion..
So... what exactly is pushing then?
Oh, don't encourage the poor thing. He'll only rave and rant some more...
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Dec 9 2009, 07:25 AM)
So... what exactly is pushing then?
Hi Rob,
I don't know, but I am assuming, its Kinetic energy presenting as an undefined force that apparently has not been considered due to the fact magical attraction is a perfectly valid inference..
Can you explain how attractive force is possible without referring to a repulsive force?
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
I don't know, but I am assuming, its Kinetic energy presenting as an undefined force that apparently has not been considered due to the fact magical attraction is a perfectly valid inference..
Can you explain how attractive force is possible without referring to a repulsive force?
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (Granouille+Dec 9 2009, 07:29 AM)
Oh, don't encourage the poor thing. He'll only rave and rant some more...
Please keep your remarks on topic.
If you cant input useful information, then please don't Post here..
2~Duh~Loo!
Peter J Schoen..
Please keep your remarks on topic.
If you cant input useful information, then please don't Post here..
2~Duh~Loo!
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 8 2009, 10:29 PM)
Can you explain how attractive force is possible without referring to a repulsive force?
I want to say that gravity may only be possible because matter has volume, which it would not have without elementary particles repelling each other at the atomic level. On the other hand, I wonder if a black hole has any volume, and if it wouldn't would this mean that gravity is possible without volume, i.e. repellant energy?
I want to say that gravity may only be possible because matter has volume, which it would not have without elementary particles repelling each other at the atomic level. On the other hand, I wonder if a black hole has any volume, and if it wouldn't would this mean that gravity is possible without volume, i.e. repellant energy?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 9 2009, 08:38 AM)
I want to say that gravity may only be possible because matter has volume, which it would not have without elementary particles repelling each other at the atomic level. On the other hand, I wonder if a black hole has any volume, and if it wouldn't would this mean that gravity is possible without volume, i.e. repellent energy?
Black-Holes by my reasoning are the result of portions of the Universe is expanding, and as such are areas that are repulsive, and as a consequence areas with less repulsion to it, ends up being compressed..
Black-Holes therefore by me are treated as compression points, and seeing we are in a Galaxy with an inward momentum, we are more than likely already beyond an event horizon to an observer not located within our galaxy..
My reasoning came about way before accelerating expansion was detected, so before the late 1990's, my argument seemed to be flawed as it suggested if I was right, we should detect the expansion should then speed up, for example it was put to me, if we consider the fact that as our local dimensions are forced closer to each other via compression, it would have the local speed of light slower if it were compared to the speed of light in an area where distances were increasing..
Since then in the late 1990's, accelerating expansion has been confirmed, which collaborated my suggestion may be proper and therefore my reasoning was sound, unfortunately - The Big-Bang is still a Pet favourite, so my suggestion has been shelved.
Enough on that, Lets get back to attraction, and lets see if you can help or give some insight as to how an attractive fore is possible?
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Black-Holes by my reasoning are the result of portions of the Universe is expanding, and as such are areas that are repulsive, and as a consequence areas with less repulsion to it, ends up being compressed..
Black-Holes therefore by me are treated as compression points, and seeing we are in a Galaxy with an inward momentum, we are more than likely already beyond an event horizon to an observer not located within our galaxy..
My reasoning came about way before accelerating expansion was detected, so before the late 1990's, my argument seemed to be flawed as it suggested if I was right, we should detect the expansion should then speed up, for example it was put to me, if we consider the fact that as our local dimensions are forced closer to each other via compression, it would have the local speed of light slower if it were compared to the speed of light in an area where distances were increasing..
Since then in the late 1990's, accelerating expansion has been confirmed, which collaborated my suggestion may be proper and therefore my reasoning was sound, unfortunately - The Big-Bang is still a Pet favourite, so my suggestion has been shelved.
Enough on that, Lets get back to attraction, and lets see if you can help or give some insight as to how an attractive fore is possible?
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 8 2009, 10:18 PM)
OK first I would appreciate it if, one could brush up on force and motion laws..
How? By reading Wikipedia pages on 'Force', 'Energy', Newtons Laws' ? That's what you linked me to in an attempt to patronise me. Is this the extent of your 'brushing up'?
If I were to have a discussion on such things I'd 'brush up' on gauge theory, general relativity, Yukawa couplings and Lagrangian/Hamiltonian mechanics. Because that's the kind of thing you'd need to grasp in order to get anywhere near to a viable and justified answer to your question.
How? By reading Wikipedia pages on 'Force', 'Energy', Newtons Laws' ? That's what you linked me to in an attempt to patronise me. Is this the extent of your 'brushing up'?
If I were to have a discussion on such things I'd 'brush up' on gauge theory, general relativity, Yukawa couplings and Lagrangian/Hamiltonian mechanics. Because that's the kind of thing you'd need to grasp in order to get anywhere near to a viable and justified answer to your question.
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 8 2009, 10:18 PM)
If we consider how force and motion rely on the other to be possible, how can a magical force such as attraction be possible?
Simple, it costs more energy to move away from something than it does to move towards it. Systems always take the path of least resistance. Balls prefer to roll down hills rather than up them because its energetically favourable at the bottom than the top.
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 8 2009, 10:18 PM)
Don't get me wrong, I fully understand that when two densities be they electromagnetic or not are observed to be converging, I can only see the two densities and or Potentials are with momentum only by the result of some Repulsion, but when I converse with others here in this forum, including those who claim to be actual active Physicists, they casually refer to attraction as if its a force..
I seriously doubt you 'fully understand'.
'Attraction' isn't a force any more than 'hot' is fire. A force can be attractive or repulsive. And there are different forces, mediated by different particles, but there is no force called 'Attraction' or 'Repulsion'. They are adjectives, not nouns.
'Attraction' isn't a force any more than 'hot' is fire. A force can be attractive or repulsive. And there are different forces, mediated by different particles, but there is no force called 'Attraction' or 'Repulsion'. They are adjectives, not nouns.
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 8 2009, 10:18 PM)
What am I missing about this "what I consider" magical force - that has me thus far convinced attractive force simply is not possible?
See page 126 of Peskin and Schroder. On the preceding page they demonstrate how vector gauge fields can be both attractive and repulsive yet a spin 2 field (ie gravity) can only be attractive. It's all about momentum transfer. Of course you need to know quantum field theory to understand the pages, so I guess what you're missing is an education in physics.
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 8 2009, 10:18 PM)
Can you explain how attractive force is possible without referring to a repulsive force?
Both spin 0 and spin 2 particle interactions can only end up with attractive effective forces, they cannot repel. Only spin 1's can repel. So yes.
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 8 2009, 10:18 PM)
my suggestion may be proper and therefore my reasoning was sound, unfortunately -
You have no reasoning other than "Because I don't understand the alternative".
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 8 2009, 11:08 PM)
Black-Holes by my reasoning are the result of portions of the Universe is expanding, and as such are areas that are repulsive, and as a consequence areas with less repulsion to it, ends up being compressed..
In what sense do you mean black holes repel? Something having to do with space-time dilation? My understanding was the space-time would become less dilated as you get closer to a black-hole, but on the other hand if everything is expanding/dilating as a form of entropy, then maybe the expansion would be greater with black holes since they are less dilated generally; sort of in the same sense that a glowing coal loses heat more quickly in a fire than ashes far from the flame.
This seems somehow plausible to me, but then how would it be possible that matter retains form if it is subject to so much gravity? Are you saying that the high level of compression is relative to a distant observer and that what seems like normal time to us is actually extremely accelerated time to someone observing from outside the event horizon? I assume you believe that the Milky Way is in the process of spiraling into its center and disappearing.
This seems somehow plausible to me, but then how would it be possible that matter retains form if it is subject to so much gravity? Are you saying that the high level of compression is relative to a distant observer and that what seems like normal time to us is actually extremely accelerated time to someone observing from outside the event horizon? I assume you believe that the Milky Way is in the process of spiraling into its center and disappearing.
My reasoning came about way before accelerating expansion was detected, so before the late 1990's, my argument seemed to be flawed as it suggested if I was right, we should detect the expansion should then speed up, for example it was put to me, if we consider the fact that as our local dimensions are forced closer to each other via compression, it would have the local speed of light slower if it were compared to the speed of light in an area where distances were increasing..
How would it be possible to measure the speed of light outside the galaxy verses within it? Could this be related to the apparent super-C rotational speeds observed in other galaxies? But would the time of other galaxies appear in fast-motion from our perspective, because of the gravity "compression" differential?
I think it has something to do with space-time bending. If gravity bends space-time, then objects would tend to "fall" into the compressed space-time, away from more dilated space-time. I wonder if you could say that matter is "repelled" by areas of higher dilation. Maybe there is something like the polar opposite of a black hole, where space-time dilation "peaks," perhaps as regions of gravitationally-integrated space-time drift away from each other. So maybe you could call all gravity the force of more dilated space-time repelling matter toward less-dilated, more compressed, areas such as planets, stars, and black holes.
Actually I don't know why it is attractive or repellant/repulsive. It seems to just be a tendency to accelerate in a certain direction. It's only attractive if you cite the presence of matter as the cause of compression. If you make the presence of matter due to the repulsion of dilated space, then the tendency of matter to coagulate and compress space at certain points could just be due to the location relative to more dilated areas.
The problem I have with this whole way of looking at, personally though, is that you would be trying to explain energy in terms of space instead of the reverse. I guess if energy is actually a function of space-time fabric variability, then the relationship between force and matter would go space-energy-matter, where matter is formed from energy, which is a function of space. But what is space then, except the product of energetic repulsion from the expansion caused by the big bang?
He did explain it in layman's terms.
He would need special terms to explain it to you and I don't think he knows those.
He did explain it in layman's terms.
He would need special terms to explain it to you and I don't think he knows those.
Could you cut and paste HIS explanation in your next post please? and translate it to what an every day layman could understand? wait make that so that any more~on could understand.. 
As all this old more~on got from Alphanumerics post was pure gibberish inferences that seemed to only serve as some sort of self glorification..
Thanks in advance..
cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Everybody, welcome the brand-new crackpot!
Where the hell do they come from?
In what sense do you mean black holes repel? Something having to do with space-time dilation? My understanding was the space-time would become less dilated as you get closer to a black-hole, but on the other hand if everything is expanding/dilating as a form of entropy, then maybe the expansion would be greater with black holes since they are less dilated generally; sort of in the same sense that a glowing coal loses heat more quickly in a fire than ashes far from the flame.
QUOTE
Black-Holes therefore by me are treated as compression points, and seeing we are in a Galaxy with an inward momentum, we are more than likely already beyond an event horizon to an observer not located within our galaxy..
This seems somehow plausible to me, but then how would it be possible that matter retains form if it is subject to so much gravity? Are you saying that the high level of compression is relative to a distant observer and that what seems like normal time to us is actually extremely accelerated time to someone observing from outside the event horizon? I assume you believe that the Milky Way is in the process of spiraling into its center and disappearing.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Black-Holes therefore by me are treated as compression points, and seeing we are in a Galaxy with an inward momentum, we are more than likely already beyond an event horizon to an observer not located within our galaxy.. |
This seems somehow plausible to me, but then how would it be possible that matter retains form if it is subject to so much gravity? Are you saying that the high level of compression is relative to a distant observer and that what seems like normal time to us is actually extremely accelerated time to someone observing from outside the event horizon? I assume you believe that the Milky Way is in the process of spiraling into its center and disappearing.
My reasoning came about way before accelerating expansion was detected, so before the late 1990's, my argument seemed to be flawed as it suggested if I was right, we should detect the expansion should then speed up, for example it was put to me, if we consider the fact that as our local dimensions are forced closer to each other via compression, it would have the local speed of light slower if it were compared to the speed of light in an area where distances were increasing..
How would it be possible to measure the speed of light outside the galaxy verses within it? Could this be related to the apparent super-C rotational speeds observed in other galaxies? But would the time of other galaxies appear in fast-motion from our perspective, because of the gravity "compression" differential?
QUOTE
Enough on that, Lets get back to attraction, and lets see if you can help or give some insight as to how an attractive fore is possible?
I think it has something to do with space-time bending. If gravity bends space-time, then objects would tend to "fall" into the compressed space-time, away from more dilated space-time. I wonder if you could say that matter is "repelled" by areas of higher dilation. Maybe there is something like the polar opposite of a black hole, where space-time dilation "peaks," perhaps as regions of gravitationally-integrated space-time drift away from each other. So maybe you could call all gravity the force of more dilated space-time repelling matter toward less-dilated, more compressed, areas such as planets, stars, and black holes.
Actually I don't know why it is attractive or repellant/repulsive. It seems to just be a tendency to accelerate in a certain direction. It's only attractive if you cite the presence of matter as the cause of compression. If you make the presence of matter due to the repulsion of dilated space, then the tendency of matter to coagulate and compress space at certain points could just be due to the location relative to more dilated areas.
The problem I have with this whole way of looking at, personally though, is that you would be trying to explain energy in terms of space instead of the reverse. I guess if energy is actually a function of space-time fabric variability, then the relationship between force and matter would go space-energy-matter, where matter is formed from energy, which is a function of space. But what is space then, except the product of energetic repulsion from the expansion caused by the big bang?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 9 2009, 10:31 AM)
'Attraction' isn't a force any more than 'hot' is fire. A force can be attractive or repulsive.
Please make up your mind if attraction is or is not a force, and explain in layman's terms how a force as implied by you above can be implied as attractive?
If you cant, please do not post in this thread again.
2~Duh~Loo~!
Peter J Schoen..
Please make up your mind if attraction is or is not a force, and explain in layman's terms how a force as implied by you above can be implied as attractive?
If you cant, please do not post in this thread again.
2~Duh~Loo~!
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE
Please make up your mind if attraction is or is not a force, and explain in layman's terms how a force as implied by you above can be implied as attractive?
He did explain it in layman's terms.
He would need special terms to explain it to you and I don't think he knows those.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 9 2009, 10:32 AM)
In what sense do you mean black holes repel?
My bad, what I was trying to say was that increased densities such as Black-Holes are compressed areas, and why the areas are compressed is because I reason the higher the density the higher the ratio of potential energy to kinetic energy.
somehow I think you reason Black-Holes very different to me..
As I perceive all densities are a body of energy, and the more rigid the density the more compressed it is, of course the more rigid a area is then the less ratio of Kinetic energy to potential energy to it..
This would have a Black-Hole extremely compressed, and therefore its surrounding would have to be more kinetic..
And its this Kinetic energy that I reason is what repulses less kinetic areas inwards and towards other like wise less kinetic areas..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE
Something having to do with space-time dilation? My understanding was the space-time would become less dilated as you get closer to a black-hole, but on the other hand if everything is expanding/dilating as a form of entropy, then maybe the expansion would be greater with black holes since they are less dilated generally; sort of in the same sense that a glowing coal loses heat more quickly in a fire than ashes far from the flame.
This seems somehow plausible to me, but then how would it be possible that matter retains form if it is subject to so much gravity? Are you saying that the high level of compression is relative to a distant observer and that what seems like normal time to us is actually extremely accelerated time to someone observing from outside the event horizon? I assume you believe that the Milky Way is in the process of spiraling into its center and disappearing.
How would it be possible to measure the speed of light outside the galaxy verses within it? Could this be related to the apparent super-C rotational speeds observed in other galaxies? But would the time of other galaxies appear in fast-motion from our perspective, because of the gravity "compression" differential?
I think it has something to do with space-time bending. If gravity bends space-time, then objects would tend to "fall" into the compressed space-time, away from more dilated space-time. I wonder if you could say that matter is "repelled" by areas of higher dilation. Maybe there is something like the polar opposite of a black hole, where space-time dilation "peaks," perhaps as regions of gravitationally-integrated space-time drift away from each other. So maybe you could call all gravity the force of more dilated space-time repelling matter toward less-dilated, more compressed, areas such as planets, stars, and black holes.
Actually I don't know why it is attractive or repellent/repulsive. It seems to just be a tendency to accelerate in a certain direction. It's only attractive if you cite the presence of matter as the cause of compression. If you make the presence of matter due to the repulsion of dilated space, then the tendency of matter to coagulate and compress space at certain points could just be due to the location relative to more dilated areas.
The problem I have with this whole way of looking at, personally though, is that you would be trying to explain energy in terms of space instead of the reverse. I guess if energy is actually a function of space-time fabric variability, then the relationship between force and matter would go space-energy-matter, where matter is formed from energy, which is a function of space. But what is space then, except the product of energetic repulsion from the expansion caused by the big bang?
This seems somehow plausible to me, but then how would it be possible that matter retains form if it is subject to so much gravity? Are you saying that the high level of compression is relative to a distant observer and that what seems like normal time to us is actually extremely accelerated time to someone observing from outside the event horizon? I assume you believe that the Milky Way is in the process of spiraling into its center and disappearing.
How would it be possible to measure the speed of light outside the galaxy verses within it? Could this be related to the apparent super-C rotational speeds observed in other galaxies? But would the time of other galaxies appear in fast-motion from our perspective, because of the gravity "compression" differential?
I think it has something to do with space-time bending. If gravity bends space-time, then objects would tend to "fall" into the compressed space-time, away from more dilated space-time. I wonder if you could say that matter is "repelled" by areas of higher dilation. Maybe there is something like the polar opposite of a black hole, where space-time dilation "peaks," perhaps as regions of gravitationally-integrated space-time drift away from each other. So maybe you could call all gravity the force of more dilated space-time repelling matter toward less-dilated, more compressed, areas such as planets, stars, and black holes.
Actually I don't know why it is attractive or repellent/repulsive. It seems to just be a tendency to accelerate in a certain direction. It's only attractive if you cite the presence of matter as the cause of compression. If you make the presence of matter due to the repulsion of dilated space, then the tendency of matter to coagulate and compress space at certain points could just be due to the location relative to more dilated areas.
The problem I have with this whole way of looking at, personally though, is that you would be trying to explain energy in terms of space instead of the reverse. I guess if energy is actually a function of space-time fabric variability, then the relationship between force and matter would go space-energy-matter, where matter is formed from energy, which is a function of space. But what is space then, except the product of energetic repulsion from the expansion caused by the big bang?
somehow I think you reason Black-Holes very different to me..
As I perceive all densities are a body of energy, and the more rigid the density the more compressed it is, of course the more rigid a area is then the less ratio of Kinetic energy to potential energy to it..
This would have a Black-Hole extremely compressed, and therefore its surrounding would have to be more kinetic..
And its this Kinetic energy that I reason is what repulses less kinetic areas inwards and towards other like wise less kinetic areas..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Dec 11 2009, 08:25 AM)
He did explain it in layman's terms.
He would need special terms to explain it to you and I don't think he knows those.
Could you cut and paste HIS explanation in your next post please? and translate it to what an every day layman could understand? wait make that so that any more~on could understand.. As all this old more~on got from Alphanumerics post was pure gibberish inferences that seemed to only serve as some sort of self glorification..
Thanks in advance..
cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Gravitational attraction is real, two masses suspended against the earth's field deviate towards each other according to Newton's laws, QED.
The problem is the transmission of this force through, what is currently and generally assumed to be, matter that is discontinuous, in both the instances of the solid masses and the intervening gases.
This hypothetical separating void, vacuum, aether, virtual particles, etc. etc. etc. has the theoretically necessary quality of zero-inertia, in that it cannot influence matter in any way.
Thus action and reaction cannot occur, and gravity cannot be described, either mathematically or conceptually, as being transmitted through either the solid or the gaseous matter in question.
Look at the facts, STM images of atoms in solid matter show no sign of any separation of the component atoms or of any motion of these, and this empirical result, if viewed objectively, would suggest that the theory on which physics and thus all of science is based, the kinetic atomic theory of gases, is invalid.
If it were possible to consider that matter is instead continuous, (and for the vast majority of scientists, dissident or mainstream, it is unthinkable) then clearly action and reaction can occur.
However the weak force of an inter-atomic gravitational attraction cannot explain the strength of the attractive forces acting between the two masses in question, or further the huge centripetal forces that hold the moon in orbit around the earth, so another force is needed.
Here consider another fact, if attempts are made in the lab to decompress a gas to a very high vacuum (or low density, or low pressure, or low temperature) state, it is observed that a force of resistance to decompression rises exponentially.
As the hypothetical separating media cannot offer any resistance to its own expansion, the only factor that can do so is the matter involved, which means that, in terms of a kinetic atomic theory, atoms at greater and greater separations must exert an exponentially increasing force of attraction to each other, which of course is ridiculous.
If it is considered that the gas is continuous, and that there is no separating media whatever, and that, as experiments show, a perfect vacuum state is unattainable, and we accept accordingly that the resistance to this state would rise hypothetically to the infinite, then the transmission of an attractive force between the two masses and the earth and the moon is both mathematically and conceptually possible.
The problem is the transmission of this force through, what is currently and generally assumed to be, matter that is discontinuous, in both the instances of the solid masses and the intervening gases.
This hypothetical separating void, vacuum, aether, virtual particles, etc. etc. etc. has the theoretically necessary quality of zero-inertia, in that it cannot influence matter in any way.
Thus action and reaction cannot occur, and gravity cannot be described, either mathematically or conceptually, as being transmitted through either the solid or the gaseous matter in question.
Look at the facts, STM images of atoms in solid matter show no sign of any separation of the component atoms or of any motion of these, and this empirical result, if viewed objectively, would suggest that the theory on which physics and thus all of science is based, the kinetic atomic theory of gases, is invalid.
If it were possible to consider that matter is instead continuous, (and for the vast majority of scientists, dissident or mainstream, it is unthinkable) then clearly action and reaction can occur.
However the weak force of an inter-atomic gravitational attraction cannot explain the strength of the attractive forces acting between the two masses in question, or further the huge centripetal forces that hold the moon in orbit around the earth, so another force is needed.
Here consider another fact, if attempts are made in the lab to decompress a gas to a very high vacuum (or low density, or low pressure, or low temperature) state, it is observed that a force of resistance to decompression rises exponentially.
As the hypothetical separating media cannot offer any resistance to its own expansion, the only factor that can do so is the matter involved, which means that, in terms of a kinetic atomic theory, atoms at greater and greater separations must exert an exponentially increasing force of attraction to each other, which of course is ridiculous.
If it is considered that the gas is continuous, and that there is no separating media whatever, and that, as experiments show, a perfect vacuum state is unattainable, and we accept accordingly that the resistance to this state would rise hypothetically to the infinite, then the transmission of an attractive force between the two masses and the earth and the moon is both mathematically and conceptually possible.
Everybody, welcome the brand-new crackpot!
Where the hell do they come from?
QUOTE (romun+Dec 11 2009, 09:38 AM)
Gravitational attraction is real, two masses suspended against the earth's field deviate towards each other according to Newton's laws, QED.
The problem is the transmission of this force through, what is currently and generally assumed to be, matter that is discontinuous, in both the instances of the solid masses and the intervening gases.
This hypothetical separating void, vacuum, aether, virtual particles, etc. etc. etc. has the theoretically necessary quality of zero-inertia, in that it cannot influence matter in any way.
Thus action and reaction cannot occur, and gravity cannot be described, either mathematically or conceptually, as being transmitted through either the solid or the gaseous matter in question.
Look at the facts, STM images of atoms in solid matter show no sign of any separation of the component atoms or of any motion of these, and this empirical result, if viewed objectively, would suggest that the theory on which physics and thus all of science is based, the kinetic atomic theory of gases, is invalid.
If it were possible to consider that matter is instead continuous, (and for the vast majority of scientists, dissident or mainstream, it is unthinkable) then clearly action and reaction can occur.
However the weak force of an inter-atomic gravitational attraction cannot explain the strength of the attractive forces acting between the two masses in question, or further the huge centripetal forces that hold the moon in orbit around the earth, so another force is needed.
Here consider another fact, if attempts are made in the lab to decompress a gas to a very high vacuum (or low density, or low pressure, or low temperature) state, it is observed that a force of resistance to decompression rises exponentially.
As the hypothetical separating media cannot offer any resistance to its own expansion, the only factor that can do so is the matter involved, which means that, in terms of a kinetic atomic theory, atoms at greater and greater separations must exert an exponentially increasing force of attraction to each other, which of course is ridiculous.
If it is considered that the gas is continuous, and that there is no separating media whatever, and that, as experiments show, a perfect vacuum state is unattainable, and we accept accordingly that the resistance to this state would rise hypothetically to the infinite, then the transmission of an attractive force between the two masses and the earth and the moon is both mathematically and conceptually possible.
So far what you have provided makes reasonably good sense, but you have failed to point out the kinetic energy between any two given densities is always a lot less kinetic energy when compared to the other side of each of the densities being pushed towards each other!
I reason that the two densities are not attracted to each other, but rather are forced together by the greater quantity of available Kinetic energy when compared to the smaller quantity of available kinetic energy between any two densities being pushed together..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
The problem is the transmission of this force through, what is currently and generally assumed to be, matter that is discontinuous, in both the instances of the solid masses and the intervening gases.
This hypothetical separating void, vacuum, aether, virtual particles, etc. etc. etc. has the theoretically necessary quality of zero-inertia, in that it cannot influence matter in any way.
Thus action and reaction cannot occur, and gravity cannot be described, either mathematically or conceptually, as being transmitted through either the solid or the gaseous matter in question.
Look at the facts, STM images of atoms in solid matter show no sign of any separation of the component atoms or of any motion of these, and this empirical result, if viewed objectively, would suggest that the theory on which physics and thus all of science is based, the kinetic atomic theory of gases, is invalid.
If it were possible to consider that matter is instead continuous, (and for the vast majority of scientists, dissident or mainstream, it is unthinkable) then clearly action and reaction can occur.
However the weak force of an inter-atomic gravitational attraction cannot explain the strength of the attractive forces acting between the two masses in question, or further the huge centripetal forces that hold the moon in orbit around the earth, so another force is needed.
Here consider another fact, if attempts are made in the lab to decompress a gas to a very high vacuum (or low density, or low pressure, or low temperature) state, it is observed that a force of resistance to decompression rises exponentially.
As the hypothetical separating media cannot offer any resistance to its own expansion, the only factor that can do so is the matter involved, which means that, in terms of a kinetic atomic theory, atoms at greater and greater separations must exert an exponentially increasing force of attraction to each other, which of course is ridiculous.
If it is considered that the gas is continuous, and that there is no separating media whatever, and that, as experiments show, a perfect vacuum state is unattainable, and we accept accordingly that the resistance to this state would rise hypothetically to the infinite, then the transmission of an attractive force between the two masses and the earth and the moon is both mathematically and conceptually possible.
So far what you have provided makes reasonably good sense, but you have failed to point out the kinetic energy between any two given densities is always a lot less kinetic energy when compared to the other side of each of the densities being pushed towards each other!
I reason that the two densities are not attracted to each other, but rather are forced together by the greater quantity of available Kinetic energy when compared to the smaller quantity of available kinetic energy between any two densities being pushed together..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
One crackpot agreeing with another crank.
What is it about physics which attracts idiots?
What is it about physics which attracts idiots?
Peter,
Can you clarify what you mean by 'densities'?
romun
Can you clarify what you mean by 'densities'?
romun
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 10 2009, 11:17 PM)
Please make up your mind if attraction is or is not a force
Do you have trouble reading English. I explained that 'attractive' is an adjective, not a noun. You describe forces as attractive or repulsive but you don't call 'attraction' a force. It's a property forces have. What about that is beyond your ability to comprehend?
Do you have trouble reading English. I explained that 'attractive' is an adjective, not a noun. You describe forces as attractive or repulsive but you don't call 'attraction' a force. It's a property forces have. What about that is beyond your ability to comprehend?
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 10 2009, 11:17 PM)
and explain in layman's terms how a force as implied by you above can be implied as attractive?
I thought you had more than a decades experience in the physics of photon interactions and curved space-time? Why do you constantly ask for layman explanations? Have you bothered to look in the book reference I provided? Or do you believe that if someone doesn't put the information right infront of your nose then it doesn't count?
QUOTE (romun+Dec 10 2009, 11:38 PM)
Here consider another fact, if attempts are made in the lab to decompress a gas to a very high vacuum (or low density, or low pressure, or low temperature) state, it is observed that a force of resistance to decompression rises exponentially.
Wait, what? This isn't my understanding at all. If you, for example, had some gas in a tube that was closed at one end and sealed by a piston on the other, the force to move the piston and expand the gas would asymptotically approach some finite value dependent on the ambient air pressure. It wouldn't rise exponentially. For example, if the piston covered a square inch, and you were at sea level, you would never need more than 14.7 lbs. of force to move it, whether you're moving it six inches or six miles.
Wait, what? This isn't my understanding at all. If you, for example, had some gas in a tube that was closed at one end and sealed by a piston on the other, the force to move the piston and expand the gas would asymptotically approach some finite value dependent on the ambient air pressure. It wouldn't rise exponentially. For example, if the piston covered a square inch, and you were at sea level, you would never need more than 14.7 lbs. of force to move it, whether you're moving it six inches or six miles.
QUOTE (romun+Dec 11 2009, 05:00 PM)
Peter,
Can you clarify what you mean by 'densities'?
romun
I have already done this privately..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Can you clarify what you mean by 'densities'?
romun
I have already done this privately..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (FlyingSpaghettiMonster+Dec 11 2009, 11:42 PM)
Wait, what? This isn't my understanding at all. If you, for example, had some gas in a tube that was closed at one end and sealed by a piston on the other, the force to move the piston and expand the gas would asymptotically approach some finite value dependent on the ambient air pressure. It wouldn't rise exponentially. For example, if the piston covered a square inch, and you were at sea level, you would never need more than 14.7 lbs. of force to move it, whether you're moving it six inches or six miles.
If a piston cylinder arrangement, such as you suggest, is a hypothetically perfect one, in that the piston seal is perfect and there is no friction generated, then, if there is one cubic inch of gas in the cylinder at 1 ATM and a force is applied to the piston to extract it to create a volume of 2 cubic inches within the cylinder, then the external pressure on the piston is 1 ATM (or 14.7 lbs/sq in) and the internal pressure is 0.5 ATM (or 7.35 lbs/sq in).
What you are saying is that the force necessary to retract the piston, and to maintain its secondary position in this state, is just 14.7 lbs and that even at six miles this force will remain the same. I think you need to look at this again, as this supposition is plainly wrong.
If a piston cylinder arrangement, such as you suggest, is a hypothetically perfect one, in that the piston seal is perfect and there is no friction generated, then, if there is one cubic inch of gas in the cylinder at 1 ATM and a force is applied to the piston to extract it to create a volume of 2 cubic inches within the cylinder, then the external pressure on the piston is 1 ATM (or 14.7 lbs/sq in) and the internal pressure is 0.5 ATM (or 7.35 lbs/sq in).
What you are saying is that the force necessary to retract the piston, and to maintain its secondary position in this state, is just 14.7 lbs and that even at six miles this force will remain the same. I think you need to look at this again, as this supposition is plainly wrong.
QUOTE (romun+Dec 12 2009, 07:48 AM)
If a piston cylinder arrangement, such as you suggest, is a hypothetically perfect one, in that the piston seal is perfect and there is no friction generated, then, if there is one cubic inch of gas in the cylinder at 1 ATM and a force is applied to the piston to extract it to create a volume of 2 cubic inches within the cylinder, then the external pressure on the piston is 1 ATM (or 14.7 lbs/sq in) and the internal pressure is 0.5 ATM (or 7.35 lbs/sq in).
What you are saying is that the force necessary to retract the piston, and to maintain its secondary position in this state, is just 14.7 lbs and that even at six miles this force will remain the same. I think you need to look at this again, as this supposition is plainly wrong.
I will stick to my statement as originally given. I didn't say the force required would be 14.7 lbs.; I said it would never exceed 14.7 lbs. (for a 1 in^2 piston). If your objection is that you think the force would exceed 14.7 lbs., then I would suggest you investigate how a mercury barometer works.
What you are saying is that the force necessary to retract the piston, and to maintain its secondary position in this state, is just 14.7 lbs and that even at six miles this force will remain the same. I think you need to look at this again, as this supposition is plainly wrong.
I will stick to my statement as originally given. I didn't say the force required would be 14.7 lbs.; I said it would never exceed 14.7 lbs. (for a 1 in^2 piston). If your objection is that you think the force would exceed 14.7 lbs., then I would suggest you investigate how a mercury barometer works.
Hi Alphanumeric,
After my Post you said
After my Post you said
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 11 2009, 06:54 PM)
Do you have trouble reading English. I explained that 'attractive' is an adjective, not a noun. You describe forces as attractive or repulsive but you don't call 'attraction' a force. It's a property forces have. What about that is beyond your ability to comprehend?
And it is that property that I am having difficulty with, because the way I understand force and how I reason it is experienced, for example - If a stream of mass with a given velocity strikes another mass, the experience is gauged by the exertion or force, anyway what I just described was that the stream was repulsed, which resulted with mass being with a velocity, and as a consequence moving mass strikes another mass repulsing that mass..
OK now that I have detailed force with the attributes of repulsion, lets hear from you how force is with the attributes of attraction..
I thought you had more than a decades experience in the physics of photon interactions and curved space-time? Why do you constantly ask for layman explanations? Have you bothered to look in the book reference I provided?I am poor and housebound, been like that for the past two decades, since being struck-down with my illness..
OK now that I have detailed force with the attributes of repulsion, lets hear from you how force is with the attributes of attraction..
QUOTE
I thought you had more than a decades experience in the physics of photon interactions and curved space-time? Why do you constantly ask for layman explanations? Have you bothered to look in the book reference I provided?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
I thought you had more than a decades experience in the physics of photon interactions and curved space-time? Why do you constantly ask for layman explanations? Have you bothered to look in the book reference I provided? |
I am poor and housebound, been like that for the past two decades, since being struck-down with my illness.. Or do you believe that if someone doesn't put the information right in-front of your nose then it doesn't count?
Don't you get it?
I am terribly ill, I am most of the time bed ridden, so I am extremely feeble for my age, my mind seems like a sieve at times, so yes therefore I am an oath at times! But if I persist in exercising the mind, and should I recover again then my investement with my time here, has been well spent..
So could you please solve my Dilemma on why force can be implied as attractive?
2~Duh~Loo!
Peter J Schoen..
I am terribly ill, I am most of the time bed ridden, so I am extremely feeble for my age, my mind seems like a sieve at times, so yes therefore I am an oath at times! But if I persist in exercising the mind, and should I recover again then my investement with my time here, has been well spent..
So could you please solve my Dilemma on why force can be implied as attractive?
2~Duh~Loo!
Peter J Schoen..
You know Laidback... since you have verged into your personal issues, I have a question.
How do you reconcile your statements about yourself such as...
with the raw arrogance that your many other statements evince, such as...
with the raw arrogance that your many other statements evince, such as...
As all this old more~on got from Alphanumerics post was pure gibberish inferences that seemed to only serve as some sort of self glorification.. sad.gif
Your droll posts bore me to no end, as they only serve to present you as some 5 year old with all this information that doesnt serve any sense to you other than as a statement of "look at me I am really smart" laugh.gif if only you could explain what you know to a layman so that you could earn some respect for a change..
2~Duh~Loo!
People who know a great deal more than you in this field have tried to explain things to you and you respond with disdain and arrogance.
Then you tell us how sick, poor and feeble you are. Pick an attitude... consistency helps.
2 Duh Loo.
Yes... like three other threads at least. You are judged by more than just this thread. You obfuscate but your words remain.
Cheers.
Say wha?
I went back over this thread and no where has any one attempted to explain to me how force can be considered attractive.
Maybe I am overlooking something? So could you quote what you are referring to, and then if you are able to - dumb it down for me?
Cheers Rob,
Peter J Schoen..
Is this the first thread you have posted in?
Well...I'm going to try once more.
***It's been done****
Every time Alpha or anyone else explains something to you, you claim they don't know what they are talking about, insult them and then whine some more on how no one is explaining anything to you.
Don't expect anyone else to waste their time with you.
Well...I'm going to try once more.
***It's been done****
How do you reconcile your statements about yourself such as...
QUOTE
I am terribly ill, I am most of the time bed ridden, so I am extremely feeble for my age, my mind seems like a sieve at times, so yes therefore I am an oath at times!
with the raw arrogance that your many other statements evince, such as...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I am terribly ill, I am most of the time bed ridden, so I am extremely feeble for my age, my mind seems like a sieve at times, so yes therefore I am an oath at times! |
with the raw arrogance that your many other statements evince, such as...
As all this old more~on got from Alphanumerics post was pure gibberish inferences that seemed to only serve as some sort of self glorification.. sad.gif
QUOTE
And after all your waffling, what have you been able to detail to me?
NOTHING! That's why when I stated all those years ago, you wont amount to much, has stuck with you!
The only way you will ever amount to anything is if you loose your immaturity..
NOTHING! That's why when I stated all those years ago, you wont amount to much, has stuck with you!
The only way you will ever amount to anything is if you loose your immaturity..
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And after all your waffling, what have you been able to detail to me? NOTHING! That's why when I stated all those years ago, you wont amount to much, has stuck with you! The only way you will ever amount to anything is if you loose your immaturity.. |
Your droll posts bore me to no end, as they only serve to present you as some 5 year old with all this information that doesnt serve any sense to you other than as a statement of "look at me I am really smart" laugh.gif if only you could explain what you know to a layman so that you could earn some respect for a change..
2~Duh~Loo!
People who know a great deal more than you in this field have tried to explain things to you and you respond with disdain and arrogance.
Then you tell us how sick, poor and feeble you are. Pick an attitude... consistency helps.
2 Duh Loo.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Dec 13 2009, 10:21 AM)
People who know a great deal more than you in this field have tried to explain things to you and you respond with disdain and arrogance.
2 Duh Loo.
Say wha?
I went back over this thread and no where has any one attempted to explain to me how force can be considered attractive.
Maybe I am overlooking something? So could you quote what you are referring to, and then if you are able to - dumb it down for me?
Cheers Rob,
Peter J Schoen..
2 Duh Loo.
Say wha? I went back over this thread and no where has any one attempted to explain to me how force can be considered attractive.
Maybe I am overlooking something? So could you quote what you are referring to, and then if you are able to - dumb it down for me?
Cheers Rob,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE
Maybe I am overlooking something?
Yes... like three other threads at least. You are judged by more than just this thread. You obfuscate but your words remain.
Cheers.
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 13 2009, 12:52 AM)
Say wha? I went back over this thread and no where has any one attempted to explain to me how force can be considered attractive.
Maybe I am overlooking something? So could you quote what you are referring to, and then if you are able to - dumb it down for me?
Cheers Rob,
Peter J Schoen..
Is this the first thread you have posted in?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Dec 13 2009, 11:16 AM)
Yes... like three other threads at least. You are judged by more than just this thread. You obfuscate but your words remain.
Cheers.
<sigh> So I guess you cant detail how attraction is possible either?
is that right Rob?
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Cheers.
<sigh> So I guess you cant detail how attraction is possible either?
is that right Rob?
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (buttershug+Dec 13 2009, 11:19 AM)
Is this the first thread you have posted in?
Hi Buttershug,
Can you detail how attraction is made possible?
And with respects to your question, no it is not the first thread that I have posted in..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Hi Buttershug,
Can you detail how attraction is made possible?
And with respects to your question, no it is not the first thread that I have posted in..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE
Can you detail how attraction is made possible?
Well...I'm going to try once more.
***It's been done****
Every time Alpha or anyone else explains something to you, you claim they don't know what they are talking about, insult them and then whine some more on how no one is explaining anything to you.
Don't expect anyone else to waste their time with you.
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 10 2009, 10:39 PM)
As I perceive all densities are a body of energy, and the more rigid the density the more compressed it is, of course the more rigid a area is then the less ratio of Kinetic energy to potential energy to it..
This would have a Black-Hole extremely compressed, and therefore its surrounding would have to be more kinetic..
And its this Kinetic energy that I reason is what repulses less kinetic areas inwards and towards other like wise less kinetic areas..
Ok, I had to read this several times before it made sense to me, but now I think I finally get what you're saying.
You're basically looking at compression/density as the overcoming of kinetic energy by potential energy. So kinetic energy, in your mind, pushes/repulses matter/particles away from each other with greater velocity, momentum, etc. You see kinetic energy as essentially de-densifying force.
When you talk about the surroundings of a black-hole, you are referring to all particles and energy moving toward or away from the black-hole at any distance, not just the immediate surrounding or something like that.
So you view the higher kinetic energy areas outside the black-hole almost like atmospheric pressure pushing matter and energy with less momentum toward the black-hole. BTW, I don't know if EM waves/photons can have more or less momentum but I assume they can based on their frequency and size (i.e. more and less powerful wavelengths). I don't know if less powerful frequencies are somehow more susceptible to gravitation than more powerful ones or the reverse, but it's not really relevant to your point anyway, my own tangent I guess.
So to sum up, your view of energy and matter/density is basically that the least dense areas of the universe are comprised of the matter with the most kinetic energy, and that it is this high-kinetic-energy matter that is responsible for pushing matter with less kinetic energy away from it, which brings it into proximity with other matter with a lower KE/PE ratio. Then, I assume that PE increases as the matter coagulates, which further suppresses KE - which you would probably call the build up of gravitation.
So attraction doesn't really explain gravity in your view. Kinetic energy and repulsion are the cause and gravity is just the resulting build-up of potential energy.
The question is why matter stays together once it has been repulsed into a coagulating area? It is because KE is basically uniformly distributed in the high KE/PE regions of the universe, causing the coagulated matter to be held in a higher PE/KE ratio by collisions with higher KE/PE ratio particles surrounding it?
I guess that would make sense explaining, say, the anti-sublimating effect of the atmosphere on a body of water. But can it also explain the density of the atmosphere by the KE force of matter farther away from the planet's center? I think people would argue that the magnetic field keeps the atmosphere from "blowing away" and that KE is low in outer-space, hence the vacuum.
Can your theory explain the relative vacuum of outer-space while maintaining that it has a high KE/PE ratio compared with denser or "more compressed" areas, e.g. the atmosphere?
This would have a Black-Hole extremely compressed, and therefore its surrounding would have to be more kinetic..
And its this Kinetic energy that I reason is what repulses less kinetic areas inwards and towards other like wise less kinetic areas..
Ok, I had to read this several times before it made sense to me, but now I think I finally get what you're saying.
You're basically looking at compression/density as the overcoming of kinetic energy by potential energy. So kinetic energy, in your mind, pushes/repulses matter/particles away from each other with greater velocity, momentum, etc. You see kinetic energy as essentially de-densifying force.
When you talk about the surroundings of a black-hole, you are referring to all particles and energy moving toward or away from the black-hole at any distance, not just the immediate surrounding or something like that.
So you view the higher kinetic energy areas outside the black-hole almost like atmospheric pressure pushing matter and energy with less momentum toward the black-hole. BTW, I don't know if EM waves/photons can have more or less momentum but I assume they can based on their frequency and size (i.e. more and less powerful wavelengths). I don't know if less powerful frequencies are somehow more susceptible to gravitation than more powerful ones or the reverse, but it's not really relevant to your point anyway, my own tangent I guess.
So to sum up, your view of energy and matter/density is basically that the least dense areas of the universe are comprised of the matter with the most kinetic energy, and that it is this high-kinetic-energy matter that is responsible for pushing matter with less kinetic energy away from it, which brings it into proximity with other matter with a lower KE/PE ratio. Then, I assume that PE increases as the matter coagulates, which further suppresses KE - which you would probably call the build up of gravitation.
So attraction doesn't really explain gravity in your view. Kinetic energy and repulsion are the cause and gravity is just the resulting build-up of potential energy.
The question is why matter stays together once it has been repulsed into a coagulating area? It is because KE is basically uniformly distributed in the high KE/PE regions of the universe, causing the coagulated matter to be held in a higher PE/KE ratio by collisions with higher KE/PE ratio particles surrounding it?
I guess that would make sense explaining, say, the anti-sublimating effect of the atmosphere on a body of water. But can it also explain the density of the atmosphere by the KE force of matter farther away from the planet's center? I think people would argue that the magnetic field keeps the atmosphere from "blowing away" and that KE is low in outer-space, hence the vacuum.
Can your theory explain the relative vacuum of outer-space while maintaining that it has a high KE/PE ratio compared with denser or "more compressed" areas, e.g. the atmosphere?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Dec 13 2009, 11:57 AM)
Well...I'm going to try once more.
***It's been done****
Then please post a link to it..
Every time Alpha or anyone else explains something to you, you claim they don't know what they are talking about, insult them and then whine some more on how no one is explaining anything to you.
Don't expect anyone else to waste their time with you.<sigh> What is so difficult about explaining attraction?
I know I cant explain it unless I refer to repulsion, but in the process of doing so has implied attractive forces null an void due to the reliance on repulsion, and if we go back to what alphanumeric has posted it seems he cant either, as his way out was some reference to a book, that may or may not be able to explain attraction..
I wish he had provided a link rather than some book that I may never be able to get my hands on..
BTW Rob, alphanumeric only ever received negativity from me as a consequence to his negative remarks towards me, me and alpha go way back, and even though he is known to fly of the handle at times, I still hold him high up there in that most of his views and or reasoning to be quite sound and of good quality..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE
Every time Alpha or anyone else explains something to you, you claim they don't know what they are talking about, insult them and then whine some more on how no one is explaining anything to you.
Don't expect anyone else to waste their time with you.
I know I cant explain it unless I refer to repulsion, but in the process of doing so has implied attractive forces null an void due to the reliance on repulsion, and if we go back to what alphanumeric has posted it seems he cant either, as his way out was some reference to a book, that may or may not be able to explain attraction..
I wish he had provided a link rather than some book that I may never be able to get my hands on..
BTW Rob, alphanumeric only ever received negativity from me as a consequence to his negative remarks towards me, me and alpha go way back, and even though he is known to fly of the handle at times, I still hold him high up there in that most of his views and or reasoning to be quite sound and of good quality..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Much of the below is much how I reason,
I have commented further where I feel some clarification for both of our sakes is in order
I have commented further where I feel some clarification for both of our sakes is in order
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 13 2009, 12:36 PM)
Ok, I had to read this several times before it made sense to me, but now I think I finally get what you're saying.
Yeah I'm sorry about that, I will try and proof read my posts before posting..
You're basically looking at compression/density as the overcoming of kinetic energy by potential energy. So kinetic energy, in your mind, pushes/repulses matter/particles away from each other with greater velocity, momentum, etc. You see kinetic energy as essentially DE-densifying force.
When you talk about the surroundings of a black-hole, you are referring to all particles and energy moving toward or away from the black-hole at any distance, not just the immediate surrounding or something like that.yes, but bare in mind how a density is possible in the first place, for example, if I were to model how a density is to double, and then we consider what I just described should be considered to be happening from all directions..
Anyway here is a two dimensional model where I will need to be mindful height refers to potential energy and width refers to Kinetic energy..
the following dotted line is the model I will refer to..
---- Now lets say we pushed that dotted line from the left and from the right.. the result would be some compression to the line..
the following four lines is now what I refer to..
-=- after some exertion we will note some of our density is compressed, as in its kinetic energy "WIDTH" is converted to Potential energy "HEIGHT", as in it has gone solid and or rigid..
And if we compress even more so we could end up with a density so rigid, it would take a considerable amount of its kinetic energy to repulse its surrounding density, but in doing so it may need to use some of the stored energy "POTENTIAL ENERGY"..
The above model could have been referring to a massive Black-Hole, sun, planet, moon, Atom or a sub atomic particle, but with them we need to consider they are bombarded by Kinetic energy from all directions..
The point is for a compression to result we need to have potentials with a velocity to them for the velocity to be cancelled out..
QUOTE
You're basically looking at compression/density as the overcoming of kinetic energy by potential energy. So kinetic energy, in your mind, pushes/repulses matter/particles away from each other with greater velocity, momentum, etc. You see kinetic energy as essentially DE-densifying force.
When you talk about the surroundings of a black-hole, you are referring to all particles and energy moving toward or away from the black-hole at any distance, not just the immediate surrounding or something like that.
Anyway here is a two dimensional model where I will need to be mindful height refers to potential energy and width refers to Kinetic energy..
the following dotted line is the model I will refer to..
---- Now lets say we pushed that dotted line from the left and from the right.. the result would be some compression to the line..
the following four lines is now what I refer to..
-=- after some exertion we will note some of our density is compressed, as in its kinetic energy "WIDTH" is converted to Potential energy "HEIGHT", as in it has gone solid and or rigid..
And if we compress even more so we could end up with a density so rigid, it would take a considerable amount of its kinetic energy to repulse its surrounding density, but in doing so it may need to use some of the stored energy "POTENTIAL ENERGY"..
The above model could have been referring to a massive Black-Hole, sun, planet, moon, Atom or a sub atomic particle, but with them we need to consider they are bombarded by Kinetic energy from all directions..
The point is for a compression to result we need to have potentials with a velocity to them for the velocity to be cancelled out..
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
You're basically looking at compression/density as the overcoming of kinetic energy by potential energy. So kinetic energy, in your mind, pushes/repulses matter/particles away from each other with greater velocity, momentum, etc. You see kinetic energy as essentially DE-densifying force. When you talk about the surroundings of a black-hole, you are referring to all particles and energy moving toward or away from the black-hole at any distance, not just the immediate surrounding or something like that. |
yes, but bare in mind how a density is possible in the first place, for example, if I were to model how a density is to double, and then we consider what I just described should be considered to be happening from all directions..
Anyway here is a two dimensional model where I will need to be mindful height refers to potential energy and width refers to Kinetic energy..
the following dotted line is the model I will refer to..
---- Now lets say we pushed that dotted line from the left and from the right.. the result would be some compression to the line..
the following four lines is now what I refer to..
-=- after some exertion we will note some of our density is compressed, as in its kinetic energy "WIDTH" is converted to Potential energy "HEIGHT", as in it has gone solid and or rigid..
And if we compress even more so we could end up with a density so rigid, it would take a considerable amount of its kinetic energy to repulse its surrounding density, but in doing so it may need to use some of the stored energy "POTENTIAL ENERGY"..
The above model could have been referring to a massive Black-Hole, sun, planet, moon, Atom or a sub atomic particle, but with them we need to consider they are bombarded by Kinetic energy from all directions..
The point is for a compression to result we need to have potentials with a velocity to them for the velocity to be cancelled out..
So you view the higher kinetic energy areas outside the black-hole almost like atmospheric pressure pushing matter and energy with less momentum toward the black-hole. BTW, I don't know if EM waves/photons can have more or less momentum
Anyway here is a two dimensional model where I will need to be mindful height refers to potential energy and width refers to Kinetic energy..
the following dotted line is the model I will refer to..
---- Now lets say we pushed that dotted line from the left and from the right.. the result would be some compression to the line..
the following four lines is now what I refer to..
-=- after some exertion we will note some of our density is compressed, as in its kinetic energy "WIDTH" is converted to Potential energy "HEIGHT", as in it has gone solid and or rigid..
And if we compress even more so we could end up with a density so rigid, it would take a considerable amount of its kinetic energy to repulse its surrounding density, but in doing so it may need to use some of the stored energy "POTENTIAL ENERGY"..
The above model could have been referring to a massive Black-Hole, sun, planet, moon, Atom or a sub atomic particle, but with them we need to consider they are bombarded by Kinetic energy from all directions..
The point is for a compression to result we need to have potentials with a velocity to them for the velocity to be cancelled out..
So you view the higher kinetic energy areas outside the black-hole almost like atmospheric pressure pushing matter and energy with less momentum toward the black-hole. BTW, I don't know if EM waves/photons can have more or less momentum
EM Waves or "Light" is propagated @c in a NEAR Vacuum, and therefore a little slower in relatively compressed densities..
QUOTE
but I assume they can based on their frequency and size (i.e. more and less powerful wavelengths). I don't know if less powerful frequencies are somehow more susceptible to gravitation than more powerful ones or the reverse, but it's not really relevant to your point anyway, my own tangent I guess.
So to sum up, your view of energy and matter/density is basically that the least dense areas of the universe are comprised of the matter with the most kinetic energy, and that it is this high-kinetic-energy matter that is responsible for pushing matter with less kinetic energy away from it, which brings it into proximity with other matter with a lower KE/PE ratio. Then, I assume that PE increases as the matter coagulates, which further suppresses KE - which you would probably call the build up of gravitation.
So attraction doesn't really explain gravity in your view. Kinetic energy and repulsion are the cause and gravity is just the resulting build-up of potential energy.
The question is why matter stays together once it has been repulsed into a coagulating area?
Momentum is reliant on Kinetic energy, the higher the kinetic energy the more momentum and as kinetic energy is exchanged to Potential energy, one has to concede that momentum is lost. So to sum up, your view of energy and matter/density is basically that the least dense areas of the universe are comprised of the matter with the most kinetic energy, and that it is this high-kinetic-energy matter that is responsible for pushing matter with less kinetic energy away from it, which brings it into proximity with other matter with a lower KE/PE ratio. Then, I assume that PE increases as the matter coagulates, which further suppresses KE - which you would probably call the build up of gravitation.
So attraction doesn't really explain gravity in your view. Kinetic energy and repulsion are the cause and gravity is just the resulting build-up of potential energy.
The question is why matter stays together once it has been repulsed into a coagulating area?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| but I assume they can based on their frequency and size (i.e. more and less powerful wavelengths). I don't know if less powerful frequencies are somehow more susceptible to gravitation than more powerful ones or the reverse, but it's not really relevant to your point anyway, my own tangent I guess. So to sum up, your view of energy and matter/density is basically that the least dense areas of the universe are comprised of the matter with the most kinetic energy, and that it is this high-kinetic-energy matter that is responsible for pushing matter with less kinetic energy away from it, which brings it into proximity with other matter with a lower KE/PE ratio. Then, I assume that PE increases as the matter coagulates, which further suppresses KE - which you would probably call the build up of gravitation. So attraction doesn't really explain gravity in your view. Kinetic energy and repulsion are the cause and gravity is just the resulting build-up of potential energy. The question is why matter stays together once it has been repulsed into a coagulating area? |
Momentum is reliant on Kinetic energy, the higher the kinetic energy the more momentum and as kinetic energy is exchanged to Potential energy, one has to concede that momentum is lost. It is because KE is basically uniformly distributed in the high KE/PE regions of the universe, causing the coagulated matter to be held in a higher PE/KE ratio by collisions with higher KE/PE ratio particles surrounding it?
I will refer to another two dimensional model which I hope should point out why compression points end up exerted towards each other..
I reason the more kinetic energy, the greater the possible exertion..
-----=---=----- the two higher potentials "relative solids in a Near vacuum" will end up being exerted to each other by the lack of kinetic energy in between them, compared to each of the other side of the solid where there is much more kinetic Energy.. Most or should I say everyone would refer to the two solids being with an attractive force "gravity" to them, while I reason our mass is actually exerted towards other mass
I guess that would make sense explaining, say, the anti-sublimating effect of the atmosphere on a body of water. But can it also explain the density of the atmosphere by the KE force of matter farther away from the planet's center? I think people would argue that the magnetic field keeps the atmosphere from "blowing away" and that KE is low in outer-space, hence the vacuum.It is no accident how our planet has densities existing where they exist. with respects to Sea Level for example
K...
K...
'Attraction' isn't a force any more than 'hot' is fire. A force can be attractive or repulsive. And there are different forces, mediated by different particles, but there is no force called 'Attraction' or 'Repulsion'. They are adjectives, not nouns.
K...
'Attraction' isn't a force any more than 'hot' is fire. A force can be attractive or repulsive. And there are different forces, mediated by different particles, but there is no force called 'Attraction' or 'Repulsion'. They are adjectives, not nouns.
Sigh
Are we done?
I am sorry Rob and I know this must be frustrating but No,
Because when I refer to a repulsive force, I reason I am referring to a potential or some previously compressed mass that is in the act of decompressing, and therefore is exerting in all directions outwardly, a classic Repulsion..
Now I don't subscribe to an attractive force, so its over to anyone who cares to detail to me how attraction as per my above explanation is possible without referring to repulsion..
Looking forward to the details I desperately crave, so thanks in advance to anybody who can explain this magical attraction..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
I reason the more kinetic energy, the greater the possible exertion..
-----=---=----- the two higher potentials "relative solids in a Near vacuum" will end up being exerted to each other by the lack of kinetic energy in between them, compared to each of the other side of the solid where there is much more kinetic Energy.. Most or should I say everyone would refer to the two solids being with an attractive force "gravity" to them, while I reason our mass is actually exerted towards other mass
QUOTE
I guess that would make sense explaining, say, the anti-sublimating effect of the atmosphere on a body of water. But can it also explain the density of the atmosphere by the KE force of matter farther away from the planet's center? I think people would argue that the magnetic field keeps the atmosphere from "blowing away" and that KE is low in outer-space, hence the vacuum.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
I guess that would make sense explaining, say, the anti-sublimating effect of the atmosphere on a body of water. But can it also explain the density of the atmosphere by the KE force of matter farther away from the planet's center? I think people would argue that the magnetic field keeps the atmosphere from "blowing away" and that KE is low in outer-space, hence the vacuum. |
It is no accident how our planet has densities existing where they exist. with respects to Sea Level for example
Can your theory explain the relative vacuum of outer-space while maintaining that it has a high KE/PE ratio compared with denser or "more compressed" areas?
I don't see why not, but then I am no expert, so my model may be overly simplistic for most physicists likings..
At this point let me add,
The speed of light in a NEAR Vacuum is the key here in pointing out just how kinetic a density is, and with respects to potential - well its obvious it must be extremely low if its with very little resistance to it or on the other hand if a mass or density is very rigid, it must be high in Potential Energy..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Can your theory explain the relative vacuum of outer-space while maintaining that it has a high KE/PE ratio compared with denser or "more compressed" areas?
I don't see why not, but then I am no expert, so my model may be overly simplistic for most physicists likings..
At this point let me add,
The speed of light in a NEAR Vacuum is the key here in pointing out just how kinetic a density is, and with respects to potential - well its obvious it must be extremely low if its with very little resistance to it or on the other hand if a mass or density is very rigid, it must be high in Potential Energy..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE
Then please post a link to it..
K...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Then please post a link to it.. |
K...
'Attraction' isn't a force any more than 'hot' is fire. A force can be attractive or repulsive. And there are different forces, mediated by different particles, but there is no force called 'Attraction' or 'Repulsion'. They are adjectives, not nouns.
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 8 2009, 09:18 PM)
Around five years ago I asked this question and the whole exercise was turned into a farce by know it Al's and trolls, where in the end no one answered what should be an easy question to answer..
OK first I would appreciate it if, one could brush up on force and motion laws..
If we consider how force and motion rely on the other to be possible, how can a magical force such as attraction be possible?
Don't get me wrong, I fully understand that when two densities be they electromagnetic or not are observed to be converging, I can only see the two densities and or Potentials are with momentum only by the result of some Repulsion, but when I converse with others here in this forum, including those who claim to be actual active Physicists, they casually refer to attraction as if its a force..
What am I missing about this "what I consider" magical force - that has me thus far convinced attractive force simply is not possible?
And yes when I refer to gravity, I consider it as a result from push or repulsion, and the same goes to magnetic interactions, to me they are all from the result of repulsion..
Having said that I have considered what thought experiment would point out my point and the result was a Vacuum cleaner will serve me well here..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
PS
That vacuum cleaner experiment needs a vacuum cleaner with an input as well as an output socket, so that one can mess around with two hoses connected to both of the sockets of the Vacuum cleaner, in order that the two ends of the hoses present as poles of a magnet do..
Wow,
I think what amazes me the most in your original post is that you consider both gravity and magnetism to be a repelling force. Do you know the difference between a repulsive and an attractive force? I don't think you do if you consider magnetism especially as a repulsive force only.
Gravity can be argued to be nothing more than a measure of how warped space is due to some body of mass and that mass to mass interactions are actually not coupled by a mutually attractive force called gravity but rather mass warps the curvature of space and bodies that pass into a warped region of space due to some mass, if unaffected by any other forces, are drawn by the warped space to follow that curvature, which is always towards the center of the mass that is warping the surrounding space; and the degree to which space is warped is the gravity of that mass. It depends on whether you believe Newton or Einstein. Newton believed gravity was a mutually attractive force between any bodies of matter that have mass; while Einstein believed mass warps the curvature of space and objects unaffected by other forces follow the warped path in the curvature of space; and that gravity should be considered only as a measurement of how warped a region of space is due to some mass. So let's leave gravity out of this; there are plenty of other examples of attractiveforces
But magnetism DEFINITELY has an attractive force. So do unlike charged particles, as does you tied up with a rope with me pulling on it. In all three of these cases the force between the objects is attractive! A North pole of a magnet will be attracted to and pulled on by the South pole of another magnet and vise versa. The south pole of the other magnet is attracted to the North pole of the first. There exists a mutually attractive force between the unlike poles of magnets.
If you have a proton and an electron separated by a small distance there will exist a mutually attractive force between the two such that if free to move they will be attracted together. Two electrons would repel each other, an example of a repulsive force, but unlike charges are attracted to each other and there exists an electric field between two unlike charges that forces the charges, if free to move, to come together. They pull on each other, there isn't something out there that is forcing them together, they want to come together on their own via an ATTRACTIVE force between the two. How else could an attractive force be defined?
If I grab a balloon and rub it on my sweater and bring it over to the wall it stays there. Why? Because there is a mutually attractive electrostatic force between the two objects.
In the case where you are tied up with a rope and I start pulling on the rope. The force I apply in pulling you towards me seems to you to be an attractive force causing you to be attracted towards me. I'm not pushing on the rope to get you to come my way I'm pulling on the rope attracting you towards me; neither is there somebody behind you pushing you towards me, it's all me pulling on the rope causing an attractive force from me to you.
When I place a magnet on my refrigerator the magnet stays there. Not because it is being pushed up against it by some unknown means, but rather the magnet as it comes closer to the permeable material that makes up the door on my refrigerator causes the many of the electrons within the permeable material to begin spinning in the same direction as each other. This creates a low resistance path for the magnetic flux to pass through. The flux being attracted to the permeable surface of the door pulls the magnet onto the door and holds it in place because the magnetic field leaving and then entering my magnet is attracted to the path of least magnetic resistance and pulls the magnetic to the place where the resistance to the magnetic flux is at a minimum; this is an attractive force!
Another example with magnetism. If I have a thin sheet of paper and I place a magnetic on one side the magnetic field lines that pass through the paper are strong enough to attract a pile of iron filings that are on the other side of the paper, such that if I picked up the paper and turned it over the iron filings wouldn't drop to the floor because the ATTRACTIVE force from the magnetic field lines are holding the extremely permeable iron filings in place. There's no outside repelling force making the filings stick to the paper when a magnet is on the other side, its the magnetic field that is PULLING on the iron filings that are holding them in place. How can you not call that an attractive force?
I'm sorry, but to say that magnetism is only a repulsive force is simply stupid. I just gave you a number of examples of an attractive force that don't include gravity. If you think that any of them are incorrect then prove it. I've done the mathematics behind my examples and mathematics if done correctly doesn't lie.
It shows that the forces I put forth to you are attractive forces. If you disagree with any of these examples then you disagree with about every genius scientist, engineer, and physicist who has ever lived. I'm a college professor in the field of electrical engineering and if one of my students came to me and said there is no such thing as an attractive force, I would probably at first laugh, and then if I thought they were serious I would be apt to fail them in my courses just so they don't go on to get a degree and end up in a position where others may learn from them; and the thought of somebody teaching other people that an attractive force is not real I find to be very distasteful.
I mean seriously, do you really think there is no such thing as an attractive force? Frankly if you do, you are seriously wrong and are in need of a formal education so you can learn the physics of this universe; or you are just simply stupid, I don't know because I don't know you. I do know for a fact that attractive forces do exist.
You'd have to be an idiot to argue otherwise.
Craig
OK first I would appreciate it if, one could brush up on force and motion laws..
If we consider how force and motion rely on the other to be possible, how can a magical force such as attraction be possible?
Don't get me wrong, I fully understand that when two densities be they electromagnetic or not are observed to be converging, I can only see the two densities and or Potentials are with momentum only by the result of some Repulsion, but when I converse with others here in this forum, including those who claim to be actual active Physicists, they casually refer to attraction as if its a force..
What am I missing about this "what I consider" magical force - that has me thus far convinced attractive force simply is not possible?
And yes when I refer to gravity, I consider it as a result from push or repulsion, and the same goes to magnetic interactions, to me they are all from the result of repulsion..
Having said that I have considered what thought experiment would point out my point and the result was a Vacuum cleaner will serve me well here..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
PS
That vacuum cleaner experiment needs a vacuum cleaner with an input as well as an output socket, so that one can mess around with two hoses connected to both of the sockets of the Vacuum cleaner, in order that the two ends of the hoses present as poles of a magnet do..
Wow,
I think what amazes me the most in your original post is that you consider both gravity and magnetism to be a repelling force. Do you know the difference between a repulsive and an attractive force? I don't think you do if you consider magnetism especially as a repulsive force only.
Gravity can be argued to be nothing more than a measure of how warped space is due to some body of mass and that mass to mass interactions are actually not coupled by a mutually attractive force called gravity but rather mass warps the curvature of space and bodies that pass into a warped region of space due to some mass, if unaffected by any other forces, are drawn by the warped space to follow that curvature, which is always towards the center of the mass that is warping the surrounding space; and the degree to which space is warped is the gravity of that mass. It depends on whether you believe Newton or Einstein. Newton believed gravity was a mutually attractive force between any bodies of matter that have mass; while Einstein believed mass warps the curvature of space and objects unaffected by other forces follow the warped path in the curvature of space; and that gravity should be considered only as a measurement of how warped a region of space is due to some mass. So let's leave gravity out of this; there are plenty of other examples of attractiveforces
But magnetism DEFINITELY has an attractive force. So do unlike charged particles, as does you tied up with a rope with me pulling on it. In all three of these cases the force between the objects is attractive! A North pole of a magnet will be attracted to and pulled on by the South pole of another magnet and vise versa. The south pole of the other magnet is attracted to the North pole of the first. There exists a mutually attractive force between the unlike poles of magnets.
If you have a proton and an electron separated by a small distance there will exist a mutually attractive force between the two such that if free to move they will be attracted together. Two electrons would repel each other, an example of a repulsive force, but unlike charges are attracted to each other and there exists an electric field between two unlike charges that forces the charges, if free to move, to come together. They pull on each other, there isn't something out there that is forcing them together, they want to come together on their own via an ATTRACTIVE force between the two. How else could an attractive force be defined?
If I grab a balloon and rub it on my sweater and bring it over to the wall it stays there. Why? Because there is a mutually attractive electrostatic force between the two objects.
In the case where you are tied up with a rope and I start pulling on the rope. The force I apply in pulling you towards me seems to you to be an attractive force causing you to be attracted towards me. I'm not pushing on the rope to get you to come my way I'm pulling on the rope attracting you towards me; neither is there somebody behind you pushing you towards me, it's all me pulling on the rope causing an attractive force from me to you.
When I place a magnet on my refrigerator the magnet stays there. Not because it is being pushed up against it by some unknown means, but rather the magnet as it comes closer to the permeable material that makes up the door on my refrigerator causes the many of the electrons within the permeable material to begin spinning in the same direction as each other. This creates a low resistance path for the magnetic flux to pass through. The flux being attracted to the permeable surface of the door pulls the magnet onto the door and holds it in place because the magnetic field leaving and then entering my magnet is attracted to the path of least magnetic resistance and pulls the magnetic to the place where the resistance to the magnetic flux is at a minimum; this is an attractive force!
Another example with magnetism. If I have a thin sheet of paper and I place a magnetic on one side the magnetic field lines that pass through the paper are strong enough to attract a pile of iron filings that are on the other side of the paper, such that if I picked up the paper and turned it over the iron filings wouldn't drop to the floor because the ATTRACTIVE force from the magnetic field lines are holding the extremely permeable iron filings in place. There's no outside repelling force making the filings stick to the paper when a magnet is on the other side, its the magnetic field that is PULLING on the iron filings that are holding them in place. How can you not call that an attractive force?
I'm sorry, but to say that magnetism is only a repulsive force is simply stupid. I just gave you a number of examples of an attractive force that don't include gravity. If you think that any of them are incorrect then prove it. I've done the mathematics behind my examples and mathematics if done correctly doesn't lie.
It shows that the forces I put forth to you are attractive forces. If you disagree with any of these examples then you disagree with about every genius scientist, engineer, and physicist who has ever lived. I'm a college professor in the field of electrical engineering and if one of my students came to me and said there is no such thing as an attractive force, I would probably at first laugh, and then if I thought they were serious I would be apt to fail them in my courses just so they don't go on to get a degree and end up in a position where others may learn from them; and the thought of somebody teaching other people that an attractive force is not real I find to be very distasteful.
I mean seriously, do you really think there is no such thing as an attractive force? Frankly if you do, you are seriously wrong and are in need of a formal education so you can learn the physics of this universe; or you are just simply stupid, I don't know because I don't know you. I do know for a fact that attractive forces do exist.
You'd have to be an idiot to argue otherwise.
Craig
I have told Laidback where he can get the information, page 126 of Peskin and Schroder's 'An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory'. Unfortunately it assumes you know quantum field theory basics, along with concepts like Fourier transformations. ]
Laidback hasn't bothered to look up such information and even if he did he wouldn't understand it because he knows no quantum field theory. He keeps saying "Explain it in layman terms" and uses the excuse that explainations shouldn't be elitist. But some explainations are complicated. I don't expect a 5 year old to understand the biochemistry of a vaccine he's given just like I don't expect him to understand the principles which make his computer work.
Laidback tries to convince people he's got years of experience but if anyone assumes such experience when they answer his questions he doesn't accept the explaination! The derivation that particle exchanges can result in a force which is only attractive on the macroscopic scale requires a grasp of the particle exchanges and how to compute effective actions. If Laidback knows all about quantum photon interactions then the reference I've given will be easy for him to grasp.
Laidback, don't whine about people not answering your question just because you're too damn stupid to understand the answer.
Laidback hasn't bothered to look up such information and even if he did he wouldn't understand it because he knows no quantum field theory. He keeps saying "Explain it in layman terms" and uses the excuse that explainations shouldn't be elitist. But some explainations are complicated. I don't expect a 5 year old to understand the biochemistry of a vaccine he's given just like I don't expect him to understand the principles which make his computer work.
Laidback tries to convince people he's got years of experience but if anyone assumes such experience when they answer his questions he doesn't accept the explaination! The derivation that particle exchanges can result in a force which is only attractive on the macroscopic scale requires a grasp of the particle exchanges and how to compute effective actions. If Laidback knows all about quantum photon interactions then the reference I've given will be easy for him to grasp.
Laidback, don't whine about people not answering your question just because you're too damn stupid to understand the answer.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Dec 13 2009, 03:22 PM)
K...
'Attraction' isn't a force any more than 'hot' is fire. A force can be attractive or repulsive. And there are different forces, mediated by different particles, but there is no force called 'Attraction' or 'Repulsion'. They are adjectives, not nouns.
Sigh
Are we done?
I am sorry Rob and I know this must be frustrating but No,
Because when I refer to a repulsive force, I reason I am referring to a potential or some previously compressed mass that is in the act of decompressing, and therefore is exerting in all directions outwardly, a classic Repulsion..
Now I don't subscribe to an attractive force, so its over to anyone who cares to detail to me how attraction as per my above explanation is possible without referring to repulsion..
Looking forward to the details I desperately crave, so thanks in advance to anybody who can explain this magical attraction..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
I think that I understand his epistemology so I will try to help explain it. I'm not supporting or rejecting his ideas. I just understand them, so I'm going to try to see if I can clarify. He may tell me I've got it wrong and correct me himself. But anyway, here goes:
Attraction and warping of space-time are both effects that are predicated on the assumption of coagulation, density, compression, and potential energy exceeding kinetic energy PRIOR to ideas about how matter got into that situation in the first place.
His notion is that the reason the ratio of potential energy to kinetic energy begins to increase in the first place, is because of high-KE/low-PE energy repelling particles into each other to the point where they start to coagulate/compress into relatively trapped densities. His point is that as kinetic energy gives in to relative stasis, i.e. converts to potential energy, it loses its ability to "push" back against the particles that are bombarding it, and therefore has the tendency to increase in mass and density, i.e. coagulate and compress. I hope I am interpreting this right.
So for him there's no such thing as attractive force. All kinetic energy is energy of repulsion. Potential energy is the product of kinetic energy losing momentum as its motion becomes increasingly constrained. I'm not exactly sure why he would say potential energy state is retained instead of reconverted back to kinetic energy at the earliest chance, but perhaps it has to do with conservation of momentum that causes it to have the tendency to reach equilibrium in a certain "holding pattern" that renders its energy potential rather than kinetic. Is that making any sense?
Attraction and warping of space-time are both effects that are predicated on the assumption of coagulation, density, compression, and potential energy exceeding kinetic energy PRIOR to ideas about how matter got into that situation in the first place.
His notion is that the reason the ratio of potential energy to kinetic energy begins to increase in the first place, is because of high-KE/low-PE energy repelling particles into each other to the point where they start to coagulate/compress into relatively trapped densities. His point is that as kinetic energy gives in to relative stasis, i.e. converts to potential energy, it loses its ability to "push" back against the particles that are bombarding it, and therefore has the tendency to increase in mass and density, i.e. coagulate and compress. I hope I am interpreting this right.
So for him there's no such thing as attractive force. All kinetic energy is energy of repulsion. Potential energy is the product of kinetic energy losing momentum as its motion becomes increasingly constrained. I'm not exactly sure why he would say potential energy state is retained instead of reconverted back to kinetic energy at the earliest chance, but perhaps it has to do with conservation of momentum that causes it to have the tendency to reach equilibrium in a certain "holding pattern" that renders its energy potential rather than kinetic. Is that making any sense?
If you have a proton and an electron separated by a small distance there will exist a mutually attractive force between the two such that if free to move they will be attracted together. Two electrons would repel each other, an example of a repulsive force, but unlike charges are attracted to each other and there exists an electric field between two unlike charges that forces the charges, if free to move, to come together. They pull on each other, there isn't something out there that is forcing them together, they want to come together on their own via an ATTRACTIVE force between the two. How else could an attractive force be defined?
Based on my understanding of how he thinks about material density and kinetic energy, I am guessing that he would say that magnetism is caused by the absence of repelling force at the poles of a magnet, which becomes "attractive" because of the average kinetic energy of repulsion caused by normal multidirectional electron motion. I think he would say that the reason why so many things are not magnetically "attracted" to each other all the time is because they are being repelled away from each other by the repulsion of kinetically energized electrons in molecular "shells." In the absence of such repulsion, presumably, the molecules of a magnet have no way to repel away from the molecules of the other magnet or metal.
It does seem to me that there is a tendency for electrons to seek electron "holes," though, which does seem to be a form of attraction rather than repulsion. I wonder what he would say about that.
QUOTE
Gravity can be argued to be nothing more than a measure of how warped space is due to some body of mass and that mass to mass interactions are actually not coupled by a mutually attractive force called gravity but rather mass warps the curvature of space and bodies that pass into a warped region of space due to some mass, if unaffected by any other forces, are drawn by the warped space to follow that curvature, which is always towards the center of the mass that is warping the surrounding space; and the degree to which space is warped is the gravity of that mass.
Attraction and warping of space-time are both effects that are predicated on the assumption of coagulation, density, compression, and potential energy exceeding kinetic energy PRIOR to ideas about how matter got into that situation in the first place.
His notion is that the reason the ratio of potential energy to kinetic energy begins to increase in the first place, is because of high-KE/low-PE energy repelling particles into each other to the point where they start to coagulate/compress into relatively trapped densities. His point is that as kinetic energy gives in to relative stasis, i.e. converts to potential energy, it loses its ability to "push" back against the particles that are bombarding it, and therefore has the tendency to increase in mass and density, i.e. coagulate and compress. I hope I am interpreting this right.
So for him there's no such thing as attractive force. All kinetic energy is energy of repulsion. Potential energy is the product of kinetic energy losing momentum as its motion becomes increasingly constrained. I'm not exactly sure why he would say potential energy state is retained instead of reconverted back to kinetic energy at the earliest chance, but perhaps it has to do with conservation of momentum that causes it to have the tendency to reach equilibrium in a certain "holding pattern" that renders its energy potential rather than kinetic. Is that making any sense?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Gravity can be argued to be nothing more than a measure of how warped space is due to some body of mass and that mass to mass interactions are actually not coupled by a mutually attractive force called gravity but rather mass warps the curvature of space and bodies that pass into a warped region of space due to some mass, if unaffected by any other forces, are drawn by the warped space to follow that curvature, which is always towards the center of the mass that is warping the surrounding space; and the degree to which space is warped is the gravity of that mass. |
Attraction and warping of space-time are both effects that are predicated on the assumption of coagulation, density, compression, and potential energy exceeding kinetic energy PRIOR to ideas about how matter got into that situation in the first place.
His notion is that the reason the ratio of potential energy to kinetic energy begins to increase in the first place, is because of high-KE/low-PE energy repelling particles into each other to the point where they start to coagulate/compress into relatively trapped densities. His point is that as kinetic energy gives in to relative stasis, i.e. converts to potential energy, it loses its ability to "push" back against the particles that are bombarding it, and therefore has the tendency to increase in mass and density, i.e. coagulate and compress. I hope I am interpreting this right.
So for him there's no such thing as attractive force. All kinetic energy is energy of repulsion. Potential energy is the product of kinetic energy losing momentum as its motion becomes increasingly constrained. I'm not exactly sure why he would say potential energy state is retained instead of reconverted back to kinetic energy at the earliest chance, but perhaps it has to do with conservation of momentum that causes it to have the tendency to reach equilibrium in a certain "holding pattern" that renders its energy potential rather than kinetic. Is that making any sense?
If you have a proton and an electron separated by a small distance there will exist a mutually attractive force between the two such that if free to move they will be attracted together. Two electrons would repel each other, an example of a repulsive force, but unlike charges are attracted to each other and there exists an electric field between two unlike charges that forces the charges, if free to move, to come together. They pull on each other, there isn't something out there that is forcing them together, they want to come together on their own via an ATTRACTIVE force between the two. How else could an attractive force be defined?
Based on my understanding of how he thinks about material density and kinetic energy, I am guessing that he would say that magnetism is caused by the absence of repelling force at the poles of a magnet, which becomes "attractive" because of the average kinetic energy of repulsion caused by normal multidirectional electron motion. I think he would say that the reason why so many things are not magnetically "attracted" to each other all the time is because they are being repelled away from each other by the repulsion of kinetically energized electrons in molecular "shells." In the absence of such repulsion, presumably, the molecules of a magnet have no way to repel away from the molecules of the other magnet or metal.
It does seem to me that there is a tendency for electrons to seek electron "holes," though, which does seem to be a form of attraction rather than repulsion. I wonder what he would say about that.
QUOTE (Craig+Dec 13 2009, 04:24 PM)
Wow,
I think what amazes me the most in your original post is that you consider both gravity and magnetism to be a repelling force. Do you know the difference between a repulsive and an attractive force?
I think what amazes me the most in your original post is that you consider both gravity and magnetism to be a repelling force. Do you know the difference between a repulsive and an attractive force?
Yes Craig, I am quite aware of observed attraction and repulsion, and as I explained, I can understand how repulsion is possible, but when it comes to the magical beckoning, I cant comprehend it without considering the velocities responsible that have been provided by repulsion..
Once one fires up the vacuum cleaner the airs momentum is what one should be considering as it is pushed by the blades to a direction, the air moves, but as it does - neighboring air elsewhere takes its place, unless there is no neighboring air left, which will decrease the airs density.. having just stated that here's where most would perceive an attractive force, which if I may point out is still not really attractive, as I am considering a bigger picture, for example I consider if that thinned density were exposed to air that is more compressed than it, I reason the compressed air spreads out into or decompresses into the area that is with less compression to it having the area return to the same air pressure, likewise when a planes pressurized cabin is abruptly exposed to the upper atmosphere, the pressurized air will decompress, but in doing so create to most a magical attractive force, but I don't see it that way at all, because the way I see it is - all that's really happening is the compressed air simply is repulsing outwardly and decompressing via the hole, the hole to me simply can never be some magical attractive force, and this applies to a magnetic fields momentum, and I am sure you being a teacher now know why I cant concede to attractive force.
That is if you have a detailed knowledge of the fields momentum I refer to..
QUOTE
I don't think you do if you consider magnetism especially as a repulsive force only.
maybe this is my problem as I reason all mass is electromagnetic, and all magnetic fields are with constant momentum, very much like that vacuum cleaner thought experiment I suggested using airs momentum to present a magnetic fields momentum within all mass.. Once one fires up the vacuum cleaner the airs momentum is what one should be considering as it is pushed by the blades to a direction, the air moves, but as it does - neighboring air elsewhere takes its place, unless there is no neighboring air left, which will decrease the airs density.. having just stated that here's where most would perceive an attractive force, which if I may point out is still not really attractive, as I am considering a bigger picture, for example I consider if that thinned density were exposed to air that is more compressed than it, I reason the compressed air spreads out into or decompresses into the area that is with less compression to it having the area return to the same air pressure, likewise when a planes pressurized cabin is abruptly exposed to the upper atmosphere, the pressurized air will decompress, but in doing so create to most a magical attractive force, but I don't see it that way at all, because the way I see it is - all that's really happening is the compressed air simply is repulsing outwardly and decompressing via the hole, the hole to me simply can never be some magical attractive force, and this applies to a magnetic fields momentum, and I am sure you being a teacher now know why I cant concede to attractive force.
That is if you have a detailed knowledge of the fields momentum I refer to..
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I don't think you do if you consider magnetism especially as a repulsive force only. |
maybe this is my problem as I reason all mass is electromagnetic, and all magnetic fields are with constant momentum, very much like that vacuum cleaner thought experiment I suggested using airs momentum to present a magnetic fields momentum within all mass..
Once one fires up the vacuum cleaner the airs momentum is what one should be considering as it is pushed by the blades to a direction, the air moves, but as it does - neighboring air elsewhere takes its place, unless there is no neighboring air left, which will decrease the airs density.. having just stated that here's where most would perceive an attractive force, which if I may point out is still not really attractive, as I am considering a bigger picture, for example I consider if that thinned density were exposed to air that is more compressed than it, I reason the compressed air spreads out into or decompresses into the area that is with less compression to it having the area return to the same air pressure, likewise when a planes pressurized cabin is abruptly exposed to the upper atmosphere, the pressurized air will decompress, but in doing so create to most a magical attractive force, but I don't see it that way at all, because the way I see it is - all that's really happening is the compressed air simply is repulsing outwardly and decompressing via the hole, the hole to me simply can never be some magical attractive force, and this applies to a magnetic fields momentum, and I am sure you being a teacher now know why I cant concede to attractive force.
That is if you have a detailed knowledge of the fields momentum I refer to..
Gravity can be argued to be nothing more than a measure of how warped space is due to some body of mass and that mass to mass interactions are actually not coupled by a mutually attractive force called gravity but rather mass warps the curvature of space and bodies that pass into a warped region of space due to some mass, if unaffected by any other forces, are drawn by the warped space to follow that curvature, which is always towards the center of the mass that is warping the surrounding space; and the degree to which space is warped is the gravity of that mass.
Once one fires up the vacuum cleaner the airs momentum is what one should be considering as it is pushed by the blades to a direction, the air moves, but as it does - neighboring air elsewhere takes its place, unless there is no neighboring air left, which will decrease the airs density.. having just stated that here's where most would perceive an attractive force, which if I may point out is still not really attractive, as I am considering a bigger picture, for example I consider if that thinned density were exposed to air that is more compressed than it, I reason the compressed air spreads out into or decompresses into the area that is with less compression to it having the area return to the same air pressure, likewise when a planes pressurized cabin is abruptly exposed to the upper atmosphere, the pressurized air will decompress, but in doing so create to most a magical attractive force, but I don't see it that way at all, because the way I see it is - all that's really happening is the compressed air simply is repulsing outwardly and decompressing via the hole, the hole to me simply can never be some magical attractive force, and this applies to a magnetic fields momentum, and I am sure you being a teacher now know why I cant concede to attractive force.
That is if you have a detailed knowledge of the fields momentum I refer to..
Gravity can be argued to be nothing more than a measure of how warped space is due to some body of mass and that mass to mass interactions are actually not coupled by a mutually attractive force called gravity but rather mass warps the curvature of space and bodies that pass into a warped region of space due to some mass, if unaffected by any other forces, are drawn by the warped space to follow that curvature, which is always towards the center of the mass that is warping the surrounding space; and the degree to which space is warped is the gravity of that mass.
Actually Einstein is closer to the mark, but had he known what we know today, I feel he would agree with much of my reasoning
QUOTE
It depends on whether you believe Newton or Einstein. Newton believed gravity was a mutually attractive force between any bodies of matter that have mass; while Einstein believed mass warps the curvature of space and objects unaffected by other forces follow the warped path in the curvature of space; and that gravity should be considered only as a measurement of how warped a region of space is due to some mass. So let's leave gravity out of this; there are plenty of other examples of attractiveforces
And I insist with in-depth scrutiny, each and every one of them depend on repulsion to be possible.. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It depends on whether you believe Newton or Einstein. Newton believed gravity was a mutually attractive force between any bodies of matter that have mass; while Einstein believed mass warps the curvature of space and objects unaffected by other forces follow the warped path in the curvature of space; and that gravity should be considered only as a measurement of how warped a region of space is due to some mass. So let's leave gravity out of this; there are plenty of other examples of attractiveforces |
And I insist with in-depth scrutiny, each and every one of them depend on repulsion to be possible..
But magnetism DEFINITELY has an attractive force.
But magnetism DEFINITELY has an attractive force.
And unless you can detail how such attraction is possible, to me you are merely referring to magic.
QUOTE
So do unlike charged particles,
And I kindly repeat my request, that unless you can detail how such attraction is possible, to me you are merely referring to some magical force.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So do unlike charged particles, |
And I kindly repeat my request, that unless you can detail how such attraction is possible, to me you are merely referring to some magical force. as does you tied up with a rope with me pulling on it. In all three of these cases the force between the objects is attractive!
A North pole of a magnet will be attracted to and pulled on by the South pole of another magnet and vise Vs.
A North pole of a magnet will be attracted to and pulled on by the South pole of another magnet and vise Vs.
I see a bigger picture where the two magnets and their interactions with their environments fields are all adhering to all of the respective velocities, having the two poles via lacking Potential exerted towards each other..
QUOTE
The south pole of the other magnet is attracted to the North pole of the first. There exists a mutually attractive force between the unlike poles of magnets.
And I would insist we should consider the velocities beyond the magnets for a proper explanation. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The south pole of the other magnet is attracted to the North pole of the first. There exists a mutually attractive force between the unlike poles of magnets. |
And I would insist we should consider the velocities beyond the magnets for a proper explanation.
If you have a proton and an electron separated by a small distance there will exist a mutually attractive force between the two such that if free to move they will be attracted together.
If you have a proton and an electron separated by a small distance there will exist a mutually attractive force between the two such that if free to move they will be attracted together.
I insist they are repulsed together
QUOTE
Two electrons would repel each other, an example of a repulsive force, but unlike charges are attracted to each other and there exists an electric field between two unlike charges that forces the charges,
And if one considers the velocities and or momentum involved, they will have to concede observed attraction results from repulsionQUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Two electrons would repel each other, an example of a repulsive force, but unlike charges are attracted to each other and there exists an electric field between two unlike charges that forces the charges, |
And if one considers the velocities and or momentum involved, they will have to concede observed attraction results from repulsionif free to move, to come together. They pull on each other,
HOW?
QUOTE
there isn't something out there that is forcing them together, they want to come together on their own via an ATTRACTIVE force between the two.
explain this want, need without referring to repulsionsQUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| there isn't something out there that is forcing them together, they want to come together on their own via an ATTRACTIVE force between the two. |
explain this want, need without referring to repulsions How else could an attractive force be defined?
Via Repulsion..
for example what set of symbols implies a possible potential "stored energy" that is capable of expressing force?
<> we will note these symbols refer to opposing velocities expressing repulsion
>< and with these smybols we refer to opposing velocities that have resulted from some external repulsion, YES?
for example what set of symbols implies a possible potential "stored energy" that is capable of expressing force?
<> we will note these symbols refer to opposing velocities expressing repulsion
>< and with these smybols we refer to opposing velocities that have resulted from some external repulsion, YES?
QUOTE
If I grab a balloon and rub it on my sweater and bring it over to the wall it stays there.
Indeed, we can even stick them to the roof, but when we consider the kinetic energy, of the greater environment, we wil have to concede they are in fact repulsed together QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If I grab a balloon and rub it on my sweater and bring it over to the wall it stays there. |
Indeed, we can even stick them to the roof, but when we consider the kinetic energy, of the greater environment, we wil have to concede they are in fact repulsed together Why? Because there is a mutually attractive electrostatic force between the two objects.
if we dont care for acuracy by ignoring the greater picture, I agree, but when it comes to the crunch, the two balloons are actually repulsed together..
In the case where you are tied up with a rope and I start pulling on the rope. The force I apply in pulling you towards me seems to you to be an attractive force causing you to be attracted towards me. I'm not pushing on the rope to get you to come my way I'm pulling on the rope attracting you towards me; neither is there somebody behind you pushing you towards me, it's all me pulling on the rope causing an attractive force from me to you.
When I place a magnet on my refrigerator the magnet stays there. Not because it is being pushed up against it by some unknown means, but rather the magnet as it comes closer to the permeable material that makes up the door on my refrigerator causes the many of the electrons within the permeable material to begin spinning in the same direction as each other. This creates a low resistance path for the magnetic flux to pass through. The flux being attracted to the permeable surface of the door pulls the magnet onto the door and holds it in place because the magnetic field leaving and then entering my magnet is attracted to the path of least magnetic resistance and pulls the magnetic to the place where the resistance to the magnetic flux is at a minimum; this is an attractive force!
Another example with magnetism. If I have a thin sheet of paper and I place a magnetic on one side the magnetic field lines that pass through the paper are strong enough to attract a pile of iron filings that are on the other side of the paper, such that if I picked up the paper and turned it over the iron filings wouldn't drop to the floor because the ATTRACTIVE force from the magnetic field lines are holding the extremely permeable iron filings in place. There's no outside repelling force making the filings stick to the paper when a magnet is on the other side, its the magnetic field that is PULLING on the iron filings that are holding them in place. How can you not call that an attractive force?
I'm sorry, but to say that magnetism is only a repulsive force is simply stupid. I just gave you a number of examples of an attractive force that don't include gravity. If you think that any of them are incorrect then prove it. I've done the mathematics behind my examples and mathematics if done correctly doesn't lie.
It shows that the forces I put forth to you are attractive forces. If you disagree with any of these examples then you disagree with about every genius scientist, engineer, and physicist who has ever lived. I'm a college professor in the field of electrical engineering and if one of my students came to me and said there is no such thing as an attractive force, I would probably at first laugh,If they do, please dont
QUOTE
In the case where you are tied up with a rope and I start pulling on the rope. The force I apply in pulling you towards me seems to you to be an attractive force causing you to be attracted towards me. I'm not pushing on the rope to get you to come my way I'm pulling on the rope attracting you towards me; neither is there somebody behind you pushing you towards me, it's all me pulling on the rope causing an attractive force from me to you.
When I place a magnet on my refrigerator the magnet stays there. Not because it is being pushed up against it by some unknown means, but rather the magnet as it comes closer to the permeable material that makes up the door on my refrigerator causes the many of the electrons within the permeable material to begin spinning in the same direction as each other. This creates a low resistance path for the magnetic flux to pass through. The flux being attracted to the permeable surface of the door pulls the magnet onto the door and holds it in place because the magnetic field leaving and then entering my magnet is attracted to the path of least magnetic resistance and pulls the magnetic to the place where the resistance to the magnetic flux is at a minimum; this is an attractive force!
Another example with magnetism. If I have a thin sheet of paper and I place a magnetic on one side the magnetic field lines that pass through the paper are strong enough to attract a pile of iron filings that are on the other side of the paper, such that if I picked up the paper and turned it over the iron filings wouldn't drop to the floor because the ATTRACTIVE force from the magnetic field lines are holding the extremely permeable iron filings in place. There's no outside repelling force making the filings stick to the paper when a magnet is on the other side, its the magnetic field that is PULLING on the iron filings that are holding them in place. How can you not call that an attractive force?
I'm sorry, but to say that magnetism is only a repulsive force is simply stupid. I just gave you a number of examples of an attractive force that don't include gravity. If you think that any of them are incorrect then prove it. I've done the mathematics behind my examples and mathematics if done correctly doesn't lie.
It shows that the forces I put forth to you are attractive forces. If you disagree with any of these examples then you disagree with about every genius scientist, engineer, and physicist who has ever lived. I'm a college professor in the field of electrical engineering and if one of my students came to me and said there is no such thing as an attractive force, I would probably at first laugh,
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
In the case where you are tied up with a rope and I start pulling on the rope. The force I apply in pulling you towards me seems to you to be an attractive force causing you to be attracted towards me. I'm not pushing on the rope to get you to come my way I'm pulling on the rope attracting you towards me; neither is there somebody behind you pushing you towards me, it's all me pulling on the rope causing an attractive force from me to you. When I place a magnet on my refrigerator the magnet stays there. Not because it is being pushed up against it by some unknown means, but rather the magnet as it comes closer to the permeable material that makes up the door on my refrigerator causes the many of the electrons within the permeable material to begin spinning in the same direction as each other. This creates a low resistance path for the magnetic flux to pass through. The flux being attracted to the permeable surface of the door pulls the magnet onto the door and holds it in place because the magnetic field leaving and then entering my magnet is attracted to the path of least magnetic resistance and pulls the magnetic to the place where the resistance to the magnetic flux is at a minimum; this is an attractive force! Another example with magnetism. If I have a thin sheet of paper and I place a magnetic on one side the magnetic field lines that pass through the paper are strong enough to attract a pile of iron filings that are on the other side of the paper, such that if I picked up the paper and turned it over the iron filings wouldn't drop to the floor because the ATTRACTIVE force from the magnetic field lines are holding the extremely permeable iron filings in place. There's no outside repelling force making the filings stick to the paper when a magnet is on the other side, its the magnetic field that is PULLING on the iron filings that are holding them in place. How can you not call that an attractive force? I'm sorry, but to say that magnetism is only a repulsive force is simply stupid. I just gave you a number of examples of an attractive force that don't include gravity. If you think that any of them are incorrect then prove it. I've done the mathematics behind my examples and mathematics if done correctly doesn't lie. It shows that the forces I put forth to you are attractive forces. If you disagree with any of these examples then you disagree with about every genius scientist, engineer, and physicist who has ever lived. I'm a college professor in the field of electrical engineering and if one of my students came to me and said there is no such thing as an attractive force, I would probably at first laugh, |
If they do, please dontand then if I thought they were serious I would be apt to fail them in my courses just so they don't go on to get a degree and end up in a position where others may learn from them; and the thought of somebody teaching other people that an attractive force is not real I find to be very distasteful.
Well as I said I know how to detail repulsion and I can also see why its easy to refer to attraction as force, but this laziness overlooks the fact that attraction is actually the result of repulsion.
I mean seriously, do you really think there is no such thing as an attractive force?Yes
QUOTE
I mean seriously, do you really think there is no such thing as an attractive force?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
I mean seriously, do you really think there is no such thing as an attractive force? |
Yes Frankly if you do, you are seriously wrong and are in need of a formal education so you can learn the physics of this universe; or you are just simply stupid, I don't know because I don't know you. I do know for a fact that attractive forces do exist.
You'd have to be an idiot to argue otherwise.
Craig
You'd have to be an idiot to argue otherwise.
Craig
At this point in time - I still cant concede to force being attractive, as no one has explained it with out any referral to repulsion, yes I concede the observations of two magnetic poles is perceived by most as some magical attraction, but I simply cant see it that way as I reason the two magnets behave that way because of all the fields respective momentum involved for the two magnets to be repulsed towards each other, as per much like our double ended vacuum cleaner experiment using air to explain how the two vacuum ends and or poles present attraction..
what I am trying to impress here is, basic physics at the level of force and motion has repulsion possible first and foremost but when it comes to detailing attraction attraction is only possible if repulsion is involved..
If there is nobody that comes to my level of reasoning at this point in time, then I guess it will take a few more generations before someone else - simply refuses to refer to force being attractive..
Oh and Craig, if you ever get another student who much like me understands repulsion, but has great difficulty in taking on a magical attractive force, I would probe into the physics a little deeper so that you may be able to detail attraction to them, but remember the moment you refer to a repulsion it will void the inference to the implied attractive force.
.
<> here I have depicted two cancelled out opposing velocities, one could say its a body of energy or potential where from all directions the compressed region is repulsive in all directions, and therefore if we are to move this potential we would need another like potential to repulse it..
<> now if we introduce the following potential <> and have the latter strike the other each will move away from each other..
so far in the above I have presented how repulsion is made possible, and further more have detailed how motion is possible, now its up to you to detail to me how an attractive force is possible, but mind you - you cant refer to repulsion, unless you concede attraction is the result of repulsions, to which is why I simply cant warm to attraction being force..
Craig if any of my posts seem hostile, that's not my intention, and I truly apologize as I am deadly serious here, in that when it comes to force and motion laws, repulsion is perfectly valid tome, and so is attraction but I cant have myself treating attraction as force, especially when we are to consider how attraction is to be presented, where most as I see it would refer to a consequence while I see its only possible via previous repulsion/s..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
what I am trying to impress here is, basic physics at the level of force and motion has repulsion possible first and foremost but when it comes to detailing attraction attraction is only possible if repulsion is involved..
If there is nobody that comes to my level of reasoning at this point in time, then I guess it will take a few more generations before someone else - simply refuses to refer to force being attractive..
Oh and Craig, if you ever get another student who much like me understands repulsion, but has great difficulty in taking on a magical attractive force, I would probe into the physics a little deeper so that you may be able to detail attraction to them, but remember the moment you refer to a repulsion it will void the inference to the implied attractive force.
. <> here I have depicted two cancelled out opposing velocities, one could say its a body of energy or potential where from all directions the compressed region is repulsive in all directions, and therefore if we are to move this potential we would need another like potential to repulse it..
<> now if we introduce the following potential <> and have the latter strike the other each will move away from each other..
so far in the above I have presented how repulsion is made possible, and further more have detailed how motion is possible, now its up to you to detail to me how an attractive force is possible, but mind you - you cant refer to repulsion, unless you concede attraction is the result of repulsions, to which is why I simply cant warm to attraction being force..
Craig if any of my posts seem hostile, that's not my intention, and I truly apologize as I am deadly serious here, in that when it comes to force and motion laws, repulsion is perfectly valid tome, and so is attraction but I cant have myself treating attraction as force, especially when we are to consider how attraction is to be presented, where most as I see it would refer to a consequence while I see its only possible via previous repulsion/s..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 14 2009, 09:52 AM)
I think that I understand his epistemology so I will try to help explain it. I'm not supporting or rejecting his ideas. I just understand them, so I'm going to try to see if I can clarify. He may tell me I've got it wrong and correct me himself. But anyway, here goes:
Attraction and warping of space-time are both effects that are predicated on the assumption of coagulation, density, compression, and potential energy exceeding kinetic energy PRIOR to ideas about how matter got into that situation in the first place.
His notion is that the reason the ratio of potential energy to kinetic energy begins to increase in the first place, is because of high-KE/low-PE energy repelling particles into each other to the point where they start to coagulate/compress into relatively trapped densities. His point is that as kinetic energy gives in to relative stasis, i.e. converts to potential energy, it loses its ability to "push" back against the particles that are bombarding it, and therefore has the tendency to increase in mass and density, i.e. coagulate and compress. I hope I am interpreting this right.
So for him there's no such thing as attractive force. All kinetic energy is energy of repulsion. Potential energy is the product of kinetic energy losing momentum as its motion becomes increasingly constrained. I'm not exactly sure why he would say potential energy state is retained instead of reconverted back to kinetic energy at the earliest chance,
Attraction and warping of space-time are both effects that are predicated on the assumption of coagulation, density, compression, and potential energy exceeding kinetic energy PRIOR to ideas about how matter got into that situation in the first place.
His notion is that the reason the ratio of potential energy to kinetic energy begins to increase in the first place, is because of high-KE/low-PE energy repelling particles into each other to the point where they start to coagulate/compress into relatively trapped densities. His point is that as kinetic energy gives in to relative stasis, i.e. converts to potential energy, it loses its ability to "push" back against the particles that are bombarding it, and therefore has the tendency to increase in mass and density, i.e. coagulate and compress. I hope I am interpreting this right.
So for him there's no such thing as attractive force. All kinetic energy is energy of repulsion. Potential energy is the product of kinetic energy losing momentum as its motion becomes increasingly constrained. I'm not exactly sure why he would say potential energy state is retained instead of reconverted back to kinetic energy at the earliest chance,
If equal and opposing velocities with a density to them converge, I reason the densities velocities cancel each other out..
For example if I refer to a two dimensional model that implies height is the ratio of Potential Energy to Kinetic energy "Kinetic energy" being implied as "width" then if we have a closed system with three units of Potential Kinetic Energy, two units are with a potential of one while one unit is with near zero potential, the two forms with a higher potential are with a velocity to the other, the velocities are both @c only the right-hand form is with a velocity to the left, while the left-hand form is with a velocity to the right..
- -
the following system can explain how a relative solid in a relative near vacuum may be possible, and not only that, but it can show how such a compression is made possible..
Our resulting form would be as such,
= each form remains relatively @c to the other forms velocity @c, but to all else they are stored there.. and we should note how some of the KE has been transferred to PE..
QUOTE
but perhaps it has to do with conservation of momentum that causes it to have the tendency to reach equilibrium in a certain "holding pattern" that renders its energy potential rather than kinetic. Is that making any sense?
Yes, for example the more kinetic a mass the more allowable changeFor example if I refer to a two dimensional model that implies height is the ratio of Potential Energy to Kinetic energy "Kinetic energy" being implied as "width" then if we have a closed system with three units of Potential Kinetic Energy, two units are with a potential of one while one unit is with near zero potential, the two forms with a higher potential are with a velocity to the other, the velocities are both @c only the right-hand form is with a velocity to the left, while the left-hand form is with a velocity to the right..
- -
the following system can explain how a relative solid in a relative near vacuum may be possible, and not only that, but it can show how such a compression is made possible..
Our resulting form would be as such,
= each form remains relatively @c to the other forms velocity @c, but to all else they are stored there.. and we should note how some of the KE has been transferred to PE..
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| but perhaps it has to do with conservation of momentum that causes it to have the tendency to reach equilibrium in a certain "holding pattern" that renders its energy potential rather than kinetic. Is that making any sense? |
Yes, for example the more kinetic a mass the more allowable change
For example if I refer to a two dimensional model that implies height is the ratio of Potential Energy to Kinetic energy "Kinetic energy" being implied as "width" then if we have a closed system with three units of Potential Kinetic Energy, two units are with a potential of one while one unit is with near zero potential, the two forms with a higher potential are with a velocity to the other, the velocities are both @c only the right-hand form is with a velocity to the left, while the left-hand form is with a velocity to the right..
- -
the following system can explain how a relative solid in a relative near vacuum may be possible, and not only that, but it can show how such a compression is made possible..
Our resulting form would be as such,
= each form remains relatively @c to the other forms velocity @c, but to all else they are stored there.. and we should note how some of the KE has been transferred to PE..
Based on my understanding of how he thinks about material density and kinetic energy, I am guessing that he would say that magnetism is caused by the absence of repelling force at the poles of a magnet, which becomes "attractive" because of the average kinetic energy of repulsion caused by normal multi-directional electron motion. I think he would say that the reason why so many things are not magnetically "attracted" to each other all the time is because they are being repelled away from each other by the repulsion of kinetically energized electrons in molecular "shells." In the absence of such repulsion, presumably, the molecules of a magnet have no way to repel away from the molecules of the other magnet or metal.
It does seem to me that there is a tendency for electrons to seek electron "holes," though, which does seem to be a form of attraction rather than repulsion. I wonder what he would say about that.
When I refer to an atom I reason the core is made up of electromagnetic field that is with an inward momentum or to clarify that, if we consider a single plane and just two of the many opposing velocities from all directions opposing velocities are cancelled out, having the core as a neutron area that is repulsive..
And if I were to model a two dimensional core sample of two basic Atoms sharing an electron I would detail the involved velocities as such,
first let me define inertia.
< this symbol implies inertia to the left
> this symbol implies inertia to the right
() this symbol implies inertia to both direction, "cancelled out Velocities"
<()><()> so here we have a 2 dimensional core sample of two atoms
the neutron would be represented by the following symbols () as I reason the neutron is a compression point and or an area that is with increased density..
If I were to refer to a proton I would need to refer to the following symbols <()> to me its a repulsive inference and when two such repulsions enmesh I refer to it as the electron area,
><
note how the electrons sugested attractive force is only possible if we have repulsion possible..
Oh and heres a modelled core sample of an atom with many electron shells to it..
<()><()><()><()><()>
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
For example if I refer to a two dimensional model that implies height is the ratio of Potential Energy to Kinetic energy "Kinetic energy" being implied as "width" then if we have a closed system with three units of Potential Kinetic Energy, two units are with a potential of one while one unit is with near zero potential, the two forms with a higher potential are with a velocity to the other, the velocities are both @c only the right-hand form is with a velocity to the left, while the left-hand form is with a velocity to the right..
- -
the following system can explain how a relative solid in a relative near vacuum may be possible, and not only that, but it can show how such a compression is made possible..
Our resulting form would be as such,
= each form remains relatively @c to the other forms velocity @c, but to all else they are stored there.. and we should note how some of the KE has been transferred to PE..
Based on my understanding of how he thinks about material density and kinetic energy, I am guessing that he would say that magnetism is caused by the absence of repelling force at the poles of a magnet, which becomes "attractive" because of the average kinetic energy of repulsion caused by normal multi-directional electron motion. I think he would say that the reason why so many things are not magnetically "attracted" to each other all the time is because they are being repelled away from each other by the repulsion of kinetically energized electrons in molecular "shells." In the absence of such repulsion, presumably, the molecules of a magnet have no way to repel away from the molecules of the other magnet or metal.
It does seem to me that there is a tendency for electrons to seek electron "holes," though, which does seem to be a form of attraction rather than repulsion. I wonder what he would say about that.
When I refer to an atom I reason the core is made up of electromagnetic field that is with an inward momentum or to clarify that, if we consider a single plane and just two of the many opposing velocities from all directions opposing velocities are cancelled out, having the core as a neutron area that is repulsive..
And if I were to model a two dimensional core sample of two basic Atoms sharing an electron I would detail the involved velocities as such,
first let me define inertia.
< this symbol implies inertia to the left
> this symbol implies inertia to the right
() this symbol implies inertia to both direction, "cancelled out Velocities"
<()><()> so here we have a 2 dimensional core sample of two atoms
the neutron would be represented by the following symbols () as I reason the neutron is a compression point and or an area that is with increased density..
If I were to refer to a proton I would need to refer to the following symbols <()> to me its a repulsive inference and when two such repulsions enmesh I refer to it as the electron area,
><
note how the electrons sugested attractive force is only possible if we have repulsion possible..
Oh and heres a modelled core sample of an atom with many electron shells to it..
<()><()><()><()><()>
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 14 2009, 01:10 AM)
When I refer to an atom I reason the core is made up of electromagnetic field that is with an inward momentum or to clarify that, if we consider a single plane and just two of the many opposing velocities from all directions opposing velocities are cancelled out, having the core as a neutron area that is repulsive..
I found this entire post interesting, but I would just like to ask about one part of it:
When you say that "an atom I reason the core is made up of electromagnetic field that is with an inward momentum," how exactly do you hypothesize that kinetic energy comes to result in its translation into "inward momentum?" From what you're saying it sounds like energy can be directed against itself in such a way that it materializes into a particle, but what fundamental shift would cause the energy to become "inward" instead of linear/repulsive?
I found this entire post interesting, but I would just like to ask about one part of it:
When you say that "an atom I reason the core is made up of electromagnetic field that is with an inward momentum," how exactly do you hypothesize that kinetic energy comes to result in its translation into "inward momentum?" From what you're saying it sounds like energy can be directed against itself in such a way that it materializes into a particle, but what fundamental shift would cause the energy to become "inward" instead of linear/repulsive?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 14 2009, 12:45 PM)
I found this entire post interesting, but I would just like to ask about one part of it:
When you say that "an atom I reason the core is made up of electromagnetic field that is with an inward momentum," how exactly do you hypothesize that kinetic energy comes to result in its translation into "inward momentum?" From what you're saying it sounds like energy can be directed against itself in such a way that it materializes into a particle, but what fundamental shift would cause the energy to become "inward" instead of linear/repulsive?
I reason that mass and energy are an inference to much the same..
And when I refer to inward momentum I am referring to kinetic potential energy "velocities" originating from opposite ends.
but with the atom the above opposing velocities originate from all directions, to all converging to a point.
So if we consider opposing velocities cancel out and then consider many opposing velocities originating from all directions, the result is a an area that is repulsing the continuing onslaught, so in effect as it repulses this onslaught it needs to repulse inward and outward if it is to present its Potential..
OK to clarify that - I am going to need you to place a single point on a sheet of paper and then I want you to draw as many lines you can - meeting to that point, and I propose if each line were to represent a single kinetic Potential "velocity" that is to traverse the two dimensional form all in the same instance, you may see how the more lines that meet no opposing velocities the less likely a compression will result at that point, but with opposing velocities meeting at a given point, the kinetic energy is exchanged to Potential energy, which I reason is a form of compression, its this reference to opposing velocities that if it is experienced from every direction the opposing velocities cancel out and the area presents as being compressed and therefore is repulsive, but this repulsion is only possible if we have the appropriate opposing inward velocities to draw upon..
so yeah is that any help?
I need more rest, so I will leave it at that..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
When you say that "an atom I reason the core is made up of electromagnetic field that is with an inward momentum," how exactly do you hypothesize that kinetic energy comes to result in its translation into "inward momentum?" From what you're saying it sounds like energy can be directed against itself in such a way that it materializes into a particle, but what fundamental shift would cause the energy to become "inward" instead of linear/repulsive?
I reason that mass and energy are an inference to much the same..
And when I refer to inward momentum I am referring to kinetic potential energy "velocities" originating from opposite ends.
but with the atom the above opposing velocities originate from all directions, to all converging to a point.
So if we consider opposing velocities cancel out and then consider many opposing velocities originating from all directions, the result is a an area that is repulsing the continuing onslaught, so in effect as it repulses this onslaught it needs to repulse inward and outward if it is to present its Potential..
OK to clarify that - I am going to need you to place a single point on a sheet of paper and then I want you to draw as many lines you can - meeting to that point, and I propose if each line were to represent a single kinetic Potential "velocity" that is to traverse the two dimensional form all in the same instance, you may see how the more lines that meet no opposing velocities the less likely a compression will result at that point, but with opposing velocities meeting at a given point, the kinetic energy is exchanged to Potential energy, which I reason is a form of compression, its this reference to opposing velocities that if it is experienced from every direction the opposing velocities cancel out and the area presents as being compressed and therefore is repulsive, but this repulsion is only possible if we have the appropriate opposing inward velocities to draw upon..
so yeah is that any help?
I need more rest, so I will leave it at that..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Honestly... this conversation is too pathetic for me to bother pointing out why it's dumb. Please do continue without me. Neither of you have shown any actual inclination to actually learn physics. Thankfully, no one with actual knowledge in the field will ever take you seriously.... and that is a good thing.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Dec 14 2009, 02:53 PM)
Honestly... this conversation is too pathetic for me to bother pointing out why it's dumb.
Then why bother posting in this thread Rob?
Could it be, that I may have reasoned the physics involved with air movement may provide an analogy to how the electromagnetic fields and gravity - And for that matter how attraction is possible?
And as a consequence I am able to provide sound reasoning as to why Force can only ever be Repulsive?
OK... but only if you will do the same.
That, by the way, would mean pretty all the ones you have posted in so far. Seriously.
OK... but only if you will do the same.
That, by the way, would mean pretty all the ones you have posted in so far. Seriously.
Having said that Rob, your remarks thus far have been uncalled for..
Well... in my defense I have tried to be patient but you simply refuse to learn... and I lost whatever patience I had. Note that everyone else with any kind of actual knowledge is now ignoring you. All you have left is another crank with even less actual knowledge. It's just sad.
QUOTE
Please do continue without me. Neither of you have shown any actual inclination to actually learn physics.
I am sorry to hear you have taken on such a negative attitude, But before you go - Have you taken the time to consider why I requested one does the vacuum cleaner experiment? Could it be, that I may have reasoned the physics involved with air movement may provide an analogy to how the electromagnetic fields and gravity - And for that matter how attraction is possible?
And as a consequence I am able to provide sound reasoning as to why Force can only ever be Repulsive?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Please do continue without me. Neither of you have shown any actual inclination to actually learn physics. |
I am sorry to hear you have taken on such a negative attitude, But before you go - Have you taken the time to consider why I requested one does the vacuum cleaner experiment?
Could it be, that I may have reasoned the physics involved with air movement may provide an analogy to how the electromagnetic fields and gravity - And for that matter how attraction is possible?
And as a consequence I am able to provide sound reasoning as to why Force can only ever be Repulsive? Thankfully, no one with actual knowledge in the field will ever take you seriously....
Could it be, that I may have reasoned the physics involved with air movement may provide an analogy to how the electromagnetic fields and gravity - And for that matter how attraction is possible?
And as a consequence I am able to provide sound reasoning as to why Force can only ever be Repulsive? Thankfully, no one with actual knowledge in the field will ever take you seriously....
what do you mean by that Rob? As I reason just about all physics that makes reference to force being attractive would be included, which would beg the question what field in physics may be excluded for your field of knowledge having you at a disadvantage?
My Wife informs me my last statement may be taken as an insult, which is not my intent, So Rob, I will have you know I don't mean for that last statement to be taken in an offensive manner, I am just intrigued as to what field of expertise you may have taken..
Having said that Rob, your remarks thus far have been uncalled for..
Please unsubscribe to all threads where there are references to concerns that you dont understand..
2~Duh~Loo!
Peter J Schoen..
My Wife informs me my last statement may be taken as an insult, which is not my intent, So Rob, I will have you know I don't mean for that last statement to be taken in an offensive manner, I am just intrigued as to what field of expertise you may have taken..
QUOTE
and that is a good thing.
I agree Rob, as it separates the know it alls that really know nothing - from those who really do understand practical physics in a sound manner, and I refer to those here that have been indeed highly educated, but importantly have understood all that was provided and or presented to them..Having said that Rob, your remarks thus far have been uncalled for..
Please unsubscribe to all threads where there are references to concerns that you dont understand..
2~Duh~Loo!
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 14 2009, 04:43 AM)
OK to clarify that - I am going to need you to place a single point on a sheet of paper and then I want you to draw as many lines you can - meeting to that point, and I propose if each line were to represent a single kinetic Potential "velocity" that is to traverse the two dimensional form all in the same instance, you may see how the more lines that meet no opposing velocities the less likely a compression will result at that point, but with opposing velocities meeting at a given point, the kinetic energy is exchanged to Potential energy, which I reason is a form of compression, its this reference to opposing velocities that if it is experienced from every direction the opposing velocities cancel out and the area presents as being compressed and therefore is repulsive, but this repulsion is only possible if we have the appropriate opposing inward velocities to draw upon..
Your explanation kind of explains the conditions of translating kinetic energy into loci of potential energy, but you fail to explain an actual mechanical transition of energy that allows it to be translated into a potential.
In my thinking, potential energy either takes the form of position within a gravitational field or orbital, as opposed to linear, momentum. I can't think of any other examples, except maybe chemical and nuclear bonds.
I am inclined to believe that position within a gravitational field is actually the same thing as orbital momentum since the rotation of a massive body, like a planet, is not fundamentally distinct from the revolution of satellites orbiting a separate body. In one case the matter is coagulated and in the other it is separate coagulations, but in both cases angular momentum seems to supplant the linear momentum that would occur if the matter was not "coordinated" through gravitation.
My thoughts get cranky here, but my point is that I think there may be some link between relative linearity and circular/orbital momentum in the translation of kinetic into potential energy. I think this is also related to electrons orbiting a nucleus and electric currents in which free electrons, I believe, produce linear momentum instead of remaining in an orbital "holding pattern."
Still, it seems that your ideas overcome the duality between particles and energy and that you could somehow explain particle-materiality by the translation of kinetic energy into potentiality, which I think could involve some form of translation into circularity.
In response to RobDegraves insults: sorry our pathetic discussion offends your sense of serious orthox physics. I simply read his posts, found them interesting, and am exploring the knowledge he has expressed in them, whether valid or invalid. Please don't mistake our discussion as an attempt to supplant "actual physics" as you call it, since that would be a ticket to getting banned and not being able to discuss these ideas even hypothetically.
Your explanation kind of explains the conditions of translating kinetic energy into loci of potential energy, but you fail to explain an actual mechanical transition of energy that allows it to be translated into a potential.
In my thinking, potential energy either takes the form of position within a gravitational field or orbital, as opposed to linear, momentum. I can't think of any other examples, except maybe chemical and nuclear bonds.
I am inclined to believe that position within a gravitational field is actually the same thing as orbital momentum since the rotation of a massive body, like a planet, is not fundamentally distinct from the revolution of satellites orbiting a separate body. In one case the matter is coagulated and in the other it is separate coagulations, but in both cases angular momentum seems to supplant the linear momentum that would occur if the matter was not "coordinated" through gravitation.
My thoughts get cranky here, but my point is that I think there may be some link between relative linearity and circular/orbital momentum in the translation of kinetic into potential energy. I think this is also related to electrons orbiting a nucleus and electric currents in which free electrons, I believe, produce linear momentum instead of remaining in an orbital "holding pattern."
Still, it seems that your ideas overcome the duality between particles and energy and that you could somehow explain particle-materiality by the translation of kinetic energy into potentiality, which I think could involve some form of translation into circularity.
In response to RobDegraves insults: sorry our pathetic discussion offends your sense of serious orthox physics. I simply read his posts, found them interesting, and am exploring the knowledge he has expressed in them, whether valid or invalid. Please don't mistake our discussion as an attempt to supplant "actual physics" as you call it, since that would be a ticket to getting banned and not being able to discuss these ideas even hypothetically.
QUOTE
Please unsubscribe to all threads where there are references to concerns that you dont understand.
OK... but only if you will do the same.
That, by the way, would mean pretty all the ones you have posted in so far. Seriously.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Please unsubscribe to all threads where there are references to concerns that you dont understand. |
OK... but only if you will do the same.
That, by the way, would mean pretty all the ones you have posted in so far. Seriously.
Having said that Rob, your remarks thus far have been uncalled for..
Well... in my defense I have tried to be patient but you simply refuse to learn... and I lost whatever patience I had. Note that everyone else with any kind of actual knowledge is now ignoring you. All you have left is another crank with even less actual knowledge. It's just sad.
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 14 2009, 10:39 PM)
But before you go - Have you taken the time to consider why I requested one does the vacuum cleaner experiment?
Have you taken the time to find the book reference I provided or aren't you actually interested in learning?
Have you taken the time to find the book reference I provided or aren't you actually interested in learning?
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 14 2009, 10:39 PM)
Could it be, that I may have reasoned the physics involved with air movement may provide an analogy to how the electromagnetic fields and gravity - And for that matter how attraction is possible?
Fluid mechanics and electromagnetism are quite different. Not that you'd know, knowing neither.
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 14 2009, 10:39 PM)
And as a consequence I am able to provide sound reasoning as to why Force can only ever be Repulsive?
Such a shame there are phenomena which attract things together. If only things didn't fall the to ground, thus disproving you.
A force accelerates objects. Gravity accelerates objects towards one another. Thus its a force which attracts things together. Is this a little too subtle for you?
A force accelerates objects. Gravity accelerates objects towards one another. Thus its a force which attracts things together. Is this a little too subtle for you?
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 14 2009, 10:39 PM)
I agree Rob, as it separates the know it alls that really know nothing -
And you have yet to show you know a single thing. You claim to have been looking at Klein bottles for more than a decade yet you know no geometry or vector calculus. You talk about forces yet you know no classical mechanics. You talk about electromagnetism yet you know no electromagnetism. You talk about air flow yet you know no fluid mechanics. You have no knowledge of 99.99999% of phenomena in the universe and you have no knowledge of 99.999% of models currently known or hypothesised for the phenomena known to science.
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 14 2009, 10:39 PM)
from those who really do understand practical physics in a sound manner, and I refer to those here that have been indeed highly educated, but importantly have understood all that was provided and or presented to them..
You've got no education in science and you don't know any practical physics 'in a sound manner'. So which category are you in? Let me guess, you're in the magical third category which hacks online always seem to be in, the one where despite not having done an experiment in decades, not having kept up with current experiments, having failed to be ajny good at science in school and having been out of school for some time, you magically know all about how the universe behaves because you read 2 pages on Wikipedia.
Funny how no one from that category ever seems to get anywhere.....
Funny how no one from that category ever seems to get anywhere.....
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 13 2009, 01:52 AM)
Hi Buttershug,
Can you detail how attraction is made possible?
And with respects to your question, no it is not the first thread that I have posted in..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
If I had time I could.
I could learn.
But it would take lots of math to properly explain it.
Throw a bucket tied to a rope into a well.
Pull it up. That is how attraction works.
Can you detail how attraction is made possible?
And with respects to your question, no it is not the first thread that I have posted in..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
If I had time I could.
I could learn.
But it would take lots of math to properly explain it.
Throw a bucket tied to a rope into a well.
Pull it up. That is how attraction works.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 15 2009, 08:16 AM)
Your explanation kind of explains the conditions of translating kinetic energy into loci of potential energy, but you fail to explain an actual mechanical transition of energy that allows it to be translated into a potential.
In my thinking, potential energy either takes the form of position within a gravitational field or orbital,
In my thinking, potential energy either takes the form of position within a gravitational field or orbital,
With orbits treated the traditional way as in a mass has some magical attractive force to it aka "gravity" we are back to square one by referring to an observation, which results in reality from repulsion, on the other hand if we concede to my reasoning by considering a given mass is exerted towards another mass via the lack of kinetic energy, we are forced to consider what ever repulses the two masses towards each other may also be what compresses the respective masses..
Long time ago I considered if all the Universe consisted of energy, then how can mass or a body of energy present as solid or like space, since then I have discovered space is in fact a Near vacuum, I also discovered its highly kinetic, and around the same time, I discovered a solid has very little kinetic energy, so from this I considered all mass must be with a level or dimension of potential and kinetic..
I then proceeded to contemplate how it was possible for solids to exist in a near vacuum, and over the past few post I made was the result of what I reasoned..
Long time ago I considered if all the Universe consisted of energy, then how can mass or a body of energy present as solid or like space, since then I have discovered space is in fact a Near vacuum, I also discovered its highly kinetic, and around the same time, I discovered a solid has very little kinetic energy, so from this I considered all mass must be with a level or dimension of potential and kinetic..
I then proceeded to contemplate how it was possible for solids to exist in a near vacuum, and over the past few post I made was the result of what I reasoned..
QUOTE
as opposed to linear, momentum. I can't think of any other examples, except maybe chemical and nuclear bonds.
I am inclined to believe that position within a gravitational field is actually the same thing as orbital momentum since the rotation of a massive body, like a planet, is not fundamentally distinct from the revolution of satellites orbiting a separate body. In one case the matter is coagulated and in the other it is separate coagulation's, but in both cases angular momentum seems to supplant the linear momentum that would occur if the matter was not "coordinated" through gravitation.
Once one comes to a proper understanding that force is only repulsive, one is forced to consider the bigger picture, and instead of conceding to a magical attraction such observations is best then treated as if it is the result of repulsion or a push, and if we consider if energy is more kinetic it may well be with more push than energy that is with very little kinetci energy, if this is the case - a near vacuum then may be considered to be responsible for gravity..I am inclined to believe that position within a gravitational field is actually the same thing as orbital momentum since the rotation of a massive body, like a planet, is not fundamentally distinct from the revolution of satellites orbiting a separate body. In one case the matter is coagulated and in the other it is separate coagulation's, but in both cases angular momentum seems to supplant the linear momentum that would occur if the matter was not "coordinated" through gravitation.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| as opposed to linear, momentum. I can't think of any other examples, except maybe chemical and nuclear bonds. I am inclined to believe that position within a gravitational field is actually the same thing as orbital momentum since the rotation of a massive body, like a planet, is not fundamentally distinct from the revolution of satellites orbiting a separate body. In one case the matter is coagulated and in the other it is separate coagulation's, but in both cases angular momentum seems to supplant the linear momentum that would occur if the matter was not "coordinated" through gravitation. |
Once one comes to a proper understanding that force is only repulsive, one is forced to consider the bigger picture, and instead of conceding to a magical attraction such observations is best then treated as if it is the result of repulsion or a push, and if we consider if energy is more kinetic it may well be with more push than energy that is with very little kinetci energy, if this is the case - a near vacuum then may be considered to be responsible for gravity..
My thoughts get cranky here, but my point is that I think there may be some link between relative linearity and circular/orbital momentum in the translation of kinetic into potential energy. I think this is also related to electrons orbiting a nucleus and electric currents in which free electrons, I believe, produce linear momentum instead of remaining in an orbital "holding pattern."
Still, it seems that your ideas overcome the duality between particles and energy and that you could somehow explain particle-materiality by the translation of kinetic energy into potentiality, which I think could involve some form of translation into circularity.
My thoughts get cranky here, but my point is that I think there may be some link between relative linearity and circular/orbital momentum in the translation of kinetic into potential energy. I think this is also related to electrons orbiting a nucleus and electric currents in which free electrons, I believe, produce linear momentum instead of remaining in an orbital "holding pattern."
Still, it seems that your ideas overcome the duality between particles and energy and that you could somehow explain particle-materiality by the translation of kinetic energy into potentiality, which I think could involve some form of translation into circularity.
I reason you have grasped my logic and I reason that you may well now question any reference to a magical beckoning..
I would like to thank you for this refreshing conversation, And I am pleased you understand why I can only subscribe to force as only being repulsive, so if anybody makes casual reference to a magical attraction, it will have you uneasy with such a suggestion..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
I would like to thank you for this refreshing conversation, And I am pleased you understand why I can only subscribe to force as only being repulsive, so if anybody makes casual reference to a magical attraction, it will have you uneasy with such a suggestion..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 15 2009, 09:21 AM)
Have you taken the time to find the book reference I provided or aren't you actually interested in learning?
Fluid mechanics and electromagnetism are quite different. Not that you'd know, knowing neither.
Fluid mechanics and electromagnetism are quite different. Not that you'd know, knowing neither.
I agree there may be differences due to the ratio of Potential energy to kinetic energy with the various mediums Alphanumeric, but I feel what you are overlooking here is, no matter what medium we refer to, they are all energy or a mass with a given density..
So I am thinking we are not referring to the same level..
As I am considering how is it that an area of the Universe can be referred to as Near-Vacuum, while not that far away we have an inference that consists with much the same energy, and yet it presents as a solid?..
Anyway getting back to your magical attraction
So I am thinking we are not referring to the same level..
As I am considering how is it that an area of the Universe can be referred to as Near-Vacuum, while not that far away we have an inference that consists with much the same energy, and yet it presents as a solid?..
Anyway getting back to your magical attraction
QUOTE
Such a shame there are phenomena which attract things together. If only things didn't fall the to ground, thus disproving you.
And I insist they are exerted rather than beckoned, and if you say other wise, its on your onus to detail how attraction is possible, and I want you to do this in your own words, and without any reference to repulsion.. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Such a shame there are phenomena which attract things together. If only things didn't fall the to ground, thus disproving you. |
And I insist they are exerted rather than beckoned, and if you say other wise, its on your onus to detail how attraction is possible, and I want you to do this in your own words, and without any reference to repulsion..
A force accelerates objects. Gravity accelerates objects towards one another. Thus its a force which attracts things together. Is this a little too subtle for you?
A force accelerates objects. Gravity accelerates objects towards one another. Thus its a force which attracts things together. Is this a little too subtle for you?
Yes it is Alphanumeric, because so far you have made it very clear a force indeed implies to repulsion and further more have made it clear how such repulsion provokes motion, but with your inference to attraction you have failed dismally to make reference as to how a magical beckoning provokes motion..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (buttershug+Dec 15 2009, 09:58 AM)
If I had time I could.
I could learn.
But it would take lots of math to properly explain it.
Throw a bucket tied to a rope into a well.
Pull it up. That is how attraction works.
Sorry Buttershug,
but I reason your analogy refers to repulsions, and therefore your attraction that you referred to - is not the result of an attractive force, but rather is the result from repulsions..
Thanks for your input..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
I could learn.
But it would take lots of math to properly explain it.
Throw a bucket tied to a rope into a well.
Pull it up. That is how attraction works.
Sorry Buttershug,
but I reason your analogy refers to repulsions, and therefore your attraction that you referred to - is not the result of an attractive force, but rather is the result from repulsions..
Thanks for your input..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 15 2009, 01:05 AM)
Sorry Buttershug,
but I reason your analogy refers to repulsions, and therefore your attraction that you referred to - is not the result of an attractive force, but rather is the result from repulsions..
Thanks for your input..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
How so?
What is being repulsed?
but I reason your analogy refers to repulsions, and therefore your attraction that you referred to - is not the result of an attractive force, but rather is the result from repulsions..
Thanks for your input..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
How so?
What is being repulsed?
QUOTE (buttershug+Dec 15 2009, 01:10 AM)
How so?
What is being repulsed?
He is saying that no two particles are going to "attract" toward each other without being pushed/repulsed by kinetic energy from the opposite direction. He is saying that particles being bombarded toward each other begin converting kinetic energy into potential energy and that is why the coagulate into a relatively compressed density. So gravity, for him, is the potential energy that builds up as a result of bombardment with repulsive, kinetic energy.
What is being repulsed is all particles subject to kinetic energy transfers by means of collision with or bombardment by other particles. At least I think this is what he is saying.
What is being repulsed?
He is saying that no two particles are going to "attract" toward each other without being pushed/repulsed by kinetic energy from the opposite direction. He is saying that particles being bombarded toward each other begin converting kinetic energy into potential energy and that is why the coagulate into a relatively compressed density. So gravity, for him, is the potential energy that builds up as a result of bombardment with repulsive, kinetic energy.
What is being repulsed is all particles subject to kinetic energy transfers by means of collision with or bombardment by other particles. At least I think this is what he is saying.
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 15 2009, 01:57 AM)
So I am thinking we are not referring to the same level..
No, I've got a model which works, passing experimental tests and you've got bullshit and buzzwords which you don't understand.
No, I've got a model which works, passing experimental tests and you've got bullshit and buzzwords which you don't understand.
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 15 2009, 01:57 AM)
And I insist they are exerted rather than beckoned, and if you say other wise, its on your onus to detail how attraction is possible, and I want you to do this in your own words, and without any reference to repulsion..
No Laidback, the standard model of particle physics explains how attraction is possible without repulsion. Explanations are found in books in any decent library. The onus is on you, someone with an untested idea, to justify your claims.
Like I said, the explanation is found in page 126 of Peskin and Schroder. It's not aimed at layman but there are some things layman don't understand. You want people to believe you're not a layman but we both know you are and hence that's why you're trying to avoid detailed discussion and why you try to turn around the issue of justification onto me. The SM provides an explanation. You don't know it because you don't know any physics beyond high school and you aren't willing to open books. You have a completely unjustified non-quantitative idea which can't model a single thing in nature so you have absolutely no basis in claiming the onus isn't on you.
Two objects of mass m kilograms are a distance R apart from one another. Use your ideas to tell me the time it takes for them to collide and the speed at which they do it. You may not use any mainstream model of gravity or mechanics. Only your own work.
If you can't answer that then you have absolutely no justification for claiming you've explained gravity.
No Laidback, the standard model of particle physics explains how attraction is possible without repulsion. Explanations are found in books in any decent library. The onus is on you, someone with an untested idea, to justify your claims.
Like I said, the explanation is found in page 126 of Peskin and Schroder. It's not aimed at layman but there are some things layman don't understand. You want people to believe you're not a layman but we both know you are and hence that's why you're trying to avoid detailed discussion and why you try to turn around the issue of justification onto me. The SM provides an explanation. You don't know it because you don't know any physics beyond high school and you aren't willing to open books. You have a completely unjustified non-quantitative idea which can't model a single thing in nature so you have absolutely no basis in claiming the onus isn't on you.
Two objects of mass m kilograms are a distance R apart from one another. Use your ideas to tell me the time it takes for them to collide and the speed at which they do it. You may not use any mainstream model of gravity or mechanics. Only your own work.
If you can't answer that then you have absolutely no justification for claiming you've explained gravity.
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 15 2009, 01:57 AM)
Yes it is Alphanumeric, because so far you have made it very clear a force indeed implies to repulsion and further more have made it clear how such repulsion provokes motion, but with your inference to attraction you have failed dismally to make reference as to how a magical beckoning provokes motion..
Is English not your first language? Do you suffer from short term memory lose? Have you got brain damage? I've provided a reference which I have asked you multiple times if you've looked it up. You ignored my questions because you don't want to admit the answer is "No". I haven't " a force indeed implies to repulsion" either, I've said quite differently. Is this your method of learning/discussion, you just make up your own interpretation of what people have said, irrespective of what they really said?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 15 2009, 05:13 AM)
He is saying that no two particles are going to "attract" toward each other without being pushed/repulsed by kinetic energy from the opposite direction. He is saying that particles being bombarded toward each other begin converting kinetic energy into potential energy and that is why the coagulate into a relatively compressed density. So gravity, for him, is the potential energy that builds up as a result of bombardment with repulsive, kinetic energy.
What is being repulsed is all particles subject to kinetic energy transfers by means of collision with or bombardment by other particles. At least I think this is what he is saying.
And I'm saying your post is full of misused words.
Is he talking about some made up universe?
That would explain a lot.
Also in my analogy there were not particles pushing the pail up the well.
What is being repulsed is all particles subject to kinetic energy transfers by means of collision with or bombardment by other particles. At least I think this is what he is saying.
And I'm saying your post is full of misused words.
Is he talking about some made up universe?
That would explain a lot.
Also in my analogy there were not particles pushing the pail up the well.
QUOTE (buttershug+Dec 15 2009, 12:17 PM)
And I'm saying your post is full of misused words.
Which ones?
Which ones?
I'm sorry but I'm no longer going to contribute to this thread. I gave at least 4 to 5 good examples of what an attractive force is and the reply I got by no means refuted any of them; in fact it only leads me to believe that this person is just simply stupid. All he talks about is repulsion, and when it comes to attraction he, wrongly, uses terms like electromagnetic, kinetic and potential energies to try and turn an attractive force into a repulsive force.
Here's another quick example of an attractive force. Say you place a mass on a spring and hang the spring from your ceiling. Then you pull down on the mass inserting potential energy into the spring. When you let go the mass starts to oscillate up and own at some natural resonant frequency which is a function of the mass on the end of the spring and the spring itself. As the mass moves down one may argue that it does so by the repulsive force of the spring pushing it downwards; OK, that's fine, but when it reaches its lowest point the spring then must apply an opposite force in order to come back up. The opposite of a repelling force by definition is an attractive force. As the spring pulls the mass upward it does so by forcing the mass up towards to the ceiling. This force is counter to the force of "gravity" that would like to simply "attract" the mass to the floor. The force the spring applies to the mass is greater than the force of "gravity" that is pulling it downward. So how do both forces which are countering each be called repulsive? Let me guess, for a moment at that spot on Earth, gravity deiced to change its direction and repel the mass upwards against the downward force of the spring (even though the spring is pulling the mass upwards, but since an attractive can't exist in your tiny mind, then I must say the spring is constantly repelling the mass, of course if it always repelled the mass then the mass would simply move as far away as possible from the top of the spring and stay there, but as we all know it doesn't. It does actually comes back up, how do you explain that using only repulsive forces?)
Now I'm pretty certain that you will reply to the spring example with some stupid and completely wrong explanation using terms like electromagnetic, kinetic, and potential, all of which I don't think you fully understand, to explain why the spring oscillates up and down only by repulsive forces; and you'd simply be wrong in your answer.
I understand completely the field of electromagnetics as we know it today, and it in no way can it help your argument that all forces are repulsive; neither does your cheesy vacuum cleaner analogy. The only reason a vacuum cleaner works is due to the motor inside of it forcing air through it. Do you know how a motor works?
The rotor is forced to spin by a rotating magnetic field created by the stator portion of the motor. This causes both attractive and repulsive forces upon the magnetic fields created typically by the permanent magnetics that are on the rotor. As the rotating magnetic field created by the stator spins around at some frequency the magnetic field interactions are such that the stators rotating magnetic field comes into contact with the at first stationary magnetic fields produced by the poles on the rotor. The stators rotating magnetic field then pushes on like fields and attracts opposite fields causing the rotor to spin with the rotating magnetic field. So even inside your vacuum cleaner there exists attractive forces between the stator and the rotor; as well as repulsive forces.
In any case, I don't ever believe your ideas will go anywhere beyond this forum. They will certainly never be taken seriously by the scientific community, so why don't you just learn the actual physics of this universe and stop trying to make up your own to describe what is already known. The government will provide student loans to anyone who wishes to on to a higher education; I would take them up on their offer because you are in desperate need of a mathematical and Physics eduction. It's pretty clear to me that you've never gone through and done some serious math behind problems in Physics; if you had, then you'd have an understanding of what an attractive force is.
I'm not being overly rude only because I'm so flabbergasted by your comments that I don't really want anything to do with you or your ideas; they could be potentially poisonous to people who may take you seriously and that bothers me.
I've come to the conclusion after reading all of your posts and those of the others who have responded, that you must be a complete idiot who stubbornly won't drop your wrong ideas of Physics out of pride, but your IQ and knowledge of the workings of our universe are nothing to be proud of.
Don't you think there's a reason every book, person and piece of measured data in this world disagrees with what you are claiming? Couldn't it just be that you don't know what you are talking about and perhaps you should learn some physics before trying to make invalid claims about the physics of our universe?
I'm leaving this thread now and I'm not coming back. You obviously are incapable of learning the correct terms used in the scientific community and the actual well understood and well proved concepts that make up the area of science known as Physics.
You're wasting my time with your ignorance, fortunately I have time to spare, so that doesn't upset me; what does is the insistence of your ideas which are counter to everything we as a people know. It's you against the world with your thoughts.
I find it hard to believe that you have figured out something that nobody else has ever come to agree with and that is counter to everything we know and that has been proved time and time again, such that your new ideas could change the way Physics is taught. You are not that kind of a genius; you're the opposite, a stubborn idiot who has obviously watched the Discovery channel and thumbed through a small number of books and has come to believe that you are a scientist. Who are no scientist be assured.
A scientist with an idea like yours would at first attempt to prove the idea mathematically and then experimentally. If you could do so with repeatable results, then you could be a scientist. Instead you throw a dumb idea out there and defend it with your life counter to all the scientific evidence that kills your concept.
I have an idea, go to the top of the tallest building you can find and take a step off the edge and then tell me that you won't be hurt upon impacting the ground because repulsion is on your side. I believe shortly after taking that first step, not only will we never hear from you again, but your idea of only repulsive forces existing in our universe will drop to the ground with you.
This is a forum for real scientific ideas and concepts, not for discussion of completely wrong and misunderstood ideas. You should find a forum called, "Science for the Dumb and slow witted" and share your thoughts there. Perhaps somebody may agree with you at that site; because nobody here does.
Craig
Here's another quick example of an attractive force. Say you place a mass on a spring and hang the spring from your ceiling. Then you pull down on the mass inserting potential energy into the spring. When you let go the mass starts to oscillate up and own at some natural resonant frequency which is a function of the mass on the end of the spring and the spring itself. As the mass moves down one may argue that it does so by the repulsive force of the spring pushing it downwards; OK, that's fine, but when it reaches its lowest point the spring then must apply an opposite force in order to come back up. The opposite of a repelling force by definition is an attractive force. As the spring pulls the mass upward it does so by forcing the mass up towards to the ceiling. This force is counter to the force of "gravity" that would like to simply "attract" the mass to the floor. The force the spring applies to the mass is greater than the force of "gravity" that is pulling it downward. So how do both forces which are countering each be called repulsive? Let me guess, for a moment at that spot on Earth, gravity deiced to change its direction and repel the mass upwards against the downward force of the spring (even though the spring is pulling the mass upwards, but since an attractive can't exist in your tiny mind, then I must say the spring is constantly repelling the mass, of course if it always repelled the mass then the mass would simply move as far away as possible from the top of the spring and stay there, but as we all know it doesn't. It does actually comes back up, how do you explain that using only repulsive forces?)
Now I'm pretty certain that you will reply to the spring example with some stupid and completely wrong explanation using terms like electromagnetic, kinetic, and potential, all of which I don't think you fully understand, to explain why the spring oscillates up and down only by repulsive forces; and you'd simply be wrong in your answer.
I understand completely the field of electromagnetics as we know it today, and it in no way can it help your argument that all forces are repulsive; neither does your cheesy vacuum cleaner analogy. The only reason a vacuum cleaner works is due to the motor inside of it forcing air through it. Do you know how a motor works?
The rotor is forced to spin by a rotating magnetic field created by the stator portion of the motor. This causes both attractive and repulsive forces upon the magnetic fields created typically by the permanent magnetics that are on the rotor. As the rotating magnetic field created by the stator spins around at some frequency the magnetic field interactions are such that the stators rotating magnetic field comes into contact with the at first stationary magnetic fields produced by the poles on the rotor. The stators rotating magnetic field then pushes on like fields and attracts opposite fields causing the rotor to spin with the rotating magnetic field. So even inside your vacuum cleaner there exists attractive forces between the stator and the rotor; as well as repulsive forces.
In any case, I don't ever believe your ideas will go anywhere beyond this forum. They will certainly never be taken seriously by the scientific community, so why don't you just learn the actual physics of this universe and stop trying to make up your own to describe what is already known. The government will provide student loans to anyone who wishes to on to a higher education; I would take them up on their offer because you are in desperate need of a mathematical and Physics eduction. It's pretty clear to me that you've never gone through and done some serious math behind problems in Physics; if you had, then you'd have an understanding of what an attractive force is.
I'm not being overly rude only because I'm so flabbergasted by your comments that I don't really want anything to do with you or your ideas; they could be potentially poisonous to people who may take you seriously and that bothers me.
I've come to the conclusion after reading all of your posts and those of the others who have responded, that you must be a complete idiot who stubbornly won't drop your wrong ideas of Physics out of pride, but your IQ and knowledge of the workings of our universe are nothing to be proud of.
Don't you think there's a reason every book, person and piece of measured data in this world disagrees with what you are claiming? Couldn't it just be that you don't know what you are talking about and perhaps you should learn some physics before trying to make invalid claims about the physics of our universe?
I'm leaving this thread now and I'm not coming back. You obviously are incapable of learning the correct terms used in the scientific community and the actual well understood and well proved concepts that make up the area of science known as Physics.
You're wasting my time with your ignorance, fortunately I have time to spare, so that doesn't upset me; what does is the insistence of your ideas which are counter to everything we as a people know. It's you against the world with your thoughts.
I find it hard to believe that you have figured out something that nobody else has ever come to agree with and that is counter to everything we know and that has been proved time and time again, such that your new ideas could change the way Physics is taught. You are not that kind of a genius; you're the opposite, a stubborn idiot who has obviously watched the Discovery channel and thumbed through a small number of books and has come to believe that you are a scientist. Who are no scientist be assured.
A scientist with an idea like yours would at first attempt to prove the idea mathematically and then experimentally. If you could do so with repeatable results, then you could be a scientist. Instead you throw a dumb idea out there and defend it with your life counter to all the scientific evidence that kills your concept.
I have an idea, go to the top of the tallest building you can find and take a step off the edge and then tell me that you won't be hurt upon impacting the ground because repulsion is on your side. I believe shortly after taking that first step, not only will we never hear from you again, but your idea of only repulsive forces existing in our universe will drop to the ground with you.
This is a forum for real scientific ideas and concepts, not for discussion of completely wrong and misunderstood ideas. You should find a forum called, "Science for the Dumb and slow witted" and share your thoughts there. Perhaps somebody may agree with you at that site; because nobody here does.
Craig
QUOTE (buttershug+Dec 15 2009, 11:10 AM)
How so?
What is being repulsed?
in short seeing all mass is energy I refer strictly to energy,
If more info is needed..
I have come to the conclusion Energy has been defined as Potential and Kinetic for very good reason.
As the various ratios of the two states - has a given density present as a relative solid through to a Liquid, Gas any other inference in-between and up to that of a Near Vacuum..
Now if we consider all of the Universe merely consisted of energy, how do we propose, certain densities are to present the following?
A/. Force?
B/. Motion?
Lets consider if we are to present force, we would need an increased potential that is able to part with some of it Potential aka stored energy, and in doing so puts some of its Potential to work, the result is the potential is exerting its presence, with parting potential AKA "mass with a Velocity to it" which now should be referred to as Kinetic energy as it has been repulsed from our higher potential unto a lower potential "REPULSION", and should we consider further events, the lower potential with this extra Potential passes the extra potential onward, satisfying newtons law with respects to motion..
The above if it is to adhere to newtons law on motion will have Kinetic potential moving in single direction, up to the point some other potential interacts with it, and in so doing, causes change..
Lets now consider if a Potential was moving @c and it ran into another potential much the same as it head on - which was also with a velocity @c.. aka Opposing velocities..
I propose that the two Kinetic Potentials will trap the other and the result is a relative solid as the Kinetic energy is simply converted to Potential energy..
One would need to refer to the analogy to a plane with its speed at 500 that stumbles into a head wind of 500, having the plane need more or less speed if its to change its position..
My point is the result is a compression point, or the reason for space curvature.
The key here is - as the newly increased potential attempts to distributes it potential upon surrounding lower potential, the amount of available kinetic energy from the lower potentials simply overwhelms the very little available kinetic energy the higher potential has available to it, so the compressed density or relative solid remains..
Now lets move on and further consider why mass seems attractive - And have two alike relative solids within close proximity to each other, and I propose that the two will be repulsed towards each other via the following conditions..
lets define our 2d models dimensions
">>>>>"=5
"<<<<<"=5
"xx"=4
>>>>>()xx()<<<<<
A/. In between the two relative solids "xx" the available kinetic energy is no match to kinetic energy at the other sides of our relative solids ">>>>>" and "<<<<<"..
B/. As the two relative solids are exerted towards each other, the moving kinetic potentials, in between the two relative solids also experience some compression, via opposing velocities..
The two at some point will either end up in orbit to the other or merge as a single compression point, much like an atom with two or more protons and neutrons at its core..
So in short seeing all mass is energy I mainly refer to energy..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
What is being repulsed?
in short seeing all mass is energy I refer strictly to energy,
If more info is needed..
I have come to the conclusion Energy has been defined as Potential and Kinetic for very good reason.
As the various ratios of the two states - has a given density present as a relative solid through to a Liquid, Gas any other inference in-between and up to that of a Near Vacuum..
Now if we consider all of the Universe merely consisted of energy, how do we propose, certain densities are to present the following?
A/. Force?
B/. Motion?
Lets consider if we are to present force, we would need an increased potential that is able to part with some of it Potential aka stored energy, and in doing so puts some of its Potential to work, the result is the potential is exerting its presence, with parting potential AKA "mass with a Velocity to it" which now should be referred to as Kinetic energy as it has been repulsed from our higher potential unto a lower potential "REPULSION", and should we consider further events, the lower potential with this extra Potential passes the extra potential onward, satisfying newtons law with respects to motion..
The above if it is to adhere to newtons law on motion will have Kinetic potential moving in single direction, up to the point some other potential interacts with it, and in so doing, causes change..
Lets now consider if a Potential was moving @c and it ran into another potential much the same as it head on - which was also with a velocity @c.. aka Opposing velocities..
I propose that the two Kinetic Potentials will trap the other and the result is a relative solid as the Kinetic energy is simply converted to Potential energy..
One would need to refer to the analogy to a plane with its speed at 500 that stumbles into a head wind of 500, having the plane need more or less speed if its to change its position..
My point is the result is a compression point, or the reason for space curvature.
The key here is - as the newly increased potential attempts to distributes it potential upon surrounding lower potential, the amount of available kinetic energy from the lower potentials simply overwhelms the very little available kinetic energy the higher potential has available to it, so the compressed density or relative solid remains..
Now lets move on and further consider why mass seems attractive - And have two alike relative solids within close proximity to each other, and I propose that the two will be repulsed towards each other via the following conditions..
lets define our 2d models dimensions
">>>>>"=5
"<<<<<"=5
"xx"=4
>>>>>()xx()<<<<<
A/. In between the two relative solids "xx" the available kinetic energy is no match to kinetic energy at the other sides of our relative solids ">>>>>" and "<<<<<"..
B/. As the two relative solids are exerted towards each other, the moving kinetic potentials, in between the two relative solids also experience some compression, via opposing velocities..
The two at some point will either end up in orbit to the other or merge as a single compression point, much like an atom with two or more protons and neutrons at its core..
So in short seeing all mass is energy I mainly refer to energy..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Since every damned thing you post is BS or a lame denial of that observation, why do you bother?
I suppose the attention gets you all happy?
You are a crank and a fool, and it is obvious to people with a sixth-grade education in most cases. You could try the library or shelter that Sir Robin used. Maybe you can find a drunkard to ply your inestimable wisdom on.
If you'll buy him another.
STFU, and I'm glad my city doesn't have to pay for your care...
I suppose the attention gets you all happy?
You are a crank and a fool, and it is obvious to people with a sixth-grade education in most cases. You could try the library or shelter that Sir Robin used. Maybe you can find a drunkard to ply your inestimable wisdom on.
If you'll buy him another.
STFU, and I'm glad my city doesn't have to pay for your care...
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 15 2009, 06:25 PM)
No, I've got a model which works, passing experimental tests and you've got bullshit and buzzwords which you don't understand.
Hey lets not get upset and throw a tantrum, just because you know I am right.. And mind you I have provided only one experiment that supports my stance... and whats the bet every single experiment you may provide will prove I am right and youre wrong, if you care to consider the details with a little more due care..
BTW please quote any buzz words I have relied upon? and then detail where I am in error with respects to their use..
No Laidback, the standard model of particle physics explains how attraction is possible without repulsion. Explanations are found in books in any decent library. The onus is on you, someone with an untested idea, to justify your claims.Don't be ridiculous, I don't subscribe to attraction, so I don't need to bother about it, on the other hand your above claims have been much like flaying ones hands in the air while insisting on magical attraction, so I think that's up to those who insist on attraction will have to detail it, but mind you - without making reference to any repulsions, as this would have my stance as being justified..
BTW please quote any buzz words I have relied upon? and then detail where I am in error with respects to their use..
QUOTE
No Laidback, the standard model of particle physics explains how attraction is possible without repulsion. Explanations are found in books in any decent library. The onus is on you, someone with an untested idea, to justify your claims.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
No Laidback, the standard model of particle physics explains how attraction is possible without repulsion. Explanations are found in books in any decent library. The onus is on you, someone with an untested idea, to justify your claims. |
Don't be ridiculous, I don't subscribe to attraction, so I don't need to bother about it, on the other hand your above claims have been much like flaying ones hands in the air while insisting on magical attraction, so I think that's up to those who insist on attraction will have to detail it, but mind you - without making reference to any repulsions, as this would have my stance as being justified..
Like I said, the explanation is found in page 126 of Peskin and Schroder. It's not aimed at layman but there are some things layman don't understand.
Like I said, the explanation is found in page 126 of Peskin and Schroder. It's not aimed at layman but there are some things layman don't understand.
I will put it to you that the article you keep referring to - does make reference to repulsion for your attraction to be possible, so yeah I think you need to re-read it with a little more due care, WAIT! I see you now have revised your stance and now agree with my original stance. as in see below
Which has you unfortunately at a very precarious position by your being so wrong..
QUOTE
You want people to believe you're not a layman
No I don't, I want every one to know, I am but a mere layman, and further more I want every one to know you lay claim to being a Physicist, and not just any physicist, but as you like to present that your the best!Which has you unfortunately at a very precarious position by your being so wrong..
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You want people to believe you're not a layman |
No I don't, I want every one to know, I am but a mere layman, and further more I want every one to know you lay claim to being a Physicist, and not just any physicist, but as you like to present that your the best!
Which has you unfortunately at a very precarious position by your being so wrong..but we both know you are and hence that's why you're trying to avoid detailed discussion
Which has you unfortunately at a very precarious position by your being so wrong..but we both know you are and hence that's why you're trying to avoid detailed discussion
Indeed, as I have insisted nothing else other than I am a keen layman, anyway Lets go over the past thread and consider who has been arm waving rather than being self explanatory on ones stance, and who here has made reference to other material rather than provide ones understanding?
what I am pointing out is I have even attempted to justify my reasoning, and thus far you have not contested anything specific, but rather you have provided much the same as follows
what I am pointing out is I have even attempted to justify my reasoning, and thus far you have not contested anything specific, but rather you have provided much the same as follows
QUOTE
and why you try to turn around the issue of justification onto me. The SM provides an explanation. You don't know it because you don't know any physics beyond high school and you aren't willing to open books. You have a completely unjustified non-quantitative idea which can't model a single thing in nature so you have absolutely no basis in claiming the onus isn't on you.
Two objects of mass m kilograms are a distance R apart from one another. Use your ideas to tell me the time it takes for them to collide and the speed at which they do it. You may not use any mainstream model of gravity or mechanics. Only your own work.
Strange how my previous post seems to have modelled what you seek? Two objects of mass m kilograms are a distance R apart from one another. Use your ideas to tell me the time it takes for them to collide and the speed at which they do it. You may not use any mainstream model of gravity or mechanics. Only your own work.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| and why you try to turn around the issue of justification onto me. The SM provides an explanation. You don't know it because you don't know any physics beyond high school and you aren't willing to open books. You have a completely unjustified non-quantitative idea which can't model a single thing in nature so you have absolutely no basis in claiming the onus isn't on you. Two objects of mass m kilograms are a distance R apart from one another. Use your ideas to tell me the time it takes for them to collide and the speed at which they do it. You may not use any mainstream model of gravity or mechanics. Only your own work. |
Strange how my previous post seems to have modelled what you seek?
If you can't answer that then you have absolutely no justification for claiming you've explained gravity.
If you can't answer that then you have absolutely no justification for claiming you've explained gravity.
I think my reasoning is sound, and whats more if taken on-board may resolve many current issues, but I will point out I am no expert, but i would put it, if a REAL Physicist could get a grasp of what I wish to convey, maybe with their detailed knowledge make significant head row..
Is English not your first language? Do you suffer from short term memory lose? Have you got brain damage? I've provided a reference which I have asked you multiple times if you've looked it up. You ignored my questions because you don't want to admit the answer is "No". I haven't " a force indeed implies to repulsion" either, I've said quite differently. See above
See above Is this your method of learning/discussion, you just make up your own interpretation of what people have said, irrespective of what they really said?
QUOTE
Is English not your first language? Do you suffer from short term memory lose? Have you got brain damage? I've provided a reference which I have asked you multiple times if you've looked it up. You ignored my questions because you don't want to admit the answer is "No". I haven't " a force indeed implies to repulsion" either, I've said quite differently.
See above QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Is English not your first language? Do you suffer from short term memory lose? Have you got brain damage? I've provided a reference which I have asked you multiple times if you've looked it up. You ignored my questions because you don't want to admit the answer is "No". I haven't " a force indeed implies to repulsion" either, I've said quite differently. |
See above Is this your method of learning/discussion, you just make up your own interpretation of what people have said, irrespective of what they really said?So is it agreed an observed attraction is indeed the result of repulsions? or are still insisting on force to be with attractive attributes?
If not, I see even your own text books are no help to you.
So how about mulling over how attraction is to cause motion..
I want you to consider the fact how all mass is energy, and then I want you to consider how can we model energy to present repulsion or force and then from a potential or force, how can motion be provoked, and in your case, because you so vehemently insist on a magical attraction, I would appreciate you detail how attraction is possible and then how it provokes motion, but mind you with out any repulsions if you insist force as being attractive is valid..
I want you for once in your life to get real and consider how can energy present actual physics simply on the constructs of Potential Energy and Kinetic energy.. and yes I know its extremely basic physics, but what the hey, it should be a breeze for you then, YES!?
2~Duh~Loo!
Peter J Schoen
If not, I see even your own text books are no help to you.
So how about mulling over how attraction is to cause motion..
I want you to consider the fact how all mass is energy, and then I want you to consider how can we model energy to present repulsion or force and then from a potential or force, how can motion be provoked, and in your case, because you so vehemently insist on a magical attraction, I would appreciate you detail how attraction is possible and then how it provokes motion, but mind you with out any repulsions if you insist force as being attractive is valid..
I want you for once in your life to get real and consider how can energy present actual physics simply on the constructs of Potential Energy and Kinetic energy.. and yes I know its extremely basic physics, but what the hey, it should be a breeze for you then, YES!?
2~Duh~Loo!
Peter J Schoen
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 15 2009, 08:25 AM)
Have you got brain damage?
I read a review for a book called "The Man Who Thought His Wife Was a Hat".
Basically there was a guy who could not tell that his wife was not a hat.
I believe it was after some kind of head injury.
I think of that book after reading Laidback's posts.
I read a review for a book called "The Man Who Thought His Wife Was a Hat".
Basically there was a guy who could not tell that his wife was not a hat.
I believe it was after some kind of head injury.
I think of that book after reading Laidback's posts.
QUOTE (Craig+Dec 16 2009, 06:52 AM)
I'm sorry but I'm no longer going to contribute to this thread. I gave at least 4 to 5 good examples of what an attractive force is and the reply I got by no means refuted any of them; in fact it only leads me to believe that this person is just simply stupid. All he talks about is repulsion, and when it comes to attraction he, wrongly, uses terms like electromagnetic, kinetic and potential energies to try and turn an attractive force into a repulsive force.
Here's another quick example of an attractive force. Say you place a mass on a spring and hang the spring from your ceiling. Then you pull down on the mass inserting potential energy into the spring. When you let go the mass starts to oscillate up and own at some natural resonant frequency which is a function of the mass on the end of the spring and the spring itself. As the mass moves down one may argue that it does so by the repulsive force of the spring pushing it downwards; OK, that's fine, but when it reaches its lowest point the spring then must apply an opposite force in order to come back up. The opposite of a repelling force by definition is an attractive force.
Here's another quick example of an attractive force. Say you place a mass on a spring and hang the spring from your ceiling. Then you pull down on the mass inserting potential energy into the spring. When you let go the mass starts to oscillate up and own at some natural resonant frequency which is a function of the mass on the end of the spring and the spring itself. As the mass moves down one may argue that it does so by the repulsive force of the spring pushing it downwards; OK, that's fine, but when it reaches its lowest point the spring then must apply an opposite force in order to come back up. The opposite of a repelling force by definition is an attractive force.
And I put it to you, via the lack of Potential energy the spring is repulsed back.
QUOTE
As the spring pulls
wrong Craig, what you fail to consider is the spring is a mass that consists solely of energy as in it is mass/energy equivalence, and if we care to consider mass via energy, the spring in fact complies to repulsions..QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As the spring pulls |
wrong Craig, what you fail to consider is the spring is a mass that consists solely of energy as in it is mass/energy equivalence, and if we care to consider mass via energy, the spring in fact complies to repulsions..the mass upward it does so by forcing the mass up towards to the ceiling
as in repulsed..
QUOTE
. This force is counter to the force of "gravity" that would like to simply "attract" the mass to the floor.
could you elaborate how this attraction is to invoke motion? QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| . This force is counter to the force of "gravity" that would like to simply "attract" the mass to the floor. |
could you elaborate how this attraction is to invoke motion? The force the spring applies to the mass is greater than the force of "gravity" that is pulling it downward.
explain how a body of mass or energy beckons other mass or energy towards it?
QUOTE
So how do both forces which are countering each be called repulsive? Let me guess, for a moment at that spot on Earth, gravity deiced to change its direction
How does this reasoning or decision come about?QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So how do both forces which are countering each be called repulsive? Let me guess, for a moment at that spot on Earth, gravity deiced to change its direction |
How does this reasoning or decision come about? and repel the mass upwards against the downward force of the spring (even though the spring is pulling the mass upwards, but since an attractive can't exist in your tiny mind, then I must say the spring is constantly repelling the mass, of course if it always repelled the mass then the mass would simply move as far away as possible from the top of the spring and stay there, but as we all know it doesn't. It does actually comes back up, how do you explain that using only repulsive forces?)
By considering all potentials and the available kinetic energy..
Now I'm pretty certain that you will reply to the spring example with some stupid and completely wrong explanation using terms like electromagnetic, kinetic, and potential,And you would totally be right, if you had not referred to Electromagnetic
QUOTE
Now I'm pretty certain that you will reply to the spring example with some stupid and completely wrong explanation using terms like electromagnetic, kinetic, and potential,
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Now I'm pretty certain that you will reply to the spring example with some stupid and completely wrong explanation using terms like electromagnetic, kinetic, and potential, |
And you would totally be right, if you had not referred to Electromagnetic all of which I don't think you fully understand, to explain why the spring oscillates up and down only by repulsive forces; and you'd simply be wrong in your answer.
well I reason it seems I understand it far better than most, because of my insistence force can only ever be repulsive.
You see - I have reasoned with a potential of energy we must have a density, and because all mass is with constant change, the reference to such a Potential presents itself via availing some of its potential, this act I reason is the act of repulsion, the only problem is if this exertion is met with equal opposing exertion what we have is a stale mate. but if somewhere a lower potential is presented, I reason the greater potential, will impart some if not all of its Potential upon the lesser potential, at this point I would like to point out, to most this would seem the lesser potential has attracted the greater potential, but the facts are the greater potential has repulsed itself upon the lesser potential, rather than the lesser potential being with some magical beckoning as most would insist..
I understand completely the field of electromagnet's as we know it today, and it in no way can it help your argument that all forces are repulsive; neither does your cheesy vacuum cleaner analogy. The only reason a vacuum cleaner works is due to the motor inside of it forcing air through it. Do you know how a motor works?
The rotor is forced to spin by a rotating magnetic field created by the stator portion of the motor. This causes both attractive and repulsive forces upon the magnetic fields created typically by the permanent magnetics that are on the rotor. As the rotating magnetic field created by the stator spins around at some frequency the magnetic field interactions are such that the stators rotating magnetic field comes into contact with the at first stationary magnetic fields produced by the poles on the rotor. The stators rotating magnetic field then pushes on like fields and attracts opposite fields causing the rotor to spin with the rotating magnetic field. So even inside your vacuum cleaner there exists attractive forces between the stator and the rotor; as well as repulsive forces.
In any case, I don't ever believe your ideas will go anywhere beyond this forum. They will certainly never be taken seriously by the scientific community, so why don't you just learn the actual physics of this universe and stop trying to make up your own to describe what is already known. The government will provide student loans to anyone who wishes to on to a higher education; I would take them up on their offer because you are in desperate need of a mathematical and Physics eduction. It's pretty clear to me that you've never gone through and done some serious math behind problems in Physics; if you had, then you'd have an understanding of what an attractive force is.
I'm not being overly rude only because I'm so flabbergasted by your comments that I don't really want anything to do with you or your ideas; they could be potentially poisonous to people who may take you seriously and that bothers me.
I've come to the conclusion after reading all of your posts and those of the others who have responded, that you must be a complete idiot who stubbornly won't drop your wrong ideas of Physics out of pride, but your IQ and knowledge of the workings of our universe are nothing to be proud of.
Don't you think there's a reason every book, person and piece of measured data in this world disagrees with what you are claiming? Couldn't it just be that you don't know what you are talking about and perhaps you should learn some physics before trying to make invalid claims about the physics of our universe?
I'm leaving this thread now and I'm not coming back. You obviously are incapable of learning the correct terms used in the scientific community and the actual well understood and well proved concepts that make up the area of science known as Physics.
You're wasting my time with your ignorance, fortunately I have time to spare, so that doesn't upset me; what does is the insistence of your ideas which are counter to everything we as a people know. It's you against the world with your thoughts.
I find it hard to believe that you have figured out something that nobody else has ever come to agree with and that is counter to everything we know and that has been proved time and time again, such that your new ideas could change the way Physics is taught. You are not that kind of a genius; you're the opposite, a stubborn idiot who has obviously watched the Discovery channel and thumbed through a small number of books and has come to believe that you are a scientist. Who are no scientist be assured.
A scientist with an idea like yours would at first attempt to prove the idea mathematically and then experimentally. If you could do so with repeatable results, then you could be a scientist. Instead you throw a dumb idea out there and defend it with your life counter to all the scientific evidence that kills your concept.
I have an idea, go to the top of the tallest building you can find and take a step off the edge and then tell me that you won't be hurt upon impacting the ground because repulsion is on your side. I believe shortly after taking that first step, not only will we never hear from you again, but your idea of only repulsive forces existing in our universe will drop to the ground with you.
This is a forum for real scientific ideas and concepts, not for discussion of completely wrong and misunderstood ideas. You should find a forum called, "Science for the Dumb and slow witted" and share your thoughts there. Perhaps somebody may agree with you at that site; because nobody here does.
Craig
They all still rely on various potentials of mass "energy" that if considered in depth points to the underlying cause for all motion is caused by repulsion, and if we were to consider attraction causing motion our only option is to first make reference to repulsion..
Craig, you of all people should understand that a magnets field is not stagnant, and when we consider the magnets fields momentum, I would have reasoned the vacuum cleaners analogy of air movement would have provided good insight as to why magnets behave the way they do.. this has me puzzled as to why you overlook the fields momentum which clearly points out why perceived attraction is the direct result of repulsion..
cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
You see - I have reasoned with a potential of energy we must have a density, and because all mass is with constant change, the reference to such a Potential presents itself via availing some of its potential, this act I reason is the act of repulsion, the only problem is if this exertion is met with equal opposing exertion what we have is a stale mate. but if somewhere a lower potential is presented, I reason the greater potential, will impart some if not all of its Potential upon the lesser potential, at this point I would like to point out, to most this would seem the lesser potential has attracted the greater potential, but the facts are the greater potential has repulsed itself upon the lesser potential, rather than the lesser potential being with some magical beckoning as most would insist..
QUOTE
I understand completely the field of electromagnet's as we know it today, and it in no way can it help your argument that all forces are repulsive; neither does your cheesy vacuum cleaner analogy. The only reason a vacuum cleaner works is due to the motor inside of it forcing air through it. Do you know how a motor works?
The rotor is forced to spin by a rotating magnetic field created by the stator portion of the motor. This causes both attractive and repulsive forces upon the magnetic fields created typically by the permanent magnetics that are on the rotor. As the rotating magnetic field created by the stator spins around at some frequency the magnetic field interactions are such that the stators rotating magnetic field comes into contact with the at first stationary magnetic fields produced by the poles on the rotor. The stators rotating magnetic field then pushes on like fields and attracts opposite fields causing the rotor to spin with the rotating magnetic field. So even inside your vacuum cleaner there exists attractive forces between the stator and the rotor; as well as repulsive forces.
In any case, I don't ever believe your ideas will go anywhere beyond this forum. They will certainly never be taken seriously by the scientific community, so why don't you just learn the actual physics of this universe and stop trying to make up your own to describe what is already known. The government will provide student loans to anyone who wishes to on to a higher education; I would take them up on their offer because you are in desperate need of a mathematical and Physics eduction. It's pretty clear to me that you've never gone through and done some serious math behind problems in Physics; if you had, then you'd have an understanding of what an attractive force is.
I'm not being overly rude only because I'm so flabbergasted by your comments that I don't really want anything to do with you or your ideas; they could be potentially poisonous to people who may take you seriously and that bothers me.
I've come to the conclusion after reading all of your posts and those of the others who have responded, that you must be a complete idiot who stubbornly won't drop your wrong ideas of Physics out of pride, but your IQ and knowledge of the workings of our universe are nothing to be proud of.
Don't you think there's a reason every book, person and piece of measured data in this world disagrees with what you are claiming? Couldn't it just be that you don't know what you are talking about and perhaps you should learn some physics before trying to make invalid claims about the physics of our universe?
I'm leaving this thread now and I'm not coming back. You obviously are incapable of learning the correct terms used in the scientific community and the actual well understood and well proved concepts that make up the area of science known as Physics.
You're wasting my time with your ignorance, fortunately I have time to spare, so that doesn't upset me; what does is the insistence of your ideas which are counter to everything we as a people know. It's you against the world with your thoughts.
I find it hard to believe that you have figured out something that nobody else has ever come to agree with and that is counter to everything we know and that has been proved time and time again, such that your new ideas could change the way Physics is taught. You are not that kind of a genius; you're the opposite, a stubborn idiot who has obviously watched the Discovery channel and thumbed through a small number of books and has come to believe that you are a scientist. Who are no scientist be assured.
A scientist with an idea like yours would at first attempt to prove the idea mathematically and then experimentally. If you could do so with repeatable results, then you could be a scientist. Instead you throw a dumb idea out there and defend it with your life counter to all the scientific evidence that kills your concept.
I have an idea, go to the top of the tallest building you can find and take a step off the edge and then tell me that you won't be hurt upon impacting the ground because repulsion is on your side. I believe shortly after taking that first step, not only will we never hear from you again, but your idea of only repulsive forces existing in our universe will drop to the ground with you.
This is a forum for real scientific ideas and concepts, not for discussion of completely wrong and misunderstood ideas. You should find a forum called, "Science for the Dumb and slow witted" and share your thoughts there. Perhaps somebody may agree with you at that site; because nobody here does.
Craig
They all still rely on various potentials of mass "energy" that if considered in depth points to the underlying cause for all motion is caused by repulsion, and if we were to consider attraction causing motion our only option is to first make reference to repulsion..
Craig, you of all people should understand that a magnets field is not stagnant, and when we consider the magnets fields momentum, I would have reasoned the vacuum cleaners analogy of air movement would have provided good insight as to why magnets behave the way they do.. this has me puzzled as to why you overlook the fields momentum which clearly points out why perceived attraction is the direct result of repulsion..
cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (Granouille+Dec 16 2009, 08:25 AM)
Since every damned thing you post is BS or a lame denial of that observation, why do you bother?
I suppose the attention gets you all happy?
You are a crank and a fool, and it is obvious to people with a sixth-grade education in most cases. You could try the library or shelter that Sir Robin used. Maybe you can find a drunkard to ply your inestimable wisdom on.
If you'll buy him another.
STFU, and I'm glad my city doesn't have to pay for your care...
So to refer to magic is perfectly OK by you? yes?
I am not the crank who subscribes to some magical beckoning, so if you wish me to understand such magic, then please explain to me how attraction invokes motion, and mind you without relying on my subscribed repulsion?
2~Duh~Loo!
Peter J Schoen..
I suppose the attention gets you all happy?
You are a crank and a fool, and it is obvious to people with a sixth-grade education in most cases. You could try the library or shelter that Sir Robin used. Maybe you can find a drunkard to ply your inestimable wisdom on.
If you'll buy him another.
STFU, and I'm glad my city doesn't have to pay for your care...
So to refer to magic is perfectly OK by you? yes?
I am not the crank who subscribes to some magical beckoning, so if you wish me to understand such magic, then please explain to me how attraction invokes motion, and mind you without relying on my subscribed repulsion?
2~Duh~Loo!
Peter J Schoen..
Why has the Universe not flung apart by now?
The edges would have nothing to repel them towards the center.
The edges would have nothing to repel them towards the center.
Now I'm going to be rude.
I'm just going to make this quick. You are by hap's the dumbest person I've ever come across. Your arguments make no sense and can't be proved mathematically in any way. Magnetic fields DO NOT HAVE MOMENTUM! Momentum is defined as the product of mass and the velocity of that mass; what in the hell does that have to do with a magnetic field; and even if you talk about the energy stored within a magnetic field through its mass/energy equivalence so that when the magnetic field is in motion you can say the magnetic field has momentum, how does that back up your argument that all forces are repulsive?
You're not simply a laymen in the field of Physics; your simply a hack and not even worth conversing with.
Its obvious you will never learn the correct applications of Physics and the majority of your answers don't even make any sense.
What I find more amazing than your claims is your obvious stupidity. You say the spring is forced back up not by the pull of the spring on the mass but rather you claim that due to its lack of potential energy it is repulsed back up. When the spring is fully extended with the mass attached at the end, the spring actually has its maximum potential energy, so it is not lacking in potential energy while at its lowest point, but rather the spring is at its highest potential energy level. As far as the mass attached at the bottom of the spring, it is at its lowest potential energy point but so what! Just because the mass has its lowest potential energy while at the bottom of its cycle doesn't mean that some magical repulsive force is going to push it back up. If the mass were just sitting on the floor it would have even less potential energy than it does at the bottom of its cycle while oscillating on the spring; nonetheless the mass resting on the floor doesn't all of a sudden shoot straight up into the air by some unknown repulsive force.
You are DUMB, DUMB, DUMB!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The more I read your replies the dumber you seem to be to me. Just because their exists a mass energy equivalent through the equation E = mc^2, doesn't mean the energy equivalent will always be such that it acts to repulse objects away from it. I've given you several examples of mass that attracts other mass (an electron is attracted to a proton, the N pole of a permanent magnet is attracted to the S pole of any other magnet). And just because you insist that all forces are repulsive does it follow that you understand the idea of kinetic and potential energy better than most. In fact I don't think you understand them as they are defined.
The mass on a spring example, one of many I've given you, is a perfect example of how potential energy is converted into kinetic energy and then back to potential energy and then back to kinetic energy, etc.... And in the process it moves the mass up and down. Only a force acting on a mass can cause that mass to change velocity. If the change in momentum (the impulse) of the mass on the spring is mdelta(V) = Fdelta(t), then F = m(delta v/delta t), or simply F=ma. As that mass moves up and down periodically the sign of F will change accordingly. If its positive lets call it a repulsive force, it doesn't then follow when it changes sign, meaning the force is acting in the opposite direction on the mass, the force can't be called repulsive as well. Basically your saying whether something is pulled on or pushed on, either way it is a repulsive force. How can you be so stupid?
Don't even bother replying to this as I have no intention on ever replying to any post you ever place again. You are stubbornly stupid and unwilling to learn the reality of the universe that surrounds you. Instead you live in your own little world where the laws of Physics as we know them don't apply to you.
And you say, "I have reasoned with a potential of energy we must have a density, and because all mass is with constant change, the reference to such a Potential presents itself via availing some of its potential, this act I reason is the act of repulsion". What? That makes no sense at all; all mass is constant with change? What in the hell does that mean? Potential energy has no density as density is a measure of how much of some thing fits into a particular volume, onto an area or even along line and has nothing to do with potential energy.
Also a magnetic field does not need to be in motion to exist. A stationary magnetic field can and does exist in many places throughout the universe. When you reply with statements like, "They all still rely on various potentials of mass "energy" that if considered in depth points to the underlying cause for all motion is caused by repulsion, and if we were to consider attraction causing motion our only option is to first make reference to repulsion.." makes no sense at all. No you do not have to make reference to repulsion in terms of talking about an attractive force. I'm surprised you would even entertain the thought of talking about an attractive force given your position, but replies like this not only don't make sense and don't follow logically, but they make you look dumber than you already seem to be.
Every time I give you good examples of attractive forces you reply with something that makes no sense and couldn't be shown true mathematically without cheating through the math. And even if a magnetic field is in motion such that we could talk about the momentum of a magnetic field it does not follow that any attraction between unlike poles of a magnet is a "perceived attractive force", but is really a repulsive force. How in the hell do you come to that conclusion.
Let me state it in simple terms. You are dumb and I am not. I have 4 advanced degrees including my Ph.D. in electrical engineering and I'm guessing you have no such education. I have learned and proved everything I have stated in my posts with mathematical certainty. You simply say no, that is a repulsive force; with no mathematical proof, or any proof whatsoever that may back up your point of view. I have read and understood more books written by people smarter than I am than you have probably seen in your lifetime. I'm not going to argue with you over something I and anybody with even a moderate education already knows to be true; regardless of how many times you claim the contrary.
Just because you think that all forces are repulsive, for some unknown reason, doesn't make it true. You perhaps may be the most stubborn uneducated person I've ever come across in these forums. Your replies make no sense and by no means follow a logical argument. You're a waste of space, oxygen, energy, food and time as far as I'm concerned. I will no longer reply to your dumb posts. I get more insight starring at the wall than I do conversing with you. Your point of view is so extremely stupid my time is better spent doing anything else than reading your replies.
You couldn't pass a High school exam in Physics never mind understand the complicated laws and theorems that are well understood by myself and other scientists in the field of Physics.
Like I said earlier, why don't you go on top of the tallest building you can find and jump off in hopes of repulsion to save your life, because you are useless as a source of useful information and are obviously unwilling to learn how the world really works. You are a sad case of humanity.
A quote from your last reply, "Craig, you of all people should understand that a magnets field is not stagnant, and when we consider the magnets fields momentum, I would have reasoned the vacuum cleaners analogy of air movement would have provided good insight as to why magnets behave the way they do.. this has me puzzled as to why you overlook the fields momentum which clearly points out why perceived attraction is the direct result of repulsion.."
Your vacuum cleaner analogy has no bearing on how magnetic fields act in this universe, and again a magnetic field can be constant and unchanging. Even if we talk about a fluctuating magnetic field that has potential energy stored within the field that we can equate to a particularly small amount of mass through the energy/mass equivalent, it by no means, "clearly points out why perceived attraction is the direct result of repulsion".
I've never come across someone who in the face of overwhelming evidence of the existence of a phenomenon will simply keep denying its existence. It as if you are not only dumb, but blind to the facts presented to you; you ignore valid points or reply to them with a statement that would make any physicist scoff at your thoughts.
Please don't write to me again, I want nothing more to do with you. I tried at first in a polite manner to explain attractive forces to you, you replied with something that didn't make sense. I then replied with more facts and another example and explained the definition of force and energy to you and you replied again with comments that logically fall apart before the end of the first sentence. Now I'm replying to tell you, that you will never have a grasp of the workings of our universe given your deep seeded stupidity. Please go find that tall building and take a jump off the edge so we don't have to defend topics that were proved true over 100 years ago to someone who can not understand the topics presented. It would also save the rest of us from having to actually look at the writings of a fellow human being that are simply stupid and have no foundations in physics (the real physics of our universe, not yours where everything is pushing on everything else; I wish it would push you over the edge of the roof of the tall building).
You would fail every course taught at my college given your stubborn attitude about learning the facts that dictate the laws of motion and objects at rest in this universe. And don't talk about electromagnetics as if it was some kind of property of matter, its not. Electromagnetics is a field in science devoted to the description of the development, understanding, manipulation and the properties of electric and magnetic fields and how they interact and can be used to convey information through their coupling forming an EM wave that can be sent out over great distances. We use, develop, and can see attractive forces in the field of electromagnetics. If attractive forces didn't exist, then neither would the field of electromagnetics.
Craig
I'm just going to make this quick. You are by hap's the dumbest person I've ever come across. Your arguments make no sense and can't be proved mathematically in any way. Magnetic fields DO NOT HAVE MOMENTUM! Momentum is defined as the product of mass and the velocity of that mass; what in the hell does that have to do with a magnetic field; and even if you talk about the energy stored within a magnetic field through its mass/energy equivalence so that when the magnetic field is in motion you can say the magnetic field has momentum, how does that back up your argument that all forces are repulsive?
You're not simply a laymen in the field of Physics; your simply a hack and not even worth conversing with.
Its obvious you will never learn the correct applications of Physics and the majority of your answers don't even make any sense.
What I find more amazing than your claims is your obvious stupidity. You say the spring is forced back up not by the pull of the spring on the mass but rather you claim that due to its lack of potential energy it is repulsed back up. When the spring is fully extended with the mass attached at the end, the spring actually has its maximum potential energy, so it is not lacking in potential energy while at its lowest point, but rather the spring is at its highest potential energy level. As far as the mass attached at the bottom of the spring, it is at its lowest potential energy point but so what! Just because the mass has its lowest potential energy while at the bottom of its cycle doesn't mean that some magical repulsive force is going to push it back up. If the mass were just sitting on the floor it would have even less potential energy than it does at the bottom of its cycle while oscillating on the spring; nonetheless the mass resting on the floor doesn't all of a sudden shoot straight up into the air by some unknown repulsive force.
You are DUMB, DUMB, DUMB!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The more I read your replies the dumber you seem to be to me. Just because their exists a mass energy equivalent through the equation E = mc^2, doesn't mean the energy equivalent will always be such that it acts to repulse objects away from it. I've given you several examples of mass that attracts other mass (an electron is attracted to a proton, the N pole of a permanent magnet is attracted to the S pole of any other magnet). And just because you insist that all forces are repulsive does it follow that you understand the idea of kinetic and potential energy better than most. In fact I don't think you understand them as they are defined.
The mass on a spring example, one of many I've given you, is a perfect example of how potential energy is converted into kinetic energy and then back to potential energy and then back to kinetic energy, etc.... And in the process it moves the mass up and down. Only a force acting on a mass can cause that mass to change velocity. If the change in momentum (the impulse) of the mass on the spring is mdelta(V) = Fdelta(t), then F = m(delta v/delta t), or simply F=ma. As that mass moves up and down periodically the sign of F will change accordingly. If its positive lets call it a repulsive force, it doesn't then follow when it changes sign, meaning the force is acting in the opposite direction on the mass, the force can't be called repulsive as well. Basically your saying whether something is pulled on or pushed on, either way it is a repulsive force. How can you be so stupid?
Don't even bother replying to this as I have no intention on ever replying to any post you ever place again. You are stubbornly stupid and unwilling to learn the reality of the universe that surrounds you. Instead you live in your own little world where the laws of Physics as we know them don't apply to you.
And you say, "I have reasoned with a potential of energy we must have a density, and because all mass is with constant change, the reference to such a Potential presents itself via availing some of its potential, this act I reason is the act of repulsion". What? That makes no sense at all; all mass is constant with change? What in the hell does that mean? Potential energy has no density as density is a measure of how much of some thing fits into a particular volume, onto an area or even along line and has nothing to do with potential energy.
Also a magnetic field does not need to be in motion to exist. A stationary magnetic field can and does exist in many places throughout the universe. When you reply with statements like, "They all still rely on various potentials of mass "energy" that if considered in depth points to the underlying cause for all motion is caused by repulsion, and if we were to consider attraction causing motion our only option is to first make reference to repulsion.." makes no sense at all. No you do not have to make reference to repulsion in terms of talking about an attractive force. I'm surprised you would even entertain the thought of talking about an attractive force given your position, but replies like this not only don't make sense and don't follow logically, but they make you look dumber than you already seem to be.
Every time I give you good examples of attractive forces you reply with something that makes no sense and couldn't be shown true mathematically without cheating through the math. And even if a magnetic field is in motion such that we could talk about the momentum of a magnetic field it does not follow that any attraction between unlike poles of a magnet is a "perceived attractive force", but is really a repulsive force. How in the hell do you come to that conclusion.
Let me state it in simple terms. You are dumb and I am not. I have 4 advanced degrees including my Ph.D. in electrical engineering and I'm guessing you have no such education. I have learned and proved everything I have stated in my posts with mathematical certainty. You simply say no, that is a repulsive force; with no mathematical proof, or any proof whatsoever that may back up your point of view. I have read and understood more books written by people smarter than I am than you have probably seen in your lifetime. I'm not going to argue with you over something I and anybody with even a moderate education already knows to be true; regardless of how many times you claim the contrary.
Just because you think that all forces are repulsive, for some unknown reason, doesn't make it true. You perhaps may be the most stubborn uneducated person I've ever come across in these forums. Your replies make no sense and by no means follow a logical argument. You're a waste of space, oxygen, energy, food and time as far as I'm concerned. I will no longer reply to your dumb posts. I get more insight starring at the wall than I do conversing with you. Your point of view is so extremely stupid my time is better spent doing anything else than reading your replies.
You couldn't pass a High school exam in Physics never mind understand the complicated laws and theorems that are well understood by myself and other scientists in the field of Physics.
Like I said earlier, why don't you go on top of the tallest building you can find and jump off in hopes of repulsion to save your life, because you are useless as a source of useful information and are obviously unwilling to learn how the world really works. You are a sad case of humanity.
A quote from your last reply, "Craig, you of all people should understand that a magnets field is not stagnant, and when we consider the magnets fields momentum, I would have reasoned the vacuum cleaners analogy of air movement would have provided good insight as to why magnets behave the way they do.. this has me puzzled as to why you overlook the fields momentum which clearly points out why perceived attraction is the direct result of repulsion.."
Your vacuum cleaner analogy has no bearing on how magnetic fields act in this universe, and again a magnetic field can be constant and unchanging. Even if we talk about a fluctuating magnetic field that has potential energy stored within the field that we can equate to a particularly small amount of mass through the energy/mass equivalent, it by no means, "clearly points out why perceived attraction is the direct result of repulsion".
I've never come across someone who in the face of overwhelming evidence of the existence of a phenomenon will simply keep denying its existence. It as if you are not only dumb, but blind to the facts presented to you; you ignore valid points or reply to them with a statement that would make any physicist scoff at your thoughts.
Please don't write to me again, I want nothing more to do with you. I tried at first in a polite manner to explain attractive forces to you, you replied with something that didn't make sense. I then replied with more facts and another example and explained the definition of force and energy to you and you replied again with comments that logically fall apart before the end of the first sentence. Now I'm replying to tell you, that you will never have a grasp of the workings of our universe given your deep seeded stupidity. Please go find that tall building and take a jump off the edge so we don't have to defend topics that were proved true over 100 years ago to someone who can not understand the topics presented. It would also save the rest of us from having to actually look at the writings of a fellow human being that are simply stupid and have no foundations in physics (the real physics of our universe, not yours where everything is pushing on everything else; I wish it would push you over the edge of the roof of the tall building).
You would fail every course taught at my college given your stubborn attitude about learning the facts that dictate the laws of motion and objects at rest in this universe. And don't talk about electromagnetics as if it was some kind of property of matter, its not. Electromagnetics is a field in science devoted to the description of the development, understanding, manipulation and the properties of electric and magnetic fields and how they interact and can be used to convey information through their coupling forming an EM wave that can be sent out over great distances. We use, develop, and can see attractive forces in the field of electromagnetics. If attractive forces didn't exist, then neither would the field of electromagnetics.
Craig
QUOTE (buttershug+Dec 16 2009, 01:37 AM)
Why has the Universe not flung apart by now?
The edges would have nothing to repel them towards the center.
It is in the process of "flinging apart," isn't it? It's called expansion.
I think I can give a very brief summation of how this repulsion theory of gravity explains the relationship between potential and kinetic energy:
For something to fall down, it first has to go up somehow.
I think he would say that any object or particle with velocity and momentum has been repelled into motion, and that upon collision with other objects or particles, its energy should be transfered to them and, likewise, that the energy of other particles and objects should be transferred to it.
The fact that objects and particles can "coagulate" into relative stasis is, according to him, due to the translation of kinetic energy, i.e. momentum, into potential energy, i.e. restriction within a gravitational field.
Therefore, he assumes that particles/objects would keep bouncing off each other if their kinetic energy was not dampened by its conversion into gravitational potential.
"Compressed densities," as he calls them, are due to particles being repelled into relative stasis as they fail to repel other particles with the same momentum that they carry from their last collision/repulsion.
So according to this perspective, planets are viewed as being held together by the momentum of all particles falling into a "traffic jam" of other particles. "Traffic jam" seems actually to be a good metaphor because all those particles are seen as having the tendency to continue moving according to their momentum, but the fact that they're stuck translates this momentum into potential instead of dynamic motion.
It's really an interesting way of looking at gravity if you think about it.
One question I am thinking of, though, is why it would be that gravity would bend space-time if it was nothing more than a propensity for particles not to maintain their kinetic energy after a collision. Would space-time bending be explained by the tension between the restricted momentum of blocked particles and their potential motion?
The edges would have nothing to repel them towards the center.
It is in the process of "flinging apart," isn't it? It's called expansion.
I think I can give a very brief summation of how this repulsion theory of gravity explains the relationship between potential and kinetic energy:
For something to fall down, it first has to go up somehow.
I think he would say that any object or particle with velocity and momentum has been repelled into motion, and that upon collision with other objects or particles, its energy should be transfered to them and, likewise, that the energy of other particles and objects should be transferred to it.
The fact that objects and particles can "coagulate" into relative stasis is, according to him, due to the translation of kinetic energy, i.e. momentum, into potential energy, i.e. restriction within a gravitational field.
Therefore, he assumes that particles/objects would keep bouncing off each other if their kinetic energy was not dampened by its conversion into gravitational potential.
"Compressed densities," as he calls them, are due to particles being repelled into relative stasis as they fail to repel other particles with the same momentum that they carry from their last collision/repulsion.
So according to this perspective, planets are viewed as being held together by the momentum of all particles falling into a "traffic jam" of other particles. "Traffic jam" seems actually to be a good metaphor because all those particles are seen as having the tendency to continue moving according to their momentum, but the fact that they're stuck translates this momentum into potential instead of dynamic motion.
It's really an interesting way of looking at gravity if you think about it.
One question I am thinking of, though, is why it would be that gravity would bend space-time if it was nothing more than a propensity for particles not to maintain their kinetic energy after a collision. Would space-time bending be explained by the tension between the restricted momentum of blocked particles and their potential motion?
Good lord, this is stupid.
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 16 2009, 12:40 AM)
Hey lets not get upset and throw a tantrum, just because you know I am right.. And mind you I have provided only one experiment that supports my stance... and whats the bet every single experiment you may provide will prove I am right and youre wrong, if you care to consider the details with a little more due care..
Are you living in a parallel bizarro universe universe? I categorically, undoubtedly, honestly believe you have done absolutely nothing worthy of note, anything close to valid or have anywhere near the level of understanding you believe you do.
You haven't provided any experiment. You've claimed that explaining a hoover explains gravity. Wow, what amazing proof.
I think you need to look up 'evidence' in a dictionary.
Are you living in a parallel bizarro universe universe? I categorically, undoubtedly, honestly believe you have done absolutely nothing worthy of note, anything close to valid or have anywhere near the level of understanding you believe you do.
You haven't provided any experiment. You've claimed that explaining a hoover explains gravity. Wow, what amazing proof.
I think you need to look up 'evidence' in a dictionary.
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 16 2009, 12:40 AM)
BTW please quote any buzz words I have relied upon? and then detail where I am in error with respects to their use..
You have talked about Klein bottles, but you don't know any geometry. You talk about curved space-time but you don't know any GR. You talk about photon interactions but you don't know any quantum theory. And none of your ideas allow you to model any of those phenomena.
Are you claiming you know the geometry and topology of Klein bottles?
Are you claiming you know the geometry and topology of Klein bottles?
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 16 2009, 12:40 AM)
Don't be ridiculous, I don't subscribe to attraction, so I don't need to bother about it
Ah the "I know I'm right so why should I look at information which says otherwise" crank logic.
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 16 2009, 12:40 AM)
n the other hand your above claims have been much like flaying ones hands in the air while insisting on magical attraction, so I think that's up to those who insist on attraction will have to detail it, but mind you - without making reference to any repulsions, as this would have my stance as being justified..
And now the "I've not looked at your references therefore they don't count" logic.
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 16 2009, 12:40 AM)
I will put it to you that the article you keep referring to - does make reference to repulsion for your attraction to be possible, so yeah I think you need to re-read it with a little more due care, WAIT! I see you now have revised your stance and now agree with my original stance. as in see below
So you've read the reference? Or are you just making up delusions again?
I haven't revised my stance at all. I think you're a ****ing idiot who has a problem grasping logic and rationality. How is that a revised stance?
I haven't revised my stance at all. I think you're a ****ing idiot who has a problem grasping logic and rationality. How is that a revised stance?
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 16 2009, 12:40 AM)
No I don't, I want every one to know, I am but a mere layman, and further more I want every one to know you lay claim to being a Physicist, and not just any physicist, but as you like to present that your the best!
So you're a layman but you just happen to have spent a decade working on photon photon interactions and multiplie-connected space-times constructed of Klein bottles? Well either you're a layman with specalist knowledge or you're a layman who doesn't realise how utterly far from the mark he is.
And I didn't claim I'm 'the best'. I would happily claim I'm better than you at physics and maths. But those two things aren't the same unless you believe you're the best. You're a hack who couldn't pass a high school physics exam, besting you is hardly difficult. And unlike you I actually have results to show for my work, work which has passed peer review.
And I didn't claim I'm 'the best'. I would happily claim I'm better than you at physics and maths. But those two things aren't the same unless you believe you're the best. You're a hack who couldn't pass a high school physics exam, besting you is hardly difficult. And unlike you I actually have results to show for my work, work which has passed peer review.
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 16 2009, 12:40 AM)
So is it agreed an observed attraction is indeed the result of repulsions? or are still insisting on force to be with attractive attributes?
How the hell do you reach such a conclusion from me saying "Is this your method of learning/discussion, you just make up your own interpretation of what people have said, irrespective of what they really said?"? Infact, you prove my comment is true, you read something utterly different from what people say to you.
You live in cloud cuckoo land!
You live in cloud cuckoo land!
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 16 2009, 12:40 AM)
I want you for once in your life to get real and consider how can energy present actual physics simply on the constructs of Potential Energy and Kinetic energy.. and yes I know its extremely basic physics, but what the hey, it should be a breeze for you then, YES!?
If its so simple give me ONE phenomena you can model accurately.
You couldn't even answer my question, you just claim "Oh I've already provided it". Can't you explciitly state the answer?
Two objects of mass m kilograms are a distance R apart from one another. Use your ideas to tell me the time it takes for them to collide and the speed at which they do it. You may not use any mainstream model of gravity or mechanics. Only your own work.
I claim your work can't provide the answer. Prove me wrong. We both know you won't.
You couldn't even answer my question, you just claim "Oh I've already provided it". Can't you explciitly state the answer?
Two objects of mass m kilograms are a distance R apart from one another. Use your ideas to tell me the time it takes for them to collide and the speed at which they do it. You may not use any mainstream model of gravity or mechanics. Only your own work.
I claim your work can't provide the answer. Prove me wrong. We both know you won't.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 16 2009, 06:39 AM)
It is in the process of "flinging apart," isn't it? It's called expansion.
Listen, There are people who LOOK and observe and measure.
You and laidback can only imagine things.
What he is saying does not match the real universe.
He only restrains himself to "there is only attraction", AN restrains himself to what is.
Listen, There are people who LOOK and observe and measure.
You and laidback can only imagine things.
What he is saying does not match the real universe.
He only restrains himself to "there is only attraction", AN restrains himself to what is.
QUOTE (buttershug+Dec 16 2009, 12:25 PM)
Listen, There are people who LOOK and observe and measure.
You and laidback can only imagine things.
What he is saying does not match the real universe.
He only restrains himself to "there is only attraction", AN restrains himself to what is.
Is there a source of kinetic energy in the universe other than expansion caused by the big bang?
If not, could his theory make sense if densification of "compressed densities" of matter occurred as a result of particle build-up and blockage?
Assuming that space-time is bent as a product of momentum, rather than mass alone, gravity would be explained by the idea that particles are repelling into each other to form growing coagulations of "compressed densities."
His theory is actually very interesting because it seems to connect the velocity-energy part of GR with the part that gravitational-mass bends space-time. I.e. denser masses would be viewed as the product of greater cumulative momentum of compression as a result of the potentiated kinetic energy of particles building or "damming" up against other. Please forgive and correct me if I am interpreting these aspects of GR wrong, since I am not a bonafide physicist.
However, it does make sense to look at massive objects as cumulative inward momentum of their constrained kinetic energy in combination with the idea that the universe is expanding. Why? Because a particle that is pressed up against another particle would slowly lose energy in the form of KE/vibration and EM radiation. As such, wouldn't it make sense that through this process of energy-loss over a long period of time, the total inward momentum of all the particles of a "compressed density" would progressively be relaxing? Since this process would be relatively standardized for all particles in the universe, the net effect would be expansion of the universe.
I don't understand why people are spending so much energy trying to undermine this theory. Whether it's crackpot crank madness or not, why can't we just examine the contours of the concepts and bracket judgment in order to explore it? I find it quite interesting to consider gravity as the result of repulsive KE causing space-time bending. It may be completely falsifiable, but not by insulting the author or the discussion of it.
You and laidback can only imagine things.
What he is saying does not match the real universe.
He only restrains himself to "there is only attraction", AN restrains himself to what is.
Is there a source of kinetic energy in the universe other than expansion caused by the big bang?
If not, could his theory make sense if densification of "compressed densities" of matter occurred as a result of particle build-up and blockage?
Assuming that space-time is bent as a product of momentum, rather than mass alone, gravity would be explained by the idea that particles are repelling into each other to form growing coagulations of "compressed densities."
His theory is actually very interesting because it seems to connect the velocity-energy part of GR with the part that gravitational-mass bends space-time. I.e. denser masses would be viewed as the product of greater cumulative momentum of compression as a result of the potentiated kinetic energy of particles building or "damming" up against other. Please forgive and correct me if I am interpreting these aspects of GR wrong, since I am not a bonafide physicist.
However, it does make sense to look at massive objects as cumulative inward momentum of their constrained kinetic energy in combination with the idea that the universe is expanding. Why? Because a particle that is pressed up against another particle would slowly lose energy in the form of KE/vibration and EM radiation. As such, wouldn't it make sense that through this process of energy-loss over a long period of time, the total inward momentum of all the particles of a "compressed density" would progressively be relaxing? Since this process would be relatively standardized for all particles in the universe, the net effect would be expansion of the universe.
I don't understand why people are spending so much energy trying to undermine this theory. Whether it's crackpot crank madness or not, why can't we just examine the contours of the concepts and bracket judgment in order to explore it? I find it quite interesting to consider gravity as the result of repulsive KE causing space-time bending. It may be completely falsifiable, but not by insulting the author or the discussion of it.
Don't know if this has been covered ......
EDIT: NVM it's been covered and then some. Also the spring example is a nice simple one and if that isn't enough then nothing will be.
EDIT: NVM it's been covered and then some. Also the spring example is a nice simple one and if that isn't enough then nothing will be.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 16 2009, 03:34 PM)
Is there a source of kinetic energy in the universe other than expansion caused by the big bang?
Tell me what you think Kinetic energy is.
The way you use the term does not make any sense.
Tell me what you think Kinetic energy is.
The way you use the term does not make any sense.
QUOTE (buttershug+Dec 16 2009, 11:37 AM)
Why has the Universe not flung apart by now?
The edges would have nothing to repel them towards the center.
Based on the fact that all mass is Energy, I imagine the whole Universe would have to be an inference to some potential, which implies the Universe must consist of two or more Opposing velocities for this Potential to be possible.
Or to clarify my reasoning - The universe is awash of a minimum of two or more densities merging into the other densities aka"Kinetic potentials" merging and dispersing indefinitely..
I also reason there is no edge to the universe, and its one of the reason why I consider the Klein bottle a multi-necked one BTW may provide the best form, as no matter to what direction we care to observe, and if we had vision capable enough and if there were no obstructions we would always be looking to the back of our heads..
Of course I could be wrong with some or all of my suggestions, but that's how I justify the Universe..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen
The edges would have nothing to repel them towards the center.
Based on the fact that all mass is Energy, I imagine the whole Universe would have to be an inference to some potential, which implies the Universe must consist of two or more Opposing velocities for this Potential to be possible.
Or to clarify my reasoning - The universe is awash of a minimum of two or more densities merging into the other densities aka"Kinetic potentials" merging and dispersing indefinitely..
I also reason there is no edge to the universe, and its one of the reason why I consider the Klein bottle a multi-necked one BTW may provide the best form, as no matter to what direction we care to observe, and if we had vision capable enough and if there were no obstructions we would always be looking to the back of our heads..
Of course I could be wrong with some or all of my suggestions, but that's how I justify the Universe..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen
I agree.
You are wrong with at least one of your assertions, namely that you "reason".
You poor thing.
You are wrong with at least one of your assertions, namely that you "reason".
You poor thing.
I have deleted most of your desperate and frantic arm waving, to point out your buzz words
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 16 2009, 08:25 PM)
Are you living in a parallel bizarro?
Look Alpha,
You can huff, puff, froth from your mouth while flaying your arms wildly around, you know you are wrong!
And you know you cant explain how attraction is to cause motion ergo my stance is correct, in that force can only ever be repulsive if motion is to result..
If you are right then I guess I am left still waiting on YOUR thoughts as to how you reason attraction is to cause motion? yeah go and read that text book and make a note how wrong you are!
2~Duh~Loo!
Peter J Schoen..
Look Alpha,
You can huff, puff, froth from your mouth while flaying your arms wildly around, you know you are wrong!
And you know you cant explain how attraction is to cause motion ergo my stance is correct, in that force can only ever be repulsive if motion is to result..
If you are right then I guess I am left still waiting on YOUR thoughts as to how you reason attraction is to cause motion? yeah go and read that text book and make a note how wrong you are!
2~Duh~Loo!
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (buttershug+Dec 16 2009, 09:28 PM)
Tell me what you think Kinetic energy is.
The way you use the term does not make any sense.
Good, maybe this will clarify why I keep getting insulted. I might be just using the term, KE, wrong.
I assume KE to be any energy of motion, including heat at the level of molecular movement or vibration. I also assume it to be the energy of any moving object, such as a tennis ball, when it is sent hurling through the air.
Potential energy, I assume, is present in objects, particles, or systems in which the tendency to become dynamic is present but is somehow constrained from doing so. A tennis ball balanced at the top of a slide has PE which translates into KE as it starts to roll down the slide. PE is what I assume gives objects the downward momentum that presses them to the ground.
When an object is repelled upward, it is simultaneously losing potential energy by losing distance from the center of the planet, and gaining it in the sense that it has farther to fall from the height it reaches. I know I'm not saying that exactly right but the point is that when the ball turns around and starts falling downward again, its potential energy is being converted into more kinetic energy (momentum). Then when it bounces off the ground, it starts exchanging its KE for PE as it decelerates in the upward direction. Eventually when it comes to rest, all its KE has been either transfered into things it's come in contact with OR into PE, as its gravitational potential to move to a lower altitude if the opportunity presented itself.
Does my explanation of KE/PE make sense so far?
The interesting thing about the repulsion theory, I find, is that it seems to treat the conversion of energy into dynamic motion for a ball repelled upward as a single curved line, such that the ball is actually repelled into a state of rest, eventually, after any bouncing etc. The sequence of repulsion-KE-rest-PE would be treated the same for a ball thrown up into the air or a meteoroid knocked out of the astroid belt in the direction of Earth. Both are repulsion events that send an object to an eventual state of rest within the particle "traffic jam" that is Earth.
That's not interesting to you? What's flawed in this way of looking at gravity, KE, and PE? Did I get KE and PE wrong?
The way you use the term does not make any sense.
Good, maybe this will clarify why I keep getting insulted. I might be just using the term, KE, wrong.
I assume KE to be any energy of motion, including heat at the level of molecular movement or vibration. I also assume it to be the energy of any moving object, such as a tennis ball, when it is sent hurling through the air.
Potential energy, I assume, is present in objects, particles, or systems in which the tendency to become dynamic is present but is somehow constrained from doing so. A tennis ball balanced at the top of a slide has PE which translates into KE as it starts to roll down the slide. PE is what I assume gives objects the downward momentum that presses them to the ground.
When an object is repelled upward, it is simultaneously losing potential energy by losing distance from the center of the planet, and gaining it in the sense that it has farther to fall from the height it reaches. I know I'm not saying that exactly right but the point is that when the ball turns around and starts falling downward again, its potential energy is being converted into more kinetic energy (momentum). Then when it bounces off the ground, it starts exchanging its KE for PE as it decelerates in the upward direction. Eventually when it comes to rest, all its KE has been either transfered into things it's come in contact with OR into PE, as its gravitational potential to move to a lower altitude if the opportunity presented itself.
Does my explanation of KE/PE make sense so far?
The interesting thing about the repulsion theory, I find, is that it seems to treat the conversion of energy into dynamic motion for a ball repelled upward as a single curved line, such that the ball is actually repelled into a state of rest, eventually, after any bouncing etc. The sequence of repulsion-KE-rest-PE would be treated the same for a ball thrown up into the air or a meteoroid knocked out of the astroid belt in the direction of Earth. Both are repulsion events that send an object to an eventual state of rest within the particle "traffic jam" that is Earth.
That's not interesting to you? What's flawed in this way of looking at gravity, KE, and PE? Did I get KE and PE wrong?
QUOTE (buttershug+Dec 16 2009, 09:28 PM)
Tell me what you think Kinetic energy is.
The way you use the term does not make any sense.
Good, maybe this will clarify why I keep getting insulted. I might be just using the term, KE, wrong.
I assume KE to be any energy of motion, including heat at the level of molecular movement or vibration. I also assume it to be the energy of any moving object, such as a tennis ball, when it is sent hurling through the air.
Potential energy, I assume, is present in objects, particles, or systems in which the tendency to become dynamic is present but is somehow constrained from doing so. A tennis ball balanced at the top of a slide has PE which translates into KE as it starts to roll down the slide. PE is what I assume gives objects the downward momentum that presses them to the ground.
When an object is repelled upward, it is simultaneously losing potential energy by losing distance from the center of the planet, and gaining it in the sense that it has farther to fall from the height it reaches. I know I'm not saying that exactly right but the point is that when the ball turns around and starts falling downward again, its potential energy is being converted into more kinetic energy (momentum). Then when it bounces off the ground, it starts exchanging its KE for PE as it decelerates in the upward direction. Eventually when it comes to rest, all its KE has been either transfered into things it's come in contact with OR into PE, as its gravitational potential to move to a lower altitude if the opportunity presented itself.
Does my explanation of KE/PE make sense so far?
The interesting thing about the repulsion theory, I find, is that it seems to treat the conversion of energy into dynamic motion for a ball repelled upward as a single curved line, such that the ball is actually repelled into a state of rest, eventually, after any bouncing etc. The sequence of repulsion-KE-rest-PE would be treated the same for a ball thrown up into the air or a meteoroid knocked out of the astroid belt in the direction of Earth. Both are repulsion events that send an object to an eventual state of rest within the particle "traffic jam" that is Earth.
That's not interesting to you? What's flawed in this way of looking at gravity, KE, and PE? Did I get KE and PE wrong?
The way you use the term does not make any sense.
Good, maybe this will clarify why I keep getting insulted. I might be just using the term, KE, wrong.
I assume KE to be any energy of motion, including heat at the level of molecular movement or vibration. I also assume it to be the energy of any moving object, such as a tennis ball, when it is sent hurling through the air.
Potential energy, I assume, is present in objects, particles, or systems in which the tendency to become dynamic is present but is somehow constrained from doing so. A tennis ball balanced at the top of a slide has PE which translates into KE as it starts to roll down the slide. PE is what I assume gives objects the downward momentum that presses them to the ground.
When an object is repelled upward, it is simultaneously losing potential energy by losing distance from the center of the planet, and gaining it in the sense that it has farther to fall from the height it reaches. I know I'm not saying that exactly right but the point is that when the ball turns around and starts falling downward again, its potential energy is being converted into more kinetic energy (momentum). Then when it bounces off the ground, it starts exchanging its KE for PE as it decelerates in the upward direction. Eventually when it comes to rest, all its KE has been either transfered into things it's come in contact with OR into PE, as its gravitational potential to move to a lower altitude if the opportunity presented itself.
Does my explanation of KE/PE make sense so far?
The interesting thing about the repulsion theory, I find, is that it seems to treat the conversion of energy into dynamic motion for a ball repelled upward as a single curved line, such that the ball is actually repelled into a state of rest, eventually, after any bouncing etc. The sequence of repulsion-KE-rest-PE would be treated the same for a ball thrown up into the air or a meteoroid knocked out of the astroid belt in the direction of Earth. Both are repulsion events that send an object to an eventual state of rest within the particle "traffic jam" that is Earth.
That's not interesting to you? What's flawed in this way of looking at gravity, KE, and PE? Did I get KE and PE wrong?
I have a few questions that has nothing to do with Physics whatsoever. I'm simply posting it here in hopes someone may be able to answer it for me as most of you have been in this forum much longer than I.
My questions are simple and quick.
1.) When does ones description change from "newbie" to something else?
2.) Also, when it changes from "newbie" to something else what is that something else called? I take it the more replies you make the closer you get to being called something other than a "newbie"; but I don't know.
3.) Lastly, as a "newbie" I can't give feedback be it positive or negative on others. At what point will I be allowed to give feedback on others?
These are probably questions the moderator, rpenner I think, would be able to answer and I should ask him directly instead of posting it here, but I didn't think of that until just now and I don't want to re-write this again, so I'll leave it here and hope somebody who knows will answer these questions for me.
Thank you in advance.
My questions are simple and quick.
1.) When does ones description change from "newbie" to something else?
2.) Also, when it changes from "newbie" to something else what is that something else called? I take it the more replies you make the closer you get to being called something other than a "newbie"; but I don't know.
3.) Lastly, as a "newbie" I can't give feedback be it positive or negative on others. At what point will I be allowed to give feedback on others?
These are probably questions the moderator, rpenner I think, would be able to answer and I should ask him directly instead of posting it here, but I didn't think of that until just now and I don't want to re-write this again, so I'll leave it here and hope somebody who knows will answer these questions for me.
Thank you in advance.
QUOTE (Craig+Dec 17 2009, 02:01 AM)
I have a few questions that has nothing to do with Physics whatsoever. I'm simply posting it here in hopes someone may be able to answer it for me as most of you have been in this forum much longer than I.
My questions are simple and quick.
1.) When does ones description change from "newbie" to something else?
2.) Also, when it changes from "newbie" to something else what is that something else called? I take it the more replies you make the closer you get to being called something other than a "newbie"; but I don't know.
3.) Lastly, as a "newbie" I can't give feedback be it positive or negative on others. At what point will I be allowed to give feedback on others?
These are probably questions the moderator, rpenner I think, would be able to answer and I should ask him directly instead of posting it here, but I didn't think of that until just now and I don't want to re-write this again, so I'll leave it here and hope somebody who knows will answer these questions for me.
Thank you in advance.
50 posts
My questions are simple and quick.
1.) When does ones description change from "newbie" to something else?
2.) Also, when it changes from "newbie" to something else what is that something else called? I take it the more replies you make the closer you get to being called something other than a "newbie"; but I don't know.
3.) Lastly, as a "newbie" I can't give feedback be it positive or negative on others. At what point will I be allowed to give feedback on others?
These are probably questions the moderator, rpenner I think, would be able to answer and I should ask him directly instead of posting it here, but I didn't think of that until just now and I don't want to re-write this again, so I'll leave it here and hope somebody who knows will answer these questions for me.
Thank you in advance.
50 posts
Thank you
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 17 2009, 02:05 AM)
You can huff, puff, froth from your mouth while flaying your arms wildly around, you know you are wrong!
And you know you cant explain how attraction is to cause motion ergo my stance is correct, in that force can only ever be repulsive if motion is to result..
Ah, so because you haven't bothered to look for someone's explanation it doesn't exist and therefore anything you summise is true?
Excellent logic there. If you're that stupid then you have illustrated my point about you and if you know that's nonsense logic then it means you're desperate and willing to make up such pathetic lies. Either way, your logic is flawed.
I already offered to cover your bet with my own money. You would risk not a penny but might win $500 if you succeed.
I know you won't take him up on his offer and it's because you are full of crap and you know it. I am beginning to think you are nothing but a troll rather than just someone who is too stupid to know when to shut up.
I already offered to cover your bet with my own money.
And you know you cant explain how attraction is to cause motion ergo my stance is correct, in that force can only ever be repulsive if motion is to result..
Ah, so because you haven't bothered to look for someone's explanation it doesn't exist and therefore anything you summise is true?
Excellent logic there. If you're that stupid then you have illustrated my point about you and if you know that's nonsense logic then it means you're desperate and willing to make up such pathetic lies. Either way, your logic is flawed.
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 17 2009, 02:05 AM)
If you are right then I guess I am left still waiting on YOUR thoughts as to how you reason attraction is to cause motion? yeah go and read that text book and make a note how wrong you are!
So because someone else has provided an answer already I have to provide you with a different one else it doesn't count? Wow, you're really throwing out the dipshit logic here.
And the fact you couldn't give me one, just one, phenomenon in the entire universe you can model shows you're a liar and a hack. You claim to have explained gravity so why can't you do a child's homework problem? If I'm wrong and I know I am why are you avoiding my questions and I'm answering yours?
Tell you what Peter. I know you're a hack with such certainty that I'll put my money where my mouth is. You type up your 'work' into a single document and send it to me. I'll convert it into the required format to submit it to a reputable journal and then send the files back to you. We both then deposit $500 with a trusted 3rd source and you submit your work to the journal. If you are rejected, I get your money. If you're published, you get mine.
If you're so sure I know I'm wrong then its free money to you. But if you're just blustering then you know its free money to me. So what do you say?
So because someone else has provided an answer already I have to provide you with a different one else it doesn't count? Wow, you're really throwing out the dipshit logic here.
And the fact you couldn't give me one, just one, phenomenon in the entire universe you can model shows you're a liar and a hack. You claim to have explained gravity so why can't you do a child's homework problem? If I'm wrong and I know I am why are you avoiding my questions and I'm answering yours?
Tell you what Peter. I know you're a hack with such certainty that I'll put my money where my mouth is. You type up your 'work' into a single document and send it to me. I'll convert it into the required format to submit it to a reputable journal and then send the files back to you. We both then deposit $500 with a trusted 3rd source and you submit your work to the journal. If you are rejected, I get your money. If you're published, you get mine.
If you're so sure I know I'm wrong then its free money to you. But if you're just blustering then you know its free money to me. So what do you say?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 17 2009, 07:55 AM)
Tell you what Peter. I know you're a hack with such certainty that I'll put my money where my mouth is. You type up your 'work' into a single document and send it to me. I'll convert it into the required format to submit it to a reputable journal and then send the files back to you. We both then deposit $500 with a trusted 3rd source and you submit your work to the journal. If you are rejected, I get your money. If you're published, you get mine.
I don't understand why you have to make it into a competition between different models.
Doesn't the fact that he created a fresh approach to conceptualizing gravity count for anything?
Right or wrong, I have never read anything before that postulates "compressed densities" of matter as the result of convergent vectors of momentum.
I am not that well read in physics, though, so has anyone else read such a theory? Also, even if it has bugs that need ironing or flaws that ultimately make it a flawed theory, I think he deserves some credit for making something interesting and innovative. I can't understand why the best he can get is a challenge to subject his work to degrading peer reviews.
Subjecting his ideas to critical questioning that challenges him to explain aspects of gravity or magnetism, etc. in terms of repulsion is valid. Slamming him to admit he's a fool and give up trying is inquisition-style pro-orthodox violence.
I don't understand why you have to make it into a competition between different models.
Doesn't the fact that he created a fresh approach to conceptualizing gravity count for anything?
Right or wrong, I have never read anything before that postulates "compressed densities" of matter as the result of convergent vectors of momentum.
I am not that well read in physics, though, so has anyone else read such a theory? Also, even if it has bugs that need ironing or flaws that ultimately make it a flawed theory, I think he deserves some credit for making something interesting and innovative. I can't understand why the best he can get is a challenge to subject his work to degrading peer reviews.
Subjecting his ideas to critical questioning that challenges him to explain aspects of gravity or magnetism, etc. in terms of repulsion is valid. Slamming him to admit he's a fool and give up trying is inquisition-style pro-orthodox violence.
For Laidback;
It seems in your opening you are not just asking a question, but issuing a challenge. Could there be a prize involved in meeting your challenge?
It seems in your opening you are not just asking a question, but issuing a challenge. Could there be a prize involved in meeting your challenge?
Alpha
Heck... I will go one better. If his work is published, I will pay you $500 myself.
I don't need him to put up the money...
There is simply no way that any reputable journal would ever publish that garbage unless he somehow figures out who the editor is and holds a gun to his head. Maybe not even then.
QUOTE
Tell you what Peter. I know you're a hack with such certainty that I'll put my money where my mouth is. You type up your 'work' into a single document and send it to me. I'll convert it into the required format to submit it to a reputable journal and then send the files back to you. We both then deposit $500 with a trusted 3rd source and you submit your work to the journal. If you are rejected, I get your money. If you're published, you get mine.
Heck... I will go one better. If his work is published, I will pay you $500 myself.
I don't need him to put up the money...
There is simply no way that any reputable journal would ever publish that garbage unless he somehow figures out who the editor is and holds a gun to his head. Maybe not even then.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 17 2009, 03:32 PM)
I don't understand why you have to make it into a competition between different models.
Doesn't the fact that he created a fresh approach to conceptualizing gravity count for anything?
It should count negative.
Not because it's fresh but because it flies in the face of what has been demonstrated.
You do realise that he says the reason we don't fly off into space is because we keep getting hit on the head, don't you?
If we were talking about creating a Universe for a work of fiction that would be one thing but any theory of this one must match this Universe.
Doesn't the fact that he created a fresh approach to conceptualizing gravity count for anything?
It should count negative.
Not because it's fresh but because it flies in the face of what has been demonstrated.
You do realise that he says the reason we don't fly off into space is because we keep getting hit on the head, don't you?
If we were talking about creating a Universe for a work of fiction that would be one thing but any theory of this one must match this Universe.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 17 2009, 03:32 PM)
I don't understand why you have to make it into a competition between different models.
Doesn't the fact that he created a fresh approach to conceptualizing gravity count for anything?
Right or wrong, I have never read anything before that postulates "compressed densities" of matter as the result of convergent vectors of momentum.
I am not that well read in physics, though, so has anyone else read such a theory? Also, even if it has bugs that need ironing or flaws that ultimately make it a flawed theory, I think he deserves some credit for making something interesting and innovative. I can't understand why the best he can get is a challenge to subject his work to degrading peer reviews.
Subjecting his ideas to critical questioning that challenges him to explain aspects of gravity or magnetism, etc. in terms of repulsion is valid. Slamming him to admit he's a fool and give up trying is inquisition-style pro-orthodox violence.
I don't think he does deserve any credit for coming up with a "fresh approach" in describing gravity, or other laws of physics that he claims to be fact, why? Because he makes these claims as fact without the same kind of mathematical rigor that allows the rest of us to claim our approach to the situation to be fact.
In other words, he takes some of the rigorously proven physics known to us and combines some of those factual ideas with ideas of his own to come up with a different set of physical laws that describe the nature of our universe to him as he sees it. What's wrong with that is the ideas that are his coupled with the ones taken from other people who have mathematically shown theirs to be fact, together does not make his approach to understanding physics correct. It could be potentially harmful to both he and anybody he may convince that his ideas are factual.
If in the world of physics if you make a claim that counters something that has the kind of rigor behind it that the laws of physics as I/the rest of the world knows them to have, then it is upon the person making the new and different claims to prove these new claims with the same kind of rigor that was used to back up the claims that counter his own.
If his ideas are to be taken seriously in the scientific community, then he owes it to himself and to the world to be just as diligent in proving his theories as the scientists, physicists, and engineers before him have been in showing their beliefs to be either fact or fiction. Since I am a true believer in mathematics, this would be the route he should take in order to prove his thoughts to be fact.
Without the same kind of mathematical rigor that is used to call the laws of physics as the rest of us know them to be fact, then he hasn't the right to claim his views are indeed factual.
Anybody can deduce an answer from a set of facts, but the answer deduced differs from person to person depending on how well they can logically follow through a syllogistic argument. Having said that, then in the field of physics, one can only be certain of something if one can mathematically prove the validity of that something. This is what the rest of us have, a set of physical laws based on a premise that can be mathematically shown to be true in the context of the universe as we understand it to be.
I'm not saying that mathematics can prove why, say, an electron exists. We don't know why they exist, but if we consider them to exist say from observation, then we can name properties of that object and use these properties to mathematically prove the truth of how the object interacts with everything else within the universe.
If we call one of the properties of electrons to be negative charge, then mathematically it will follow that the more massive oppositely behaving objects that are centered within the orbits of the electrons to be objects with a property called a positive charge; and we name those objects protons.
So while mathematics can not show why an electron and a proton do exist within our universe, it can describe the actions of those objects due to their properties with absolute detail. This is the kind of rigor needed for the idea of an electron and a proton to be believed as real, because we can mathematically describe the behavior of the objects in relation to everything else based on the properties of the object through a rigorous mathematical analysis.
This is what his ideas lack and why they are really nothing more than his opinions on how things operate within this universe. Lacking the same sort of rigor that proves my/everyone else's notions of how things act and interact within our universe, he should be able to admit to himself that his ideas on how the universe behaves may well be wrong. Instead he claims his ideas to be fact; and I say he hasn't the right to make such claims without going through the same process that previous people have gone through in order to make claim to a fact in the field of physics.
Hence the reason I feel his ideas deserve no credit; if they did then everybody's different ideas on how the universe operates would also deserve credit for looking at this operation from a different view. That's crediting a lot of people for just stating an opinion. What good is an opinion on something in the field of physics if it can not be backed with mathematical rigor, as the laws of physics as the rest of us know them to be can and are backed with the kind of mathematical rigor needed to be considered fact.
It's not enough to defend your notions of physical laws as fact based upon your own reasoning skills; it's not fair to everyone else who deserves to hear notions that are backed with the sort of rigor I have been speaking about. This is what he does. He makes claims in the field of physics that have been in no way mathematically proven to be fact, but based on his own ideas that come from his thought process, he claims his ideas to be fact. In the field of science and in physics particularly, that is not enough to come to the conclusion that his ideas are indeed factual. One can believe with all their "might" in something, but may still be wrong in their beliefs. Luckily in the field of physics we can get past that by actually proving the facts of a situation via a mathematical analysis of said situation.
Until he can do this, then his "facts" fall far from actually being factual and instead fall into the category of opinion; which has no place in the actual applications of physical laws to describe and predict the outcome of a physical event before said outcome occurs. Opinion is fine in helping one to develop a set of theories that they can then take into the world of mathematics in order to either prove or disprove ones own theories, but until such an analysis is done, they remain only a set of theories to the individual and can not be considered as fact or fiction until such an analysis is done on the theories moving them into the category of either fact or fiction.
Do you understand what I am saying? If one makes the sort of claims a scientist would make, then one should be able to scientifically prove those claims as fact in order to be taken seriously by other scientists. Therein lies the difference between him and the scientific community; as he makes factual claims without the rigor needed to have the right to claim his theories as fact.
Doesn't the fact that he created a fresh approach to conceptualizing gravity count for anything?
Right or wrong, I have never read anything before that postulates "compressed densities" of matter as the result of convergent vectors of momentum.
I am not that well read in physics, though, so has anyone else read such a theory? Also, even if it has bugs that need ironing or flaws that ultimately make it a flawed theory, I think he deserves some credit for making something interesting and innovative. I can't understand why the best he can get is a challenge to subject his work to degrading peer reviews.
Subjecting his ideas to critical questioning that challenges him to explain aspects of gravity or magnetism, etc. in terms of repulsion is valid. Slamming him to admit he's a fool and give up trying is inquisition-style pro-orthodox violence.
I don't think he does deserve any credit for coming up with a "fresh approach" in describing gravity, or other laws of physics that he claims to be fact, why? Because he makes these claims as fact without the same kind of mathematical rigor that allows the rest of us to claim our approach to the situation to be fact.
In other words, he takes some of the rigorously proven physics known to us and combines some of those factual ideas with ideas of his own to come up with a different set of physical laws that describe the nature of our universe to him as he sees it. What's wrong with that is the ideas that are his coupled with the ones taken from other people who have mathematically shown theirs to be fact, together does not make his approach to understanding physics correct. It could be potentially harmful to both he and anybody he may convince that his ideas are factual.
If in the world of physics if you make a claim that counters something that has the kind of rigor behind it that the laws of physics as I/the rest of the world knows them to have, then it is upon the person making the new and different claims to prove these new claims with the same kind of rigor that was used to back up the claims that counter his own.
If his ideas are to be taken seriously in the scientific community, then he owes it to himself and to the world to be just as diligent in proving his theories as the scientists, physicists, and engineers before him have been in showing their beliefs to be either fact or fiction. Since I am a true believer in mathematics, this would be the route he should take in order to prove his thoughts to be fact.
Without the same kind of mathematical rigor that is used to call the laws of physics as the rest of us know them to be fact, then he hasn't the right to claim his views are indeed factual.
Anybody can deduce an answer from a set of facts, but the answer deduced differs from person to person depending on how well they can logically follow through a syllogistic argument. Having said that, then in the field of physics, one can only be certain of something if one can mathematically prove the validity of that something. This is what the rest of us have, a set of physical laws based on a premise that can be mathematically shown to be true in the context of the universe as we understand it to be.
I'm not saying that mathematics can prove why, say, an electron exists. We don't know why they exist, but if we consider them to exist say from observation, then we can name properties of that object and use these properties to mathematically prove the truth of how the object interacts with everything else within the universe.
If we call one of the properties of electrons to be negative charge, then mathematically it will follow that the more massive oppositely behaving objects that are centered within the orbits of the electrons to be objects with a property called a positive charge; and we name those objects protons.
So while mathematics can not show why an electron and a proton do exist within our universe, it can describe the actions of those objects due to their properties with absolute detail. This is the kind of rigor needed for the idea of an electron and a proton to be believed as real, because we can mathematically describe the behavior of the objects in relation to everything else based on the properties of the object through a rigorous mathematical analysis.
This is what his ideas lack and why they are really nothing more than his opinions on how things operate within this universe. Lacking the same sort of rigor that proves my/everyone else's notions of how things act and interact within our universe, he should be able to admit to himself that his ideas on how the universe behaves may well be wrong. Instead he claims his ideas to be fact; and I say he hasn't the right to make such claims without going through the same process that previous people have gone through in order to make claim to a fact in the field of physics.
Hence the reason I feel his ideas deserve no credit; if they did then everybody's different ideas on how the universe operates would also deserve credit for looking at this operation from a different view. That's crediting a lot of people for just stating an opinion. What good is an opinion on something in the field of physics if it can not be backed with mathematical rigor, as the laws of physics as the rest of us know them to be can and are backed with the kind of mathematical rigor needed to be considered fact.
It's not enough to defend your notions of physical laws as fact based upon your own reasoning skills; it's not fair to everyone else who deserves to hear notions that are backed with the sort of rigor I have been speaking about. This is what he does. He makes claims in the field of physics that have been in no way mathematically proven to be fact, but based on his own ideas that come from his thought process, he claims his ideas to be fact. In the field of science and in physics particularly, that is not enough to come to the conclusion that his ideas are indeed factual. One can believe with all their "might" in something, but may still be wrong in their beliefs. Luckily in the field of physics we can get past that by actually proving the facts of a situation via a mathematical analysis of said situation.
Until he can do this, then his "facts" fall far from actually being factual and instead fall into the category of opinion; which has no place in the actual applications of physical laws to describe and predict the outcome of a physical event before said outcome occurs. Opinion is fine in helping one to develop a set of theories that they can then take into the world of mathematics in order to either prove or disprove ones own theories, but until such an analysis is done, they remain only a set of theories to the individual and can not be considered as fact or fiction until such an analysis is done on the theories moving them into the category of either fact or fiction.
Do you understand what I am saying? If one makes the sort of claims a scientist would make, then one should be able to scientifically prove those claims as fact in order to be taken seriously by other scientists. Therein lies the difference between him and the scientific community; as he makes factual claims without the rigor needed to have the right to claim his theories as fact.
QUOTE (Craig+Dec 17 2009, 06:01 PM)
Therein lies the difference between him and the scientific community; as he makes factual claims without the rigor needed to have the right to claim his theories as fact.
I'm not talking about giving him the nobel prize. I'm talking about giving him credit for what he has done instead of negating what he has done on the basis of what he has not.
Have you ever taught undergraduates or pre-university level students? What about students who don't give a damn about your subject and are only there to pass the tests so they can get credit, a diploma, and a higher salary so they can get a bigger place to live?
If you have taught people who don't care, you realize how valuable it is whenever any person takes the effort to even think deeply about a topic in the field(s) of knowledge you value. When someone goes even further and actually thinks creatively about some topic and comes up with something you don't recognize as an expert, you have two choices: 1) tell them they are foolish for thinking of something divergent from everything you know as an expert 2) study their thinking to see how they could have come up with what they came up with, and how their idea makes sense in its own terms.
Sometimes I agree with you that a new idea can be dangerous. I am particularly concerned with this when it comes to social science. Oftentimes lay people will design very creative but frighteningly dehumanizing theories of society. I am aware of the cleverness of their theories, but I'm also aware that if it would become popular it could form the basis for a terribly fascist political movement, if it was presented charismatically enough. Still, my fears are probably overblown because what are the chances the new theory will even make it to the point of garnering political mobilization?
So when you talk about a physical model of gravity being dangerous because it lacks mathematical rigor, I don't see the problem. Is everything going to suddenly be repelled from the surface of the planet because someone gives this person credit for coming up with a clever idea? Is a cult going to emerge where people start nailing all their possessions to the floor and wearing magnetic shoes to prevent themselves from being repelled into the ground when it opens up and swallows them as a result of de-densification? No, of course not. So what harm does it do to model gravity in terms of repulsion?
I'm perfectly aware that people are going to keep hammering on this guy until he shuts up or goes away, but I think it's a waste. I would much rather see the few people that I know of on the internet who have a rigorous enough critical knowledge of physics to do so, explore such a weird idea in ways that help it develop further. I doubt anyone's going to award any professorships or prizes for a theory that doesn't provide mathematically rigorous operational definitions and measurements. Still, it's a shame that creativity and synthetic expertise cannot be recognized and credited in some way above people who take a physics class and struggle to simply memorize how to apply a formula without understanding the bigger picture of what they're measuring by doing so OR care.
Whether you call it "science" or something else, I believe that imaginative creativity has a value. What's more, I think it is the basic human force that we have to thank for most of our most valuable institutionalized knowledge. Why should the creative imagination of someone sitting in a cave 3000 years ago be worshipped while this same use of the mind today be spit on as insolence?
I think the negativity you are systematically justifying against this person amounts to little more than disciplinary territorialism. I think someone who is truly secure in their field welcomes newcomers with fresh thoughts. Only people with drool on their lips as they see little more before them than the prize of publications and professional recognition feel the need to degrade others who display interest and creativity in thinking about the same things they do, albeit with a comparably small amount of professionalist rigor.
I'm not talking about giving him the nobel prize. I'm talking about giving him credit for what he has done instead of negating what he has done on the basis of what he has not.
Have you ever taught undergraduates or pre-university level students? What about students who don't give a damn about your subject and are only there to pass the tests so they can get credit, a diploma, and a higher salary so they can get a bigger place to live?
If you have taught people who don't care, you realize how valuable it is whenever any person takes the effort to even think deeply about a topic in the field(s) of knowledge you value. When someone goes even further and actually thinks creatively about some topic and comes up with something you don't recognize as an expert, you have two choices: 1) tell them they are foolish for thinking of something divergent from everything you know as an expert 2) study their thinking to see how they could have come up with what they came up with, and how their idea makes sense in its own terms.
Sometimes I agree with you that a new idea can be dangerous. I am particularly concerned with this when it comes to social science. Oftentimes lay people will design very creative but frighteningly dehumanizing theories of society. I am aware of the cleverness of their theories, but I'm also aware that if it would become popular it could form the basis for a terribly fascist political movement, if it was presented charismatically enough. Still, my fears are probably overblown because what are the chances the new theory will even make it to the point of garnering political mobilization?
So when you talk about a physical model of gravity being dangerous because it lacks mathematical rigor, I don't see the problem. Is everything going to suddenly be repelled from the surface of the planet because someone gives this person credit for coming up with a clever idea? Is a cult going to emerge where people start nailing all their possessions to the floor and wearing magnetic shoes to prevent themselves from being repelled into the ground when it opens up and swallows them as a result of de-densification? No, of course not. So what harm does it do to model gravity in terms of repulsion?
I'm perfectly aware that people are going to keep hammering on this guy until he shuts up or goes away, but I think it's a waste. I would much rather see the few people that I know of on the internet who have a rigorous enough critical knowledge of physics to do so, explore such a weird idea in ways that help it develop further. I doubt anyone's going to award any professorships or prizes for a theory that doesn't provide mathematically rigorous operational definitions and measurements. Still, it's a shame that creativity and synthetic expertise cannot be recognized and credited in some way above people who take a physics class and struggle to simply memorize how to apply a formula without understanding the bigger picture of what they're measuring by doing so OR care.
Whether you call it "science" or something else, I believe that imaginative creativity has a value. What's more, I think it is the basic human force that we have to thank for most of our most valuable institutionalized knowledge. Why should the creative imagination of someone sitting in a cave 3000 years ago be worshipped while this same use of the mind today be spit on as insolence?
I think the negativity you are systematically justifying against this person amounts to little more than disciplinary territorialism. I think someone who is truly secure in their field welcomes newcomers with fresh thoughts. Only people with drool on their lips as they see little more before them than the prize of publications and professional recognition feel the need to degrade others who display interest and creativity in thinking about the same things they do, albeit with a comparably small amount of professionalist rigor.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 17 2009, 02:47 PM)
I'm not talking about giving him the nobel prize. I'm talking about giving him credit for what he has done instead of negating what he has done on the basis of what he has not.
Let's use an analogy. Consider an accountant who doesn't know how to compute tax, and screws up your books as a result. Should you give him credit for doing all the work? No! You ridicule him for being a terrible accountant!
It is more important to care about the scientific process than the results of the process. If they don't want to know/understand the scientific process, I would rather they didn't know anything about the results of that process.
Let's use an analogy. Consider an accountant who doesn't know how to compute tax, and screws up your books as a result. Should you give him credit for doing all the work? No! You ridicule him for being a terrible accountant!
QUOTE
Have you ever taught undergraduates or pre-university level students? What about students who don't give a damn about your subject and are only there to pass the tests so they can get credit, a diploma, and a higher salary so they can get a bigger place to live?
If you have taught people who don't care, you realize how valuable it is whenever any person takes the effort to even think deeply about a topic in the field(s) of knowledge you value. When someone goes even further and actually thinks creatively about some topic and comes up with something you don't recognize as an expert, you have two choices: 1) tell them they are foolish for thinking of something divergent from everything you know as an expert 2) study their thinking to see how they could have come up with what they came up with, and how their idea makes sense in its own terms.
If you have taught people who don't care, you realize how valuable it is whenever any person takes the effort to even think deeply about a topic in the field(s) of knowledge you value. When someone goes even further and actually thinks creatively about some topic and comes up with something you don't recognize as an expert, you have two choices: 1) tell them they are foolish for thinking of something divergent from everything you know as an expert 2) study their thinking to see how they could have come up with what they came up with, and how their idea makes sense in its own terms.
It is more important to care about the scientific process than the results of the process. If they don't want to know/understand the scientific process, I would rather they didn't know anything about the results of that process.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 17 2009, 07:47 PM)
I'm not talking about giving him the nobel prize. I'm talking about giving him credit for what he has done instead of negating what he has done on the basis of what he has not.
Have you ever taught undergraduates or pre-university level students? What about students who don't give a damn about your subject and are only there to pass the tests so they can get credit, a diploma, and a higher salary so they can get a bigger place to live?
If you have taught people who don't care, you realize how valuable it is whenever any person takes the effort to even think deeply about a topic in the field(s) of knowledge you value. When someone goes even further and actually thinks creatively about some topic and comes up with something you don't recognize as an expert, you have two choices: 1) tell them they are foolish for thinking of something divergent from everything you know as an expert 2) study their thinking to see how they could have come up with what they came up with, and how their idea makes sense in its own terms.
Sometimes I agree with you that a new idea can be dangerous. I am particularly concerned with this when it comes to social science. Oftentimes lay people will design very creative but frighteningly dehumanizing theories of society. I am aware of the cleverness of their theories, but I'm also aware that if it would become popular it could form the basis for a terribly fascist political movement, if it was presented charismatically enough. Still, my fears are probably overblown because what are the chances the new theory will even make it to the point of garnering political mobilization?
So when you talk about a physical model of gravity being dangerous because it lacks mathematical rigor, I don't see the problem. Is everything going to suddenly be repelled from the surface of the planet because someone gives this person credit for coming up with a clever idea? Is a cult going to emerge where people start nailing all their possessions to the floor and wearing magnetic shoes to prevent themselves from being repelled into the ground when it opens up and swallows them as a result of de-densification? No, of course not. So what harm does it do to model gravity in terms of repulsion?
I'm perfectly aware that people are going to keep hammering on this guy until he shuts up or goes away, but I think it's a waste. I would much rather see the few people that I know of on the internet who have a rigorous enough critical knowledge of physics to do so, explore such a weird idea in ways that help it develop further. I doubt anyone's going to award any professorships or prizes for a theory that doesn't provide mathematically rigorous operational definitions and measurements. Still, it's a shame that creativity and synthetic expertise cannot be recognized and credited in some way above people who take a physics class and struggle to simply memorize how to apply a formula without understanding the bigger picture of what they're measuring by doing so OR care.
Whether you call it "science" or something else, I believe that imaginative creativity has a value. What's more, I think it is the basic human force that we have to thank for most of our most valuable institutionalized knowledge. Why should the creative imagination of someone sitting in a cave 3000 years ago be worshipped while this same use of the mind today be spit on as insolence?
I think the negativity you are systematically justifying against this person amounts to little more than disciplinary territorialism. I think someone who is truly secure in their field welcomes newcomers with fresh thoughts. Only people with drool on their lips as they see little more before them than the prize of publications and professional recognition feel the need to degrade others who display interest and creativity in thinking about the same things they do, albeit with a comparably small amount of professionalist rigor.
Not only have I taught under graduate students and gradute students, but that is in fact what I do for a living; I am a college professor in the field of electrical engineering.
On a number of occasions I did reply in a polite manner to refute his take on how forces work in this universe, I only began to get rude after my third reply, at which point it was obvious he was never going to consider the truth of my argument.
Since then I have not been rude since, if you re-read my last reply it is in no way rude; it is simply blunt and to the point. In my latest reply I never ridiculed him for his take on force interactions, but rather explained that if he wants to claim that his point of view is FACT, then he is obliged to prove it so. It's unfair to those who don't know better to state for a "fact" that something is true when you don't have the absolute proof needed to make such a claim.
As far as giving him credit for thinking of a different way to describe a physical event, I said he didn't deserve credit for simply forming an opinion, again because without proof all he is giving us is his opinion on how forces interact.
Many people have different opinions on how physical events occur, do they all deserve some kind of credit for just thinking of something new? I say no. If he had thought of something new and then could justify its existence via the same sort of process in which all scientists are held to, then he would deserve much credit for coming up with a new provable theory, but that's not what he's doing.
He is taking his opinion on how forces act within our universe and claiming it to be a FACT. He doesn't have the right to claim that his opinion is fact unless he goes through the same process previous people have had to go through in order to make the claim that their new theory is fact. Simply providing everyone with your opinion on how forces interact with everything else in this universe is not worthy of any praise. Why would you give him credit for insisting that his opinion of the matter is a FACT when he refuses to prove it is?
That is what bothers me. Not that his opinion differs from the rigorous definitions of force interactions that I know to have been showed to be true, but rather that he insists that his opinions must be factual; when they've never even been scrutinized by anybody with a mathematical background that could take his ideas and mathematically prove them true or false.
Without that kind of scrutiny within the field of physics, his ideas should not be taken as factual but rather as opinion. If he would admit that he may well be wrong because his ideas have never been put through the same kind of scrutiny that current well accepted physical ideas have been put through, then I wouldn't have a problem with him talking about repulsion as the only real force within our universe. It's that he takes it too far. Instead of admitting that in his opinion all forces must be repulsive, and that his notion of all forces being repulsive are based on his own deductions from what he does know about the physical world and have yet to be put through any kind of real scientific and mathematical scrutiny, and therefore may well be incorrect; he instead insists he must be telling us the facts of force interactions.
He has no actual factual (say that 10 times fast) evidence that can support his ideas, therefore he should admit that his opinions may well be wrong regardless of how much he may believe they are true. Until his opinions are put through a mathematical test, then they stay in the form of opinions; and again I don't feel he has the right to claim that his opinions are facts without following the correct scientific approach that would decide for him whether or not his ideas are fact or fiction.
Also what I consider "dangerous" about his opinions is not the opinions themselves, but rather him feeding his opinions to others as factual data when he has never put his ideas through the "mathematical ringer" to find out if they are fact or fiction; nonetheless he considers them to be fact without the rigor that would give him the right to make such a claim.
Now do you understand what I'm saying?
Have you ever taught undergraduates or pre-university level students? What about students who don't give a damn about your subject and are only there to pass the tests so they can get credit, a diploma, and a higher salary so they can get a bigger place to live?
If you have taught people who don't care, you realize how valuable it is whenever any person takes the effort to even think deeply about a topic in the field(s) of knowledge you value. When someone goes even further and actually thinks creatively about some topic and comes up with something you don't recognize as an expert, you have two choices: 1) tell them they are foolish for thinking of something divergent from everything you know as an expert 2) study their thinking to see how they could have come up with what they came up with, and how their idea makes sense in its own terms.
Sometimes I agree with you that a new idea can be dangerous. I am particularly concerned with this when it comes to social science. Oftentimes lay people will design very creative but frighteningly dehumanizing theories of society. I am aware of the cleverness of their theories, but I'm also aware that if it would become popular it could form the basis for a terribly fascist political movement, if it was presented charismatically enough. Still, my fears are probably overblown because what are the chances the new theory will even make it to the point of garnering political mobilization?
So when you talk about a physical model of gravity being dangerous because it lacks mathematical rigor, I don't see the problem. Is everything going to suddenly be repelled from the surface of the planet because someone gives this person credit for coming up with a clever idea? Is a cult going to emerge where people start nailing all their possessions to the floor and wearing magnetic shoes to prevent themselves from being repelled into the ground when it opens up and swallows them as a result of de-densification? No, of course not. So what harm does it do to model gravity in terms of repulsion?
I'm perfectly aware that people are going to keep hammering on this guy until he shuts up or goes away, but I think it's a waste. I would much rather see the few people that I know of on the internet who have a rigorous enough critical knowledge of physics to do so, explore such a weird idea in ways that help it develop further. I doubt anyone's going to award any professorships or prizes for a theory that doesn't provide mathematically rigorous operational definitions and measurements. Still, it's a shame that creativity and synthetic expertise cannot be recognized and credited in some way above people who take a physics class and struggle to simply memorize how to apply a formula without understanding the bigger picture of what they're measuring by doing so OR care.
Whether you call it "science" or something else, I believe that imaginative creativity has a value. What's more, I think it is the basic human force that we have to thank for most of our most valuable institutionalized knowledge. Why should the creative imagination of someone sitting in a cave 3000 years ago be worshipped while this same use of the mind today be spit on as insolence?
I think the negativity you are systematically justifying against this person amounts to little more than disciplinary territorialism. I think someone who is truly secure in their field welcomes newcomers with fresh thoughts. Only people with drool on their lips as they see little more before them than the prize of publications and professional recognition feel the need to degrade others who display interest and creativity in thinking about the same things they do, albeit with a comparably small amount of professionalist rigor.
Not only have I taught under graduate students and gradute students, but that is in fact what I do for a living; I am a college professor in the field of electrical engineering.
On a number of occasions I did reply in a polite manner to refute his take on how forces work in this universe, I only began to get rude after my third reply, at which point it was obvious he was never going to consider the truth of my argument.
Since then I have not been rude since, if you re-read my last reply it is in no way rude; it is simply blunt and to the point. In my latest reply I never ridiculed him for his take on force interactions, but rather explained that if he wants to claim that his point of view is FACT, then he is obliged to prove it so. It's unfair to those who don't know better to state for a "fact" that something is true when you don't have the absolute proof needed to make such a claim.
As far as giving him credit for thinking of a different way to describe a physical event, I said he didn't deserve credit for simply forming an opinion, again because without proof all he is giving us is his opinion on how forces interact.
Many people have different opinions on how physical events occur, do they all deserve some kind of credit for just thinking of something new? I say no. If he had thought of something new and then could justify its existence via the same sort of process in which all scientists are held to, then he would deserve much credit for coming up with a new provable theory, but that's not what he's doing.
He is taking his opinion on how forces act within our universe and claiming it to be a FACT. He doesn't have the right to claim that his opinion is fact unless he goes through the same process previous people have had to go through in order to make the claim that their new theory is fact. Simply providing everyone with your opinion on how forces interact with everything else in this universe is not worthy of any praise. Why would you give him credit for insisting that his opinion of the matter is a FACT when he refuses to prove it is?
That is what bothers me. Not that his opinion differs from the rigorous definitions of force interactions that I know to have been showed to be true, but rather that he insists that his opinions must be factual; when they've never even been scrutinized by anybody with a mathematical background that could take his ideas and mathematically prove them true or false.
Without that kind of scrutiny within the field of physics, his ideas should not be taken as factual but rather as opinion. If he would admit that he may well be wrong because his ideas have never been put through the same kind of scrutiny that current well accepted physical ideas have been put through, then I wouldn't have a problem with him talking about repulsion as the only real force within our universe. It's that he takes it too far. Instead of admitting that in his opinion all forces must be repulsive, and that his notion of all forces being repulsive are based on his own deductions from what he does know about the physical world and have yet to be put through any kind of real scientific and mathematical scrutiny, and therefore may well be incorrect; he instead insists he must be telling us the facts of force interactions.
He has no actual factual (say that 10 times fast) evidence that can support his ideas, therefore he should admit that his opinions may well be wrong regardless of how much he may believe they are true. Until his opinions are put through a mathematical test, then they stay in the form of opinions; and again I don't feel he has the right to claim that his opinions are facts without following the correct scientific approach that would decide for him whether or not his ideas are fact or fiction.
Also what I consider "dangerous" about his opinions is not the opinions themselves, but rather him feeding his opinions to others as factual data when he has never put his ideas through the "mathematical ringer" to find out if they are fact or fiction; nonetheless he considers them to be fact without the rigor that would give him the right to make such a claim.
Now do you understand what I'm saying?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 17 2009, 05:55 PM)
If you're so sure I know I'm wrong then its free money to you. But if you're just blustering then you know its free money to me. So what do you say?
Oh how rich and droll Alpha,
Using an assumed wealth that simply is beyond me..
Besides I am not the one that advocates to some magical beckoning that invokes motion, So:-
How about you put in a paper, as to how your magical force invokes motion.
Dare I say it will be the first paper detailing how such beckoning invokes motion.
And then to cover your Rz another paper that adheres to proper Force and Motion Laws that imply force is repulsive?
For example - Lets stop and consider first how is a force created or increased and how is it that force is expressed? if you seriously think in-depth about how Force and motion rely upon the other, I will have it, you will grasp why I stand so rigid with my conviction, that all force is definitely repulsive..
Anyway I will have it, that the latter paper will be received more favourably than your other paper that negates the details provided in your latter paper..
Should you seriously choose to do so you will be forever indebted to me as to what will follow..
And I would say your welcome Alpha and I hope you enjoy your good fortune..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Oh how rich and droll Alpha,
Using an assumed wealth that simply is beyond me..
Besides I am not the one that advocates to some magical beckoning that invokes motion, So:-
How about you put in a paper, as to how your magical force invokes motion.
Dare I say it will be the first paper detailing how such beckoning invokes motion.
And then to cover your Rz another paper that adheres to proper Force and Motion Laws that imply force is repulsive?
For example - Lets stop and consider first how is a force created or increased and how is it that force is expressed? if you seriously think in-depth about how Force and motion rely upon the other, I will have it, you will grasp why I stand so rigid with my conviction, that all force is definitely repulsive..
Anyway I will have it, that the latter paper will be received more favourably than your other paper that negates the details provided in your latter paper..
Should you seriously choose to do so you will be forever indebted to me as to what will follow..
And I would say your welcome Alpha and I hope you enjoy your good fortune..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE
Using an assumed wealth that simply is beyond me..
I already offered to cover your bet with my own money. You would risk not a penny but might win $500 if you succeed.
I know you won't take him up on his offer and it's because you are full of crap and you know it. I am beginning to think you are nothing but a troll rather than just someone who is too stupid to know when to shut up.
QUOTE (Lasand+Dec 18 2009, 02:00 AM)
For Laidback;
It seems in your opening you are not just asking a question, but issuing a challenge. Could there be a prize involved in meeting your challenge?
No Prize, unless one considers having Physics has taking a step forward by dropping an inference to magic is a prize..
Having said that,
I just want to know how attractive force invokes motion?
Thus far, I have been provided with many examples all claiming to refer to attractive force, but thus far all of the examples rely on repulsion, granted one needs to navigate to modelling the provided example to a level where force and motion are our only consideration, but once down to such a level, it becomes blatantly obvious, to invoke motion the act of repulsion is first in order..
I feel its about time physics drop the inference to some magical beckoning attractive force, unless of course some one can detail how an attractive force initiates observed motion without relying on an underlying repulsion..
cheers,
Peter J Schoen
It seems in your opening you are not just asking a question, but issuing a challenge. Could there be a prize involved in meeting your challenge?
No Prize, unless one considers having Physics has taking a step forward by dropping an inference to magic is a prize..
Having said that,
I just want to know how attractive force invokes motion?
Thus far, I have been provided with many examples all claiming to refer to attractive force, but thus far all of the examples rely on repulsion, granted one needs to navigate to modelling the provided example to a level where force and motion are our only consideration, but once down to such a level, it becomes blatantly obvious, to invoke motion the act of repulsion is first in order..
I feel its about time physics drop the inference to some magical beckoning attractive force, unless of course some one can detail how an attractive force initiates observed motion without relying on an underlying repulsion..
cheers,
Peter J Schoen
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Dec 18 2009, 03:07 AM)
Alpha
Heck... I will go one better. If his work is published, I will pay you $500 myself.
I don't need him to put up the money...
There is simply no way that any reputable journal would ever publish that garbage unless he somehow figures out who the editor is and holds a gun to his head. Maybe not even then.
Heck... I will go one better. If his work is published, I will pay you $500 myself.
I don't need him to put up the money...
There is simply no way that any reputable journal would ever publish that garbage unless he somehow figures out who the editor is and holds a gun to his head. Maybe not even then.
Thanks Rob,
There you go Alpha, now publish those papers as my stance and your stance are covered..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
There you go Alpha, now publish those papers as my stance and your stance are covered..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Hmmm... idiot.
Those are your papers you are supposed to publish.
You won't... and you will continue to try and obfuscate and hide... typical troll behavior.
At this point I would petition Rpenner to ban you as a troll.
You have no reason to be here other than just to annoy people, which is obviously your only goal.
Those are your papers you are supposed to publish.
You won't... and you will continue to try and obfuscate and hide... typical troll behavior.
At this point I would petition Rpenner to ban you as a troll.
You have no reason to be here other than just to annoy people, which is obviously your only goal.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Dec 18 2009, 10:30 AM)
I already offered to cover your bet with my own money.
Yeah thanks for that Rob,
QUOTE
You would risk not a penny but might win $500 if you succeed.
And seeing you put up the Money, I am sure Alpha will be pleased to hand you rather than me the winnings.. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You would risk not a penny but might win $500 if you succeed. |
And seeing you put up the Money, I am sure Alpha will be pleased to hand you rather than me the winnings..
I know you won't take him up on his offer and it's because you are full of crap and you know it.
I know you won't take him up on his offer and it's because you are full of crap and you know it.
Oh dear! 
I guess you didn't count on me only to happy to accept your support, does this mean all bets are off? think about force and motion in-depth and I am sure you will come to the conclusion you simply can't loose by backing me on this one,
Thanks and cheers Rob,
Peter J Schoen..
I guess you didn't count on me only to happy to accept your support, does this mean all bets are off? think about force and motion in-depth and I am sure you will come to the conclusion you simply can't loose by backing me on this one,
Thanks and cheers Rob,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Dec 18 2009, 10:41 AM)
Hmmm... idiot.
Those are your papers you are supposed to publish.
Those are your papers you are supposed to publish.
See Below for comment
You won't... and you will continue to try and obfuscate and hide... typical troll behavior.
At this point I would petition Rpenner to ban you as a troll.Oh I see!
when someone wants to know how physics is able to justify an inference to magic, they are banned, all because no one here can explain away said magic..
Sounds like a bunch of people are placing their hands over their ears and lullabying out loud in the hope the person with a legitimate concern goes away, and or is banned, so that the unexplained magic remains as perfectly valid inference..
No... you should be banned because many people have taken the time to explain it to you but you just refuse to accept their explanation. Most here don't even bother to respond to your trolling anymore because you are an obvious flake or troll.
Submit the papers that Alpha asked you for... it won't cost you a dime and you could win $500. Until you do, you are nothing but a troll.
QUOTE
You won't... and you will continue to try and obfuscate and hide... typical troll behavior.
At this point I would petition Rpenner to ban you as a troll.
when someone wants to know how physics is able to justify an inference to magic, they are banned, all because no one here can explain away said magic..
Sounds like a bunch of people are placing their hands over their ears and lullabying out loud in the hope the person with a legitimate concern goes away, and or is banned, so that the unexplained magic remains as perfectly valid inference..
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
You won't... and you will continue to try and obfuscate and hide... typical troll behavior. At this point I would petition Rpenner to ban you as a troll. |
Oh I see!
when someone wants to know how physics is able to justify an inference to magic, they are banned, all because no one here can explain away said magic..
Sounds like a bunch of people are placing their hands over their ears and lullabying out loud in the hope the person with a legitimate concern goes away, and or is banned, so that the unexplained magic remains as perfectly valid inference..
You have no reason to be here other than just to annoy people, which is obviously your only goal.
when someone wants to know how physics is able to justify an inference to magic, they are banned, all because no one here can explain away said magic..
Sounds like a bunch of people are placing their hands over their ears and lullabying out loud in the hope the person with a legitimate concern goes away, and or is banned, so that the unexplained magic remains as perfectly valid inference..
You have no reason to be here other than just to annoy people, which is obviously your only goal.
Thats where you are wrong, my reason here is to converse about physics, and in doing so I wish to learn whether my reasoning is based on the right details rather than some inference to magic..
Look Rob I have complete faith in Alpha to submit my stance and his stance, and I also have complete faith he will be honorable with respects to the outcome..
Once again thanks and Cheers Rob,
Peter J Schoen..
[Moderator: Suspended 15 days for not contributing to humanity.]
Look Rob I have complete faith in Alpha to submit my stance and his stance, and I also have complete faith he will be honorable with respects to the outcome..
Once again thanks and Cheers Rob,
Peter J Schoen..
[Moderator: Suspended 15 days for not contributing to humanity.]
QUOTE
when someone wants to know how physics is able to justify an inference to magic, they are banned, all because no one here can explain away said magic..
No... you should be banned because many people have taken the time to explain it to you but you just refuse to accept their explanation. Most here don't even bother to respond to your trolling anymore because you are an obvious flake or troll.
Submit the papers that Alpha asked you for... it won't cost you a dime and you could win $500. Until you do, you are nothing but a troll.
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 18 2009, 01:13 AM)
Using an assumed wealth that simply is beyond me..
But if you're going to win its free money, it doesn't matter that you don't have the money to pay me if I win because surely you think you're going to win? The cost is to the person who losses and if you're so cock sure then it could be $1,000,000, provided I have the money (which I don't in that case).
But if you're going to win its free money, it doesn't matter that you don't have the money to pay me if I win because surely you think you're going to win? The cost is to the person who losses and if you're so cock sure then it could be $1,000,000, provided I have the money (which I don't in that case).
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 18 2009, 01:13 AM)
Besides I am not the one that advocates to some magical beckoning that invokes motion, So:-
You're the one who advocated a position against the mainstream, its up to you to justify it to the mainstream.
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 18 2009, 01:13 AM)
How about you put in a paper, as to how your magical force invokes motion.
Dare I say it will be the first paper detailing how such beckoning invokes motion.
Dare I say it will be the first paper detailing how such beckoning invokes motion.
Its already in textbooks. Textbooks written about material which was in papers 30~100 years ago. The work is already in the mainstream, that's the point! The fact you still refuse to look at it doesn't mean it isn't there.
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 18 2009, 01:13 AM)
Should you seriously choose to do so you will be forever indebted to me as to what will follow..
So I do the work which you refuse to do and I'm indebted to you? Yeah, good one.