I proposed a frame dragging force formula: F=SJmW/r^2
(S=2G/c^2, J=anular momentum of central spin body, m=peripheral orbiting mass, W=peripheral object angular velocity[relative to central body's spin angular velocity], r=distance)
Please see Dr. Landau's book "The classical theory of field"! He gave a deduction about frame-dragging force.
All spin mass creates frame-dragging force to let the surrounding space-time rotation.
Rest mass causes gravity, spin mass causes frame-dragging; rest charge causes electricity, spin charge causes magnetism!
err, you can only vote 'yes' ?
QUOTE (wanchung+Oct 20 2009, 10:36 AM)
I proposed a frame dragging force formula: F=SJmW/r^2
(S=2G/c^2, J=anular momentum of central spin body, m=peripheral orbiting mass, W=peripheral object angular velocity[relative to central body's spin angular velocity], r=distance)
Please see Dr. Landau's book "The classical theory of field"! He gave a deduction about frame-dragging force.
All spin mass creates frame-dragging force to let the surrounding space-time rotation.
Rest mass causes gravity, spin mass causes frame-dragging; rest charge causes electricity, spin charge causes magnetism!
No there isn't a frame-dragging force.
Derived from the Kerr metric: in geometric units.
L/m = (R^2)dphi/dTau - (2M^2/r)dt/dTau
Where:
R^2 = r^2 + M^2 + 2M^3/r
And r = M for the extreme Kerr.
Now set angular momentum, L/m, at zero and solve for dphi/dt
dphi/dt = 2M^2/rR^2
Making the substitutions for r and R^2 you get
dphi/dt = 1/2M
That is the angular rotation rate of an object free falling towards an extreme Kerr, with zero angular momentum. This object in free fall [with no forces acting upon it] will be frame-dragged into a Kerr orbit at r = M for this extreme case.
The idea of a frame dragging force is nonsensical.
(S=2G/c^2, J=anular momentum of central spin body, m=peripheral orbiting mass, W=peripheral object angular velocity[relative to central body's spin angular velocity], r=distance)
Please see Dr. Landau's book "The classical theory of field"! He gave a deduction about frame-dragging force.
All spin mass creates frame-dragging force to let the surrounding space-time rotation.
Rest mass causes gravity, spin mass causes frame-dragging; rest charge causes electricity, spin charge causes magnetism!
No there isn't a frame-dragging force.
Derived from the Kerr metric: in geometric units.
L/m = (R^2)dphi/dTau - (2M^2/r)dt/dTau
Where:
R^2 = r^2 + M^2 + 2M^3/r
And r = M for the extreme Kerr.
Now set angular momentum, L/m, at zero and solve for dphi/dt
dphi/dt = 2M^2/rR^2
Making the substitutions for r and R^2 you get
dphi/dt = 1/2M
That is the angular rotation rate of an object free falling towards an extreme Kerr, with zero angular momentum. This object in free fall [with no forces acting upon it] will be frame-dragged into a Kerr orbit at r = M for this extreme case.
The idea of a frame dragging force is nonsensical.
QUOTE (brucep+Oct 21 2009, 07:08 AM)
No there isn't a frame-dragging force.
Derived from the Kerr metric: in geometric units.
L/m = (R^2)dphi/dTau - (2M^2/r)dt/dTau
Where:
R^2 = r^2 + M^2 + 2M^3/r
And r = M for the extreme Kerr.
Now set angular momentum, L/m, at zero and solve for dphi/dt
dphi/dt = 2M^2/rR^2
Making the substitutions for r and R^2 you get
dphi/dt = 1/2M
That is the angular rotation rate of an object free falling towards an extreme Kerr, with zero angular momentum. This object in free fall [with no forces acting upon it] will be frame-dragged into a Kerr orbit at r = M for this extreme case.
The idea of a frame dragging force is nonsensical.
Good rebuttal - I hope fuckhead takes heed.
Will we ever see the Wang-Kerr metric?
Derived from the Kerr metric: in geometric units.
L/m = (R^2)dphi/dTau - (2M^2/r)dt/dTau
Where:
R^2 = r^2 + M^2 + 2M^3/r
And r = M for the extreme Kerr.
Now set angular momentum, L/m, at zero and solve for dphi/dt
dphi/dt = 2M^2/rR^2
Making the substitutions for r and R^2 you get
dphi/dt = 1/2M
That is the angular rotation rate of an object free falling towards an extreme Kerr, with zero angular momentum. This object in free fall [with no forces acting upon it] will be frame-dragged into a Kerr orbit at r = M for this extreme case.
The idea of a frame dragging force is nonsensical.
Good rebuttal - I hope fuckhead takes heed.
Will we ever see the Wang-Kerr metric?
QUOTE (wanchung+Oct 20 2009, 10:36 AM)
I proposed a frame dragging force formula: F=SJmW/r^2
(S=2G/c^2, J=anular momentum of central spin body, m=peripheral orbiting mass, W=peripheral object angular velocity[relative to central body's spin angular velocity], r=distance)
Please see Dr. Landau's book "The classical theory of field"! He gave a deduction about frame-dragging force.
All spin mass creates frame-dragging force to let the surrounding space-time rotation.
Rest mass causes gravity, spin mass causes frame-dragging; rest charge causes electricity, spin charge causes magnetism!
Dear wangchung,
I own one of Landau (and Lifshitz) "The classical theory of fields", third revised English edition, but there is no what which you refered! Would you please give more information?
Nimit
.................
www.vacuum-mechnics.com
(S=2G/c^2, J=anular momentum of central spin body, m=peripheral orbiting mass, W=peripheral object angular velocity[relative to central body's spin angular velocity], r=distance)
Please see Dr. Landau's book "The classical theory of field"! He gave a deduction about frame-dragging force.
All spin mass creates frame-dragging force to let the surrounding space-time rotation.
Rest mass causes gravity, spin mass causes frame-dragging; rest charge causes electricity, spin charge causes magnetism!
Dear wangchung,
I own one of Landau (and Lifshitz) "The classical theory of fields", third revised English edition, but there is no what which you refered! Would you please give more information?
Nimit
.................
www.vacuum-mechnics.com
QUOTE (vacuum-mechanics+Oct 25 2009, 08:37 AM)
I own one of Landau (and Lifshitz) "The classical theory of fields", third revised English edition
Gee, really? - I guess you ate the first 2 editions.
As they say; "third time lucky", go-on, try reading this time, even if you'll clearly not understand.
Gee, really? - I guess you ate the first 2 editions.
As they say; "third time lucky", go-on, try reading this time, even if you'll clearly not understand.
I am yet to vote.
please see the chapter from page 353
QUOTE (wanchung+Oct 26 2009, 04:09 AM)
please see the chapter from page 353
Buddy you're a boy make a big noise
Posting utter shlt gonna be a big fuckhead some day
You got mud on your face
You big disgrace
Kicking your spam all over the place
We will we will mock you
We will we will mock you
Buddy you're a boy make a big noise
Posting utter shlt gonna be a big fuckhead some day
You got mud on your face
You big disgrace
Kicking your spam all over the place
We will we will mock you
We will we will mock you
I voted for "I don't know, but wanchung is an idiot".
Hahaha, there is definitely frame-dragging force!
It is a principle of symmetry!
Electricity matches magnetism;
Gravity matches frame-dragging force!
It is a principle of symmetry!
Electricity matches magnetism;
Gravity matches frame-dragging force!
QUOTE (wanchung+Oct 27 2009, 05:52 AM)
Hahaha, there is definitely frame-dragging force!
It is a principle of symmetry!
Electricity matches magnetism;
Gravity matches frame-dragging force!
Hahaha, there is definitely a retard force!
It is a principle of symmetry!
Brain damage matches stupidity;
wanchung matches the retard force!
It is a principle of symmetry!
Electricity matches magnetism;
Gravity matches frame-dragging force!
Hahaha, there is definitely a retard force!
It is a principle of symmetry!
Brain damage matches stupidity;
wanchung matches the retard force!
QUOTE (wanchung+Oct 27 2009, 09:52 AM)
Hahaha, there is definitely frame-dragging force!
It is a principle of symmetry!
Electricity matches magnetism;
Gravity matches frame-dragging force!
You sure are ignorant. Frame dragging isn't a force. It's not a force just because you say so. It's the Lense-Thirring effect derived from general relativity. How could a PHD candidate not understand the importance of defining terms in physics? This entire thread boils down to you trolling for attention. You couldn't possibly be a PHD candidate in physics and be so ignorant about something as basic as the importance of defining terms in any scientific regimen.
It is a principle of symmetry!
Electricity matches magnetism;
Gravity matches frame-dragging force!
You sure are ignorant. Frame dragging isn't a force. It's not a force just because you say so. It's the Lense-Thirring effect derived from general relativity. How could a PHD candidate not understand the importance of defining terms in physics? This entire thread boils down to you trolling for attention. You couldn't possibly be a PHD candidate in physics and be so ignorant about something as basic as the importance of defining terms in any scientific regimen.
Frame-dragging is not only an effect but also a force.
Rest mass causes geodetic effect by gravity.
Spin mass causes frame-dragging effect by frame-dragging force.
Simple and beautiful!
Rest mass causes geodetic effect by gravity.
Spin mass causes frame-dragging effect by frame-dragging force.
Simple and beautiful!
QUOTE (wanchung+Oct 27 2009, 10:52 AM)
Hahaha, there is definitely frame-dragging force!
It is a principle of symmetry!
Electricity matches magnetism;
Gravity matches frame-dragging force!
Electricity and magnetism are related by Lorentz transformations. The metric of GR is invariant under Lorentz transforms, so no new forces arise when you do a boost or rotation on it.
Learn about the symmetries before you make claims about it.
It is a principle of symmetry!
Electricity matches magnetism;
Gravity matches frame-dragging force!
Electricity and magnetism are related by Lorentz transformations. The metric of GR is invariant under Lorentz transforms, so no new forces arise when you do a boost or rotation on it.
Learn about the symmetries before you make claims about it.
No, Dr. Landau has derived frame-dragging energy.
Thus, frame-dragging force can also be derived!
Please go to read "The classical theory of fields"
Thus, frame-dragging force can also be derived!
Please go to read "The classical theory of fields"
QUOTE (wanchung+Oct 28 2009, 09:48 AM)
Frame-dragging is not only an effect but also a force.
Rest mass causes geodetic effect by gravity.
Spin mass causes frame-dragging effect by frame-dragging force.
Simple and beautiful!
Np it's not a force just because you say so. What you wrote down doesn't represent frame dragging. It represents your ignorance and why you'll remain a clueless crackpot.
Rest mass causes geodetic effect by gravity.
Spin mass causes frame-dragging effect by frame-dragging force.
Simple and beautiful!
Np it's not a force just because you say so. What you wrote down doesn't represent frame dragging. It represents your ignorance and why you'll remain a clueless crackpot.
Brucep, if you aren't aware Wan is a PhD candidate in biology.
Personally I find that being a PhD candidate in one topic (which in my case is physics) doesn't really give me the time I'd need to devote to be able to do research in an entirely different topic, say biology. Yet Wan seems to think he can manage it. The fact he doesn't even have a grasp of rationality and the scientific method suggests one subject is more than he can handle anyway....
Personally I find that being a PhD candidate in one topic (which in my case is physics) doesn't really give me the time I'd need to devote to be able to do research in an entirely different topic, say biology. Yet Wan seems to think he can manage it. The fact he doesn't even have a grasp of rationality and the scientific method suggests one subject is more than he can handle anyway....
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 29 2009, 09:37 AM)
Brucep, if you aren't aware Wan is a PhD candidate in biology.
Personally I find that being a PhD candidate in one topic (which in my case is physics) doesn't really give me the time I'd need to devote to be able to do research in an entirely different topic, say biology. Yet Wan seems to think he can manage it. The fact he doesn't even have a grasp of rationality and the scientific method suggests one subject is more than he can handle anyway....
Exactly. Good fortune with your studies.
Personally I find that being a PhD candidate in one topic (which in my case is physics) doesn't really give me the time I'd need to devote to be able to do research in an entirely different topic, say biology. Yet Wan seems to think he can manage it. The fact he doesn't even have a grasp of rationality and the scientific method suggests one subject is more than he can handle anyway....
Exactly. Good fortune with your studies.
What is geodetic effect?
Spacetime curvature
Why is there geodetic effect?
Gravity: the Newton-Einstein force
Similarly: What is frame-dragging effect?
Spacetime rotation
Thus, why is there frame-dragging effect?
Frame-dragging force!
No force, no effect.
It is not because I say so; it is because it is a truth!!!
Spacetime curvature
Why is there geodetic effect?
Gravity: the Newton-Einstein force
Similarly: What is frame-dragging effect?
Spacetime rotation
Thus, why is there frame-dragging effect?
Frame-dragging force!
No force, no effect.
It is not because I say so; it is because it is a truth!!!
QUOTE (wanchung+Oct 31 2009, 05:23 AM)
What is geodetic effect?
Spacetime curvature
Why is there geodetic effect?
Gravity: the Newton-Einstein force
Similarly: What is frame-dragging effect?
Spacetime rotation
Thus, why is there frame-dragging effect?
Frame-dragging force!
No force, no effect.
It is not because I say so; it is because it is a truth!!!
The Newton-Einstein force? You should be fitted for a dunce cap.
Spacetime curvature
Why is there geodetic effect?
Gravity: the Newton-Einstein force
Similarly: What is frame-dragging effect?
Spacetime rotation
Thus, why is there frame-dragging effect?
Frame-dragging force!
No force, no effect.
It is not because I say so; it is because it is a truth!!!
The Newton-Einstein force? You should be fitted for a dunce cap.
Urr, what is wrong with Newton-Einstein force?
You know what I mean!
It is gravity!
You know what I mean!
It is gravity!
QUOTE (wanchung+Nov 2 2009, 04:12 PM)
Urr, what is wrong with Newton-Einstein force?
You know what I mean!
It is gravity!
Were you (by any chance) inspired to compose this bollocks, whilst sitting under an anvil tree?
You know what I mean!
It is gravity!
Were you (by any chance) inspired to compose this bollocks, whilst sitting under an anvil tree?
QUOTE (wanchung+Nov 2 2009, 04:12 PM)
Urr, what is wrong with Newton-Einstein force?
You know what I mean!
It is gravity!
I don't know what you mean and either do you. Clearly you know nothing about Einstein's model for gravity and you're just trying to bs your way through this thread. You should show this nonsense to your advisors and see what they think. On second thought that is probably something which would severely lower your status in their eyes.
You know what I mean!
It is gravity!
I don't know what you mean and either do you. Clearly you know nothing about Einstein's model for gravity and you're just trying to bs your way through this thread. You should show this nonsense to your advisors and see what they think. On second thought that is probably something which would severely lower your status in their eyes.
If he has advisors, you mean.
Maybe keepers would be a better job description?
"One-Lung" is famous for falling flat early in the race already. He don't need no steenking advisors!
Maybe keepers would be a better job description?
"One-Lung" is famous for falling flat early in the race already. He don't need no steenking advisors!
QUOTE (Granouille+Nov 2 2009, 09:36 PM)
If he has advisors, you mean.
Maybe keepers would be a better job description?
"One-Lung" is famous for falling flat early in the race already. He don't need no steenking advisors!
If he is a PHD candidate in biology then he might have a thesis advisor? Then again that's not a place I've ever been. I find it hard to believe he'd be a candidate for anything other than placing his buttocks on the dunce stool.
Maybe keepers would be a better job description?
"One-Lung" is famous for falling flat early in the race already. He don't need no steenking advisors!
If he is a PHD candidate in biology then he might have a thesis advisor? Then again that's not a place I've ever been. I find it hard to believe he'd be a candidate for anything other than placing his buttocks on the dunce stool.
QUOTE (brucep+Nov 2 2009, 08:14 PM)
If he is a PHD candidate in biology then he might have a thesis advisor? Then again that's not a place I've ever been. I find it hard to believe he'd be a candidate for anything other than placing his buttocks on the dunce stool.
I don't find it so hard to believe.
1. I've seen people with doctorates spouting equally worthless pseudoscience, sometimes even in their own fields. Like Russell Blaylock, MD, for example. Or the one actual biologist who willingly signed that petition of Michael Behe's claiming they believe in creationism (the rest of the signatories either were not biologists, were not scientists, or didn't know what it was they were signing).
2. His grammatical idiosyncrasies, while very crank-like, are similar to those displayed by other Asian-language speakers I've encountered, making him seem more irrational than he really is. Not that this is any mean feat, as this guy is certainly quite irrational.
3. I seem to recall seeing some evidence of him actually being a post-grad at some point, although for the life of me I can't recall where I saw it.
4. In my (admittedly limited) experience with the scientific community, biologists and medical practitioners were the two groups most likely to produce crankery, with psychologists close behind.
I don't find it so hard to believe.
1. I've seen people with doctorates spouting equally worthless pseudoscience, sometimes even in their own fields. Like Russell Blaylock, MD, for example. Or the one actual biologist who willingly signed that petition of Michael Behe's claiming they believe in creationism (the rest of the signatories either were not biologists, were not scientists, or didn't know what it was they were signing).
2. His grammatical idiosyncrasies, while very crank-like, are similar to those displayed by other Asian-language speakers I've encountered, making him seem more irrational than he really is. Not that this is any mean feat, as this guy is certainly quite irrational.
3. I seem to recall seeing some evidence of him actually being a post-grad at some point, although for the life of me I can't recall where I saw it.
4. In my (admittedly limited) experience with the scientific community, biologists and medical practitioners were the two groups most likely to produce crankery, with psychologists close behind.
QUOTE (brucep+Nov 3 2009, 01:14 AM)
If he is a PHD candidate in biology then he might have a thesis advisor? Then again that's not a place I've ever been. I find it hard to believe he'd be a candidate for anything other than placing his buttocks on the dunce stool.
He's lying, he's just a deeply deluded nut.
He's lying, he's just a deeply deluded nut.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Nov 3 2009, 03:41 AM)
I don't find it so hard to believe.
1. I've seen people with doctorates spouting equally worthless pseudoscience, sometimes even in their own fields. Like Russell Blaylock, MD, for example. Or the one actual biologist who willingly signed that petition of Michael Behe's claiming they believe in creationism (the rest of the signatories either were not biologists, were not scientists, or didn't know what it was they were signing).
2. His grammatical idiosyncrasies, while very crank-like, are similar to those displayed by other Asian-language speakers I've encountered, making him seem more irrational than he really is. Not that this is any mean feat, as this guy is certainly quite irrational.
3. I seem to recall seeing some evidence of him actually being a post-grad at some point, although for the life of me I can't recall where I saw it.
4. In my (admittedly limited) experience with the scientific community, biologists and medical practitioners were the two groups most likely to produce crankery, with psychologists close behind.
The voice of reason. Add Trout's comment to the list and all bases have been covered. What I wonder is this the same guy who sang everybody wangchung tonight? Just kidding, I'm sure that guy knows the difference between a force and the Lense-Thirring effect.
1. I've seen people with doctorates spouting equally worthless pseudoscience, sometimes even in their own fields. Like Russell Blaylock, MD, for example. Or the one actual biologist who willingly signed that petition of Michael Behe's claiming they believe in creationism (the rest of the signatories either were not biologists, were not scientists, or didn't know what it was they were signing).
2. His grammatical idiosyncrasies, while very crank-like, are similar to those displayed by other Asian-language speakers I've encountered, making him seem more irrational than he really is. Not that this is any mean feat, as this guy is certainly quite irrational.
3. I seem to recall seeing some evidence of him actually being a post-grad at some point, although for the life of me I can't recall where I saw it.
4. In my (admittedly limited) experience with the scientific community, biologists and medical practitioners were the two groups most likely to produce crankery, with psychologists close behind.
The voice of reason. Add Trout's comment to the list and all bases have been covered. What I wonder is this the same guy who sang everybody wangchung tonight? Just kidding, I'm sure that guy knows the difference between a force and the Lense-Thirring effect.
QUOTE (brucep+Nov 3 2009, 01:14 AM)
If he is a PHD candidate in biology then he might have a thesis advisor? Then again that's not a place I've ever been. I find it hard to believe he'd be a candidate for anything other than placing his buttocks on the dunce stool.
Geeezz, another mouth-load of coffee erupts over my keyboard. Can't grumble, its gems like this that make this forum so very special.
Geeezz, another mouth-load of coffee erupts over my keyboard. Can't grumble, its gems like this that make this forum so very special.
QUOTE (brucep+Nov 3 2009, 12:41 AM)
What I wonder is this the same guy who sang everybody wangchung tonight? Just kidding, I'm sure that guy knows the difference between a force and the Lense-Thirring effect.
More to the point (by 'point,' I mean 'wanchung's level of competence'), I'm sure that guy knows the difference between his aѕѕ and a hole in the ground.
I may have been the voice of reason, but any reasonable person can see that wanchung is afew (box of) crayons short of a box of crayons.
More to the point (by 'point,' I mean 'wanchung's level of competence'), I'm sure that guy knows the difference between his aѕѕ and a hole in the ground.
I may have been the voice of reason, but any reasonable person can see that wanchung is a
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Nov 3 2009, 04:41 AM)
I don't find it so hard to believe.
1. I've seen people with doctorates spouting equally worthless pseudoscience, sometimes even in their own fields. Like Russell Blaylock, MD, for example. Or the one actual biologist who willingly signed that petition of Michael Behe's claiming they believe in creationism (the rest of the signatories either were not biologists, were not scientists, or didn't know what it was they were signing).
A friend of mine who is also doing a PhD in physics had an email forwarded to him by his mother from one of her friends. It was a 50+ page 'paper' on a theory of everything which claimed much the same as Sylwester, to having a bunch of particle mass formulas which are accurate to many decimal places and the references were mostly high school textbooks. The mathematics was either remedial or wrong, the logic terrible and the results botched.
The author is a medical professional. A consultant in a major hospital who has been involved in a great many clinical trials and has medical papers to his name. Clearly he's rational when it comes to medicial procedures and logic but he's utterly wacko and stupid when it comes to physics.
If he were my doctor I'd ask for a different one, put it like that.
1. I've seen people with doctorates spouting equally worthless pseudoscience, sometimes even in their own fields. Like Russell Blaylock, MD, for example. Or the one actual biologist who willingly signed that petition of Michael Behe's claiming they believe in creationism (the rest of the signatories either were not biologists, were not scientists, or didn't know what it was they were signing).
A friend of mine who is also doing a PhD in physics had an email forwarded to him by his mother from one of her friends. It was a 50+ page 'paper' on a theory of everything which claimed much the same as Sylwester, to having a bunch of particle mass formulas which are accurate to many decimal places and the references were mostly high school textbooks. The mathematics was either remedial or wrong, the logic terrible and the results botched.
The author is a medical professional. A consultant in a major hospital who has been involved in a great many clinical trials and has medical papers to his name. Clearly he's rational when it comes to medicial procedures and logic but he's utterly wacko and stupid when it comes to physics.
If he were my doctor I'd ask for a different one, put it like that.
alphanumeric-os british get not obtain the nobel physics.the british physics is very poor,AN? you wiil be the next physics nobel prize,britain.maybe 2099?
your reply,francis drake
your reply,francis drake
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Nov 3 2009, 03:26 AM)
A friend of mine who is also doing a PhD in physics had an email forwarded to him by his mother from one of her friends. It was a 50+ page 'paper' on a theory of everything which claimed much the same as Sylwester, to having a bunch of particle mass formulas which are accurate to many decimal places and the references were mostly high school textbooks. The mathematics was either remedial or wrong, the logic terrible and the results botched.
The author is a medical professional. A consultant in a major hospital who has been involved in a great many clinical trials and has medical papers to his name. Clearly he's rational when it comes to medicial procedures and logic but he's utterly wacko and stupid when it comes to physics.
If he were my doctor I'd ask for a different one, put it like that.
I have a similar anecdote which I think you'll find amusing (if not particularly surprising).
My fiancee works in a hospital, alongside a handful of doctors. Occasionally, we are invited to parties and barbecues hosted by one of the these doctors. At one such event I was discussing the anti-vaccination movement with one doctor when another butted in to assert the validity of this movement. Me being who I am, I confronted him about it and we got into a long discussion in which he was cordial, but quite insistent. Eventually I managed to corner him into asserting that studies which show no correlation between the MMR vaccines and autism were flawed because the MMR vaccine causes autism, while he knew the MMR vaccine causes autism because the studies showing otherwise were flawed. (He used a similar set of circular logic on his justification for believing in the study that asserted a positive correlation. It was correct because the vaccine causes autism, and the vaccine causes autism because this study was correct.)
The surprising thing is that out of 10 doctors who were present and involved to some degree in this discussion, only 3 saw this circular logic for what it was. Most of the others still did not believe in the anti-vaccine claims, but insisted that those claims were justified and worthy of consideration, while 1 or 2 were actually convinced by this man's circular logic.
Needless to say, I and the three who agreed with me were in agreement on two other points: First, that we never wanted to be treated by those who were gullible enough to fall for this kinds of reasoning, and second, that it is truly a shame when a self-admitted layman can display more medical acuity in any matter than a practicing doctor, which is the more important point from where I sit. This is not because I'm so smart or well-educated, but precisely because of my lack of medical expertise. I may know a little more than your average Joe about medicine, but that's nothing compared to the level of knowledge this doctor who argued with me had.
The author is a medical professional. A consultant in a major hospital who has been involved in a great many clinical trials and has medical papers to his name. Clearly he's rational when it comes to medicial procedures and logic but he's utterly wacko and stupid when it comes to physics.
If he were my doctor I'd ask for a different one, put it like that.
I have a similar anecdote which I think you'll find amusing (if not particularly surprising).
My fiancee works in a hospital, alongside a handful of doctors. Occasionally, we are invited to parties and barbecues hosted by one of the these doctors. At one such event I was discussing the anti-vaccination movement with one doctor when another butted in to assert the validity of this movement. Me being who I am, I confronted him about it and we got into a long discussion in which he was cordial, but quite insistent. Eventually I managed to corner him into asserting that studies which show no correlation between the MMR vaccines and autism were flawed because the MMR vaccine causes autism, while he knew the MMR vaccine causes autism because the studies showing otherwise were flawed. (He used a similar set of circular logic on his justification for believing in the study that asserted a positive correlation. It was correct because the vaccine causes autism, and the vaccine causes autism because this study was correct.)
The surprising thing is that out of 10 doctors who were present and involved to some degree in this discussion, only 3 saw this circular logic for what it was. Most of the others still did not believe in the anti-vaccine claims, but insisted that those claims were justified and worthy of consideration, while 1 or 2 were actually convinced by this man's circular logic.
Needless to say, I and the three who agreed with me were in agreement on two other points: First, that we never wanted to be treated by those who were gullible enough to fall for this kinds of reasoning, and second, that it is truly a shame when a self-admitted layman can display more medical acuity in any matter than a practicing doctor, which is the more important point from where I sit. This is not because I'm so smart or well-educated, but precisely because of my lack of medical expertise. I may know a little more than your average Joe about medicine, but that's nothing compared to the level of knowledge this doctor who argued with me had.
WankerChunk is not a medical student, he's an inpatient. Didn't you guys figure this yet?
Looks like they're having too much fun bagging him out
My suggestion is to focus on the logic behind the hypothesis.
Not to focus on my background or racial group whatever!
If you use correct logic to deduct, you will find there is definitely frame-dragging force.
Galileo majored in medicine. Young is a physician. Their medical background didn't stop them to become a successful phycist!
Please think my words twice!
Not to focus on my background or racial group whatever!
If you use correct logic to deduct, you will find there is definitely frame-dragging force.
Galileo majored in medicine. Young is a physician. Their medical background didn't stop them to become a successful phycist!
Please think my words twice!
QUOTE (wanchung+Nov 4 2009, 10:50 AM)
My suggestion is to focus on the logic behind the hypothesis.
Not to focus on my background or racial group whatever!
If you use correct logic to deduct, you will find there is definitely frame-dragging force.
Galileo majored in medicine. Young is a physician. Their medical background didn't stop them to become a successful phycist!
Please think my words twice!
There is no frame dragging force. Logic appears beyond your capability on this subject. Your hypothesis is nonsense. If you ever figure it out feel free to return to let us know you've regained your senses.
Not to focus on my background or racial group whatever!
If you use correct logic to deduct, you will find there is definitely frame-dragging force.
Galileo majored in medicine. Young is a physician. Their medical background didn't stop them to become a successful phycist!
Please think my words twice!
There is no frame dragging force. Logic appears beyond your capability on this subject. Your hypothesis is nonsense. If you ever figure it out feel free to return to let us know you've regained your senses.
QUOTE (wanchung+Nov 4 2009, 10:50 AM)
My suggestion is to focus on the logic behind the hypothesis.
Not to focus on my background or racial group whatever!
If you use correct logic to deduct, you will find there is definitely frame-dragging force.
Galileo majored in medicine. Young is a physician. Their medical background didn't stop them to become a successful phycist!
Please think my words twice!
But you aren't a doctor, you aren't even a medical student, you are an inpatient at the mental ward. Do they give you a few hours of internet access as therapy?
Not to focus on my background or racial group whatever!
If you use correct logic to deduct, you will find there is definitely frame-dragging force.
Galileo majored in medicine. Young is a physician. Their medical background didn't stop them to become a successful phycist!
Please think my words twice!
But you aren't a doctor, you aren't even a medical student, you are an inpatient at the mental ward. Do they give you a few hours of internet access as therapy?
QUOTE (wanchung+Nov 4 2009, 06:50 AM)
If you use correct logic to deduct, you will find there is definitely frame-dragging force.
You obviously do not understand the concept of "Force."
Force = Mass x Acceleration.
Please indicate what is accelerating.
You obviously do not understand the concept of "Force."
Force = Mass x Acceleration.
Please indicate what is accelerating.
QUOTE (wanchung+Nov 4 2009, 10:50 AM)
Galileo majored in medicine. Young is a physician. Their medical background didn't stop them to become a successful phycist!
This was from an era where physics was in it's infancy. Nowadays many years of study are required to get within 10 years of the cutting edge in a small area of physics. You try and find an example of a non physicist in the last century that was not a "real" physicist or mathematician by training. Betcha can't do it.
PS the fact that you can't spell physicist is very funny.
This was from an era where physics was in it's infancy. Nowadays many years of study are required to get within 10 years of the cutting edge in a small area of physics. You try and find an example of a non physicist in the last century that was not a "real" physicist or mathematician by training. Betcha can't do it.
PS the fact that you can't spell physicist is very funny.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Nov 4 2009, 02:53 PM)
You obviously do not understand the concept of "Force."
Force = Mass x Acceleration.
Please indicate what is accelerating.
Not exactly. F=dp/dt where p=momentum.
At low speeds (Newtonian mechanics) p=mv, so F=mdv/dt=ma
At higher speeds p=mv/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) so, things get a lot more complicated:
F=m*d/dt (v/sqrt(1-v/c)^2)
Force = Mass x Acceleration.
Please indicate what is accelerating.
Not exactly. F=dp/dt where p=momentum.
At low speeds (Newtonian mechanics) p=mv, so F=mdv/dt=ma
At higher speeds p=mv/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) so, things get a lot more complicated:
F=m*d/dt (v/sqrt(1-v/c)^2)
QUOTE (Trout+Nov 4 2009, 11:56 AM)
Not exactly. F=dp/dt where p=momentum.
At low speeds (Newtonian mechanics) p=mv, so F=mdv/dt=ma
At higher speeds p=mv/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) so, things get a lot more complicated:
F=m*d/dt (v/sqrt(1-v/c)^2)
Ok, I think I'll stick to "terrestrial" velocities then.
At low speeds (Newtonian mechanics) p=mv, so F=mdv/dt=ma
At higher speeds p=mv/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) so, things get a lot more complicated:
F=m*d/dt (v/sqrt(1-v/c)^2)
Ok, I think I'll stick to "terrestrial" velocities then.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Nov 4 2009, 04:48 PM)
Ok, I think I'll stick to "terrestrial" velocities then.
All you need to say is F=dp/dt. It works for any situation.
All you need to say is F=dp/dt. It works for any situation.
Okay, F=ma,
The question is not hard!
Since frame -dragging force F=SJmw/r^2 (S=2G/c^2)
Then, a=SJw/r^2
Are you okay with my explaination?
The question is not hard!
Since frame -dragging force F=SJmw/r^2 (S=2G/c^2)
Then, a=SJw/r^2
Are you okay with my explaination?
If there is no frame-dragging force, how can you explain Saturn's Uranus' and Jupiter's rings in their equator planes?
Can you use universal gravitation to explain the rings?
No, you can't.
Because gravity will only attract all directions to make a sphere.
There is definitely frame-dragging force!
Can you use universal gravitation to explain the rings?
No, you can't.
Because gravity will only attract all directions to make a sphere.
There is definitely frame-dragging force!
QUOTE (wanchung+Nov 11 2009, 04:13 PM)
If there is no frame-dragging force, how can you explain Saturn's Uranus' and Jupiter's rings in their equator planes?
Can you use universal gravitation to explain the rings?
No, you can't.
Oh, yes we can; Planets rotate producing an equatorial bulge. This bulge creates a gravitational bias, resulting in orbiting moons being 'tugged' into place ... some eventually collide to form ring systems.
p.s;- this is not always the case, as our moon simply does not orbit in this equatorial manner.
Next!, you frightfully delusional simpleton? .... I'm astoundingly amazed with your incredible ability to get everything completely and utterly wrong!
- must have taken many tireless decades of practice. 
Can you use universal gravitation to explain the rings?
No, you can't.
Oh, yes we can; Planets rotate producing an equatorial bulge. This bulge creates a gravitational bias, resulting in orbiting moons being 'tugged' into place ... some eventually collide to form ring systems.
p.s;- this is not always the case, as our moon simply does not orbit in this equatorial manner.
Next!, you frightfully delusional simpleton? .... I'm astoundingly amazed with your incredible ability to get everything completely and utterly wrong!
- must have taken many tireless decades of practice.
Hello, NO YOU CAN'T!
The gravity formul is F=GMm/r^2 not F=G2piRMm/r^2
The diameter of earth won't affect gravity on moon or rocks of ring.
If a moon A is at r distance from earth's north pole and another moon B is at the same r distance from earth's equator, they will receive the same gravity because earth's mass is the same M.
Your equator bulge won't affect gravity to attract the moons!
Thus, I am afraid you are wrong!
The gravity formul is F=GMm/r^2 not F=G2piRMm/r^2
The diameter of earth won't affect gravity on moon or rocks of ring.
If a moon A is at r distance from earth's north pole and another moon B is at the same r distance from earth's equator, they will receive the same gravity because earth's mass is the same M.
Your equator bulge won't affect gravity to attract the moons!
Thus, I am afraid you are wrong!
The radius of a spherical Earth wouldn't alter the gravitational effects on the Moon but a non-spherical Earth would because you can no longer use spherical symmetry to model it as a point.
QUOTE
The gravity formul is F=GMm/r^2 not F=G2piRMm/r^2
That's the formula for a point or a spherically symmetric object. It's not the formula if the object isn't spherical. Learn some physics you *****.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The gravity formul is F=GMm/r^2 not F=G2piRMm/r^2 |
That's the formula for a point or a spherically symmetric object. It's not the formula if the object isn't spherical. Learn some physics you *****.
Thus, I am afraid you are wrong!
Thus, I am afraid you are wrong!
No, you're the one who is wrong. And spectacularly stupid.
Hello,
Our earth is a sphere,
not banana-shaped
Our earth is a sphere,
not banana-shaped
QUOTE (wanchung+Nov 13 2009, 04:12 AM)
Hello,
Our earth is a sphere,
Wrong again. It's far closer to the term "oblate spheroid", you breathtaking imbecile.
Our earth is a sphere,
Wrong again. It's far closer to the term "oblate spheroid", you breathtaking imbecile.
QUOTE (wanchung+Nov 13 2009, 04:12 AM)
Hello,
Our earth is a sphere,
not banana-shaped
You must enjoy being contrary and dense. Regardless of all the ignorant stuff you've said [loads] you just don't get to call frame dragging a force. It's an effect derived from Einstein's model of gravity not from any nonsense you've dreamed up. The effect is associated with free float frames not accelerated frames.
Our earth is a sphere,
not banana-shaped
You must enjoy being contrary and dense. Regardless of all the ignorant stuff you've said [loads] you just don't get to call frame dragging a force. It's an effect derived from Einstein's model of gravity not from any nonsense you've dreamed up. The effect is associated with free float frames not accelerated frames.
My advice! You should read Landau's book!
Frame -dragging force is real!
Frame -dragging force is real!
.
Hi all.
Just reading through catching up with interesting discussions in my absence.
Had to stop and ask for clarification of this discussion when I recalled that it was settled over a year ago (by prometheus I think) that gravity (warped spacetime) is a force.
So can someone explain the EFFECTUAL (ie 'force' or 'not force') difference between spacetime warped by 'gravity' mechanism and spacetime warped (if it is warped) by 'frame-dragging' mechanism?
Thanks.
I'll be reading through again later today or tomorrow in anticipation of that clarification.
Cheers all.
RC.
.
Hi all.
Just reading through catching up with interesting discussions in my absence.
Had to stop and ask for clarification of this discussion when I recalled that it was settled over a year ago (by prometheus I think) that gravity (warped spacetime) is a force.
So can someone explain the EFFECTUAL (ie 'force' or 'not force') difference between spacetime warped by 'gravity' mechanism and spacetime warped (if it is warped) by 'frame-dragging' mechanism?
Thanks.
I'll be reading through again later today or tomorrow in anticipation of that clarification.
Cheers all.
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Nov 18 2009, 12:31 AM)
.
Hi all.
Just reading through catching up with interesting discussions in my absence.
Had to stop and ask for clarification of this discussion when I recalled that it was settled over a year ago (by prometheus I think) that gravity (warped spacetime) is a force.
So can someone explain the EFFECTUAL (ie 'force' or 'not force') difference between spacetime warped by 'gravity' mechanism and spacetime warped (if it is warped) by 'frame-dragging' mechanism?
Thanks.
I'll be reading through again later today or tomorrow in anticipation of that clarification.
Cheers all.
RC.
.
Before leaving for the day I thought I might 'bump' my open request for clarification in the matter bolded in my abovequoted post. Thanks.
See y'all tomorrow! RC.
.
Hi all.
Just reading through catching up with interesting discussions in my absence.
Had to stop and ask for clarification of this discussion when I recalled that it was settled over a year ago (by prometheus I think) that gravity (warped spacetime) is a force.
So can someone explain the EFFECTUAL (ie 'force' or 'not force') difference between spacetime warped by 'gravity' mechanism and spacetime warped (if it is warped) by 'frame-dragging' mechanism?
Thanks.
I'll be reading through again later today or tomorrow in anticipation of that clarification.
Cheers all.
RC.
.
Before leaving for the day I thought I might 'bump' my open request for clarification in the matter bolded in my abovequoted post. Thanks.
See y'all tomorrow! RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Nov 18 2009, 12:31 AM)
.
RC;
I think the best way to approach the idea of force is to look at it classically, IOW, classical Fields.
The term "frame dragging" is actually the same a "gravitomagnetism" and is used interchangeably.
So before getting into the almost semantical question of whether a Gravitomagnetic field IS a force; let me ask you an analogous question:
Do we refer to a MAGNETIC field as a force? Do we say a magnetic field IS A FORCE?
Not typically, because many times it does not produce a force. What we do say however, is that A TEST particle, IF it has CHARGE, and if it is MOVING through the magnetic field, ... will EXPERIENCE A FORCE.
IOW, for force to develop, MOTION of a CHARGED particle is necessary; and that motion must have a component transverse to the direction of the field.
....according to the standard Lorentz formula ....(ignoring the electric field)...
F = qV X B .... (where V is the velocity of test charge q; and "X" is the cross product)
LIKEWISE; by analogy; (using the linearized Gravitational equations), the "Gravito-magnetic" field itself is not usually referred to as "a force", since similarly, a test mass must be MOVING through the GM field in order to "experience" a force.
....which can be seen by inspection of the analogous Gravitational Lorentz equation ....which (ignoring the newtonian gravity field) is simply...
F = mV X B(g) ... (where V is velocity of a test mass m; and 'X' is the cross product with the GM field, B(g).
Just like in the electromagnetic case where a stationary charge "feels" no force from a magnetic field, so likewise a stationary mass 'feels' no force from a Gravito-magnetic field...Motion of the test particle is necessary.
Likewise,... motion parallel to the field lines will result in no force; a transverse component of motion is necessary.
Now if someone wants to "call" gravitomagnetism a force or not really doesn't matter to me; (you can call it an ice cream cone if you want), as long as you recognize the above physical relationships.
Lunar
RC;
I think the best way to approach the idea of force is to look at it classically, IOW, classical Fields.
The term "frame dragging" is actually the same a "gravitomagnetism" and is used interchangeably.
So before getting into the almost semantical question of whether a Gravitomagnetic field IS a force; let me ask you an analogous question:
Do we refer to a MAGNETIC field as a force? Do we say a magnetic field IS A FORCE?
Not typically, because many times it does not produce a force. What we do say however, is that A TEST particle, IF it has CHARGE, and if it is MOVING through the magnetic field, ... will EXPERIENCE A FORCE.
IOW, for force to develop, MOTION of a CHARGED particle is necessary; and that motion must have a component transverse to the direction of the field.
....according to the standard Lorentz formula ....(ignoring the electric field)...
F = qV X B .... (where V is the velocity of test charge q; and "X" is the cross product)
LIKEWISE; by analogy; (using the linearized Gravitational equations), the "Gravito-magnetic" field itself is not usually referred to as "a force", since similarly, a test mass must be MOVING through the GM field in order to "experience" a force.
....which can be seen by inspection of the analogous Gravitational Lorentz equation ....which (ignoring the newtonian gravity field) is simply...
F = mV X B(g) ... (where V is velocity of a test mass m; and 'X' is the cross product with the GM field, B(g).
Just like in the electromagnetic case where a stationary charge "feels" no force from a magnetic field, so likewise a stationary mass 'feels' no force from a Gravito-magnetic field...Motion of the test particle is necessary.
Likewise,... motion parallel to the field lines will result in no force; a transverse component of motion is necessary.
Now if someone wants to "call" gravitomagnetism a force or not really doesn't matter to me; (you can call it an ice cream cone if you want), as long as you recognize the above physical relationships.
Lunar
Hello,
Rest mass induced gravity,spin mass induces frame-dragging force;rest charge induces electricity,spin charge and moving charge induce magnetism.
The above statement is the key concept of my theory.
Gravity causes space-time curvature; and frame-dragging force causes the curved space-time spining around the central mass.
Isn't is simple and beautiful?!
Rest mass induced gravity,spin mass induces frame-dragging force;rest charge induces electricity,spin charge and moving charge induce magnetism.
The above statement is the key concept of my theory.
Gravity causes space-time curvature; and frame-dragging force causes the curved space-time spining around the central mass.
Isn't is simple and beautiful?!
QUOTE (wanchung+Nov 20 2009, 10:46 AM)
Rest mass induced gravity,spin mass induces frame-dragging force;rest charge induces electricity,spin charge and moving charge induce magnetism.
Nope.
Nope.
QUOTE
Gravity causes space-time curvature; and frame-dragging force causes the curved space-time spining around the central mass.
Nope.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Gravity causes space-time curvature; and frame-dragging force causes the curved space-time spining around the central mass. |
Nope.Isn't is simple and beautiful?!
Nope.
Hello,
Please use Math to disprove my theory! Your Nope is meaningless. That is all you can do?
Please use Math to disprove my theory! Your Nope is meaningless. That is all you can do?
QUOTE (wanchung+Nov 22 2009, 01:42 PM)
Please use Math to disprove my theory! Your Nope is meaningless. That is all you can do?
Please use maths to prove your theory. Borrowed from AN:
1. Precession of Mercury. It was long known that, even when you take into account all planets and bigger moons, that Newtonian gravity didn't predict the right amount of precession seen in the orbit of Mercury. GR did and it was this evidence which helped turn over all our understanding of gravity.
2. Zeeman emission splittiing. In the 1910s and 1920s it was realised that the colour of emissions of heated elements (elements as in elements of the periodic table) seemed to follow patterns, with definite frequencies coming from each element. Not only that but when you put the heated material into a magnetic field you get differernt colours again, more colours! This is known as Zeeman splitting and it took the development of the electron shell structure of the atom via quantum mechanics to understand. Classical electromagnetism can't explain it.
3. Antimatter is fundamentally a quantum field theory concept, you need both quantum mechanics and special relativity (it was his development of QFT which lead Dirac to predict the existence of antimatter). The interaction between matter and antimatter also requires you to be able to describe virtual particle production, as they contribute to answers.
Your clucking is meaningless if you can't do this.
Please use maths to prove your theory. Borrowed from AN:
1. Precession of Mercury. It was long known that, even when you take into account all planets and bigger moons, that Newtonian gravity didn't predict the right amount of precession seen in the orbit of Mercury. GR did and it was this evidence which helped turn over all our understanding of gravity.
2. Zeeman emission splittiing. In the 1910s and 1920s it was realised that the colour of emissions of heated elements (elements as in elements of the periodic table) seemed to follow patterns, with definite frequencies coming from each element. Not only that but when you put the heated material into a magnetic field you get differernt colours again, more colours! This is known as Zeeman splitting and it took the development of the electron shell structure of the atom via quantum mechanics to understand. Classical electromagnetism can't explain it.
3. Antimatter is fundamentally a quantum field theory concept, you need both quantum mechanics and special relativity (it was his development of QFT which lead Dirac to predict the existence of antimatter). The interaction between matter and antimatter also requires you to be able to describe virtual particle production, as they contribute to answers.
Your clucking is meaningless if you can't do this.
QUOTE (wanchung+Nov 22 2009, 01:42 PM)
Hello,
Please use Math to disprove my theory! Your Nope is meaningless. That is all you can do?
w=f(dIe)
Where: w = wanchung, f = fucked upness, d = delusional constant , I = imbecilic posts & e = excessive BS
Please use Math to disprove my theory! Your Nope is meaningless. That is all you can do?
w=f(dIe)
Where: w = wanchung, f = fucked upness, d = delusional constant , I = imbecilic posts & e = excessive BS
.
Prometheus,
Can you oblige with such a clarification (please see bolded section in following quote)?
Prometheus,
Can you oblige with such a clarification (please see bolded section in following quote)?
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Nov 18 2009, 12:31 AM)
.
Hi all.
Just reading through catching up with interesting discussions in my absence.
Had to stop and ask for clarification of this discussion when I recalled that it was settled over a year ago (by prometheus I think) that gravity (warped spacetime) is a force.
So can someone explain the EFFECTUAL (ie 'force' or 'not force') difference between spacetime warped by 'gravity' mechanism and spacetime warped (if it is warped) by 'frame-dragging' mechanism?.
Prometheus, since I broadly concur with your treatment of gravity as a 'force' in your discussion with ubavontuba in the relevant LHC thread, I am also interested to see your treatment of that spect I mentioned here. I therefore am waiting for your further treatment of this 'frame-dragging' matter in your usual thorough and informed way so that I can be confident in my own mind about this and related aspects. It will be very helpful to me mate, and will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
RC.
.
Hi all.
Just reading through catching up with interesting discussions in my absence.
Had to stop and ask for clarification of this discussion when I recalled that it was settled over a year ago (by prometheus I think) that gravity (warped spacetime) is a force.
So can someone explain the EFFECTUAL (ie 'force' or 'not force') difference between spacetime warped by 'gravity' mechanism and spacetime warped (if it is warped) by 'frame-dragging' mechanism?.
Prometheus, since I broadly concur with your treatment of gravity as a 'force' in your discussion with ubavontuba in the relevant LHC thread, I am also interested to see your treatment of that spect I mentioned here. I therefore am waiting for your further treatment of this 'frame-dragging' matter in your usual thorough and informed way so that I can be confident in my own mind about this and related aspects. It will be very helpful to me mate, and will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Nov 23 2009, 01:18 AM)
.
Prometheus,
Can you oblige with such a clarification (please see bolded section in following quote)?
Prometheus, since I broadly concur with your treatment of gravity as a 'force' in your discussion with ubavontuba in the relevant LHC thread, I am also interested to see your treatment of that spect I mentioned here. I therefore am waiting for your further treatment of this 'frame-dragging' matter in your usual thorough and informed way so that I can be confident in my own mind about this and related aspects. It will be very helpful to me mate, and will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
RC.
.
I can't seem to locate the thread you mentioned could you link to it?
Prometheus,
Can you oblige with such a clarification (please see bolded section in following quote)?
Prometheus, since I broadly concur with your treatment of gravity as a 'force' in your discussion with ubavontuba in the relevant LHC thread, I am also interested to see your treatment of that spect I mentioned here. I therefore am waiting for your further treatment of this 'frame-dragging' matter in your usual thorough and informed way so that I can be confident in my own mind about this and related aspects. It will be very helpful to me mate, and will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
RC.
.
I can't seem to locate the thread you mentioned could you link to it?
QUOTE (brucep+Nov 23 2009, 02:51 AM)
I can't seem to locate the thread you mentioned could you link to it?
.
Hi brucep. Lucky I was doing a last sweep-through before logging off finally for the day.
I was working from memory when I alluded to that. However, I think the topic heading was "LHC Danger".....it's a long thread but somewhere along prometheus was describing to ubavontuba the basis for considering gravity a 'force'.
I have disabled some of the functions (including Search function etc) in order to safeguard my computer from corruption/viruses on the internet.
But if I may suggest you look into prometheus's POSTING HISTORY around about a year ago or a little earlier, you will come across his exchange with ubavontuba in the "LHC Danger" topic/thread.....and go from there to locate the relevant posts regarding the 'force' issue as pertains to gravity.
OR....you could PM prometheus and get it straight form the horses' mouth as it were!....he might have the relevant exchange/background at his fingertips for you.
Good luck mate! Sorry I couldn't be of more assistance except what is from this old codgers' memory....something which most of my posts depend on most of the time.
Cheers and see ya round!
RC.
.
.
Hi brucep. Lucky I was doing a last sweep-through before logging off finally for the day.
I was working from memory when I alluded to that. However, I think the topic heading was "LHC Danger".....it's a long thread but somewhere along prometheus was describing to ubavontuba the basis for considering gravity a 'force'.
I have disabled some of the functions (including Search function etc) in order to safeguard my computer from corruption/viruses on the internet.
But if I may suggest you look into prometheus's POSTING HISTORY around about a year ago or a little earlier, you will come across his exchange with ubavontuba in the "LHC Danger" topic/thread.....and go from there to locate the relevant posts regarding the 'force' issue as pertains to gravity.
OR....you could PM prometheus and get it straight form the horses' mouth as it were!....he might have the relevant exchange/background at his fingertips for you.
Good luck mate! Sorry I couldn't be of more assistance except what is from this old codgers' memory....something which most of my posts depend on most of the time.
Cheers and see ya round!
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Nov 23 2009, 03:12 AM)
.
Hi brucep. Lucky I was doing a last sweep-through before logging off finally for the day.
I was working from memory when I alluded to that. However, I think the topic heading was "LHC Danger".....it's a long thread but somewhere along prometheus was describing to ubavontuba the basis for considering gravity a 'force'.
I have disabled some of the functions (including Search function etc) in order to safeguard my computer from corruption/viruses on the internet.
But if I may suggest you look into prometheus's POSTING HISTORY around about a year ago or a little earlier, you will come across his exchange with ubavontuba in the "LHC Danger" topic/thread.....and go from there to locate the relevant posts regarding the 'force' issue as pertains to gravity.
OR....you could PM prometheus and get it straight form the horses' mouth as it were!....he might have the relevant exchange/background at his fingertips for you.
Good luck mate! Sorry I couldn't be of more assistance except what is from this old codgers' memory....something which most of my posts depend on most of the time.
Cheers and see ya round!
RC.
.
Thanks. I'll give that search a go.
Hi brucep. Lucky I was doing a last sweep-through before logging off finally for the day.
I was working from memory when I alluded to that. However, I think the topic heading was "LHC Danger".....it's a long thread but somewhere along prometheus was describing to ubavontuba the basis for considering gravity a 'force'.
I have disabled some of the functions (including Search function etc) in order to safeguard my computer from corruption/viruses on the internet.
But if I may suggest you look into prometheus's POSTING HISTORY around about a year ago or a little earlier, you will come across his exchange with ubavontuba in the "LHC Danger" topic/thread.....and go from there to locate the relevant posts regarding the 'force' issue as pertains to gravity.
OR....you could PM prometheus and get it straight form the horses' mouth as it were!....he might have the relevant exchange/background at his fingertips for you.
Good luck mate! Sorry I couldn't be of more assistance except what is from this old codgers' memory....something which most of my posts depend on most of the time.
Cheers and see ya round!
RC.
.
Thanks. I'll give that search a go.
First of all, I am not against GR. I am against quantum mechanics. Actually, frame-dragging force can be derived from GR. You can also use frame-dragging force to get Mercury procession. Please see Dr. Landau's book.
My atom model can also explain Zeeman effect. It is because electron radius=h'/mc. Thus, spin angular momentum of electron=Iw=2/5h'. Thus, there is interaction between orbit and spin. The question is not hard.
About antimatter! Dirac is just lucky. We can only use conservation of energy to predict there is antimatter. Dirac's negative energy E=-mc^2 is a totally ********.
My atom model can also explain Zeeman effect. It is because electron radius=h'/mc. Thus, spin angular momentum of electron=Iw=2/5h'. Thus, there is interaction between orbit and spin. The question is not hard.
About antimatter! Dirac is just lucky. We can only use conservation of energy to predict there is antimatter. Dirac's negative energy E=-mc^2 is a totally ********.
QUOTE (wanchung+Nov 23 2009, 10:27 AM)
First of all, I am not against GR. I am against quantum mechanics. Actually, frame-dragging force can be derived from GR. You can also use frame-dragging force to get Mercury procession. Please see Dr. Landau's book.
My atom model can also explain Zeeman effect. It is because electron radius=h'/mc. Thus, spin angular momentum of electron=Iw=2/5h'. Thus, there is interaction between orbit and spin. The question is not hard.
About antimatter! Dirac is just lucky. We can only use conservation of energy to predict there is antimatter. Dirac's negative energy E=-mc^2 is a totally ********.
Frame dragging can only be derived from GR and it's not a force regardless of how many dumb appeals you make to this forum. Based on the dumb crap you post to this forum your atom model must be a load of crank crap.
My atom model can also explain Zeeman effect. It is because electron radius=h'/mc. Thus, spin angular momentum of electron=Iw=2/5h'. Thus, there is interaction between orbit and spin. The question is not hard.
About antimatter! Dirac is just lucky. We can only use conservation of energy to predict there is antimatter. Dirac's negative energy E=-mc^2 is a totally ********.
Frame dragging can only be derived from GR and it's not a force regardless of how many dumb appeals you make to this forum. Based on the dumb crap you post to this forum your atom model must be a load of crank crap.
QUOTE (wanchung+Nov 23 2009, 10:27 AM)
First of all, I am not against GR. I am against quantum mechanics. Actually, frame-dragging force can be derived from GR. You can also use frame-dragging force to get Mercury procession. Please see Dr. Landau's book.
My atom model can also explain Zeeman effect. It is because electron radius=h'/mc. Thus, spin angular momentum of electron=Iw=2/5h'. Thus, there is interaction between orbit and spin. The question is not hard.
About antimatter! Dirac is just lucky. We can only use conservation of energy to predict there is antimatter. Dirac's negative energy E=-mc^2 is a totally ********.
I also have to say just how ignorant it is to say 'I'm against quantum mechanics'. QM the most empirically verified theoretical model in physics. Just how stupid is it to be against QM? Monumentally ignorant. Any model you would come up with would have to have a 1/1 empirical correspondence with QM, easier to use, and add some new insight into how the universe works. Quit trolling goofball.
My atom model can also explain Zeeman effect. It is because electron radius=h'/mc. Thus, spin angular momentum of electron=Iw=2/5h'. Thus, there is interaction between orbit and spin. The question is not hard.
About antimatter! Dirac is just lucky. We can only use conservation of energy to predict there is antimatter. Dirac's negative energy E=-mc^2 is a totally ********.
I also have to say just how ignorant it is to say 'I'm against quantum mechanics'. QM the most empirically verified theoretical model in physics. Just how stupid is it to be against QM? Monumentally ignorant. Any model you would come up with would have to have a 1/1 empirical correspondence with QM, easier to use, and add some new insight into how the universe works. Quit trolling goofball.
QUOTE (brucep+Nov 23 2009, 06:13 PM)
I also have to say just how ignorant it is to say 'I'm against quantum mechanics'. QM the most empirically verified theoretical model in physics. Just how stupid is it to be against QM? Monumentally ignorant. Any model you would come up with would have to have a 1/1 empirical correspondence with QM, easier to use, and add some new insight into how the universe works. Quit trolling goofball.
Wow!
Wow!
.
Hi all. I for one am not coming to any conclusions until prometheus has clarified all this for me. Hence my earlier request for that clarification.
RC.
Hi all. I for one am not coming to any conclusions until prometheus has clarified all this for me. Hence my earlier request for that clarification.
RC.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Nov 23 2009, 11:42 PM)
.
Hi all. I for one am not coming to any conclusions until prometheus has clarified all this for me. Hence my earlier request for that clarification.
RC.
You want me to clarify gravity in GR being a force or not?
It depends on your point of view - in four dimensions there is only spacetime curvature and objects follow geodesics. However, we are creatures that live in three dimensions, and from our point of view objects follow curved trajectories which requires a force. Whatever you call it, the result is the same.
I believe people have already pointed out that frame dragging requires GR, and what Wanchung is suggesting is that frame dragging provides an alternative explanation for quantum mechanical stability of the atom. I can see no reason why this should be true and I think we've waited long enough for him to provide proof to conclude there isn't any.
Hi all. I for one am not coming to any conclusions until prometheus has clarified all this for me. Hence my earlier request for that clarification.
RC.
You want me to clarify gravity in GR being a force or not?
It depends on your point of view - in four dimensions there is only spacetime curvature and objects follow geodesics. However, we are creatures that live in three dimensions, and from our point of view objects follow curved trajectories which requires a force. Whatever you call it, the result is the same.
I believe people have already pointed out that frame dragging requires GR, and what Wanchung is suggesting is that frame dragging provides an alternative explanation for quantum mechanical stability of the atom. I can see no reason why this should be true and I think we've waited long enough for him to provide proof to conclude there isn't any.
.
Hi prometheus!
Not exactly what I was after mate. Following is my original post generally requesting the clarification I needed.
Hi prometheus!
Not exactly what I was after mate. Following is my original post generally requesting the clarification I needed.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Nov 18 2009, 12:31 AM)
.
Hi all.
Just reading through catching up with interesting discussions in my absence.
Had to stop and ask for clarification of this discussion when I recalled that it was settled over a year ago (by prometheus I think) that gravity (warped spacetime) is a force.
So can someone explain the EFFECTUAL (ie 'force' or 'not force') difference between spacetime warped by 'gravity' mechanism and spacetime warped (if it is warped) by 'frame-dragging' mechanism?
Thanks.
I'll be reading through again later today or tomorrow in anticipation of that clarification.
Cheers all.
RC.
.
.
I have highlighted the 'comparative' aspects I need clarified between the two (gravity/frame-dragging) mechanism/effect regarding 'warped/curved space....and if the 'force' aspect in 'gravity' curved space is in any way 'present' in the 'frame-dragged' space (curved or not?).
See what I need to clarify my own thinking on this? I already 'recalled' what your explanation of gravity force per se to ubavontuba at the time, so no need for that again. Its those further comparison aspects I mentioned above that I need now. Thanks for taking the time mate! Be back tomorrow. Cheers!
RC.
.
Hi all.
Just reading through catching up with interesting discussions in my absence.
Had to stop and ask for clarification of this discussion when I recalled that it was settled over a year ago (by prometheus I think) that gravity (warped spacetime) is a force.
So can someone explain the EFFECTUAL (ie 'force' or 'not force') difference between spacetime warped by 'gravity' mechanism and spacetime warped (if it is warped) by 'frame-dragging' mechanism?
Thanks.
I'll be reading through again later today or tomorrow in anticipation of that clarification.
Cheers all.
RC.
.
.
I have highlighted the 'comparative' aspects I need clarified between the two (gravity/frame-dragging) mechanism/effect regarding 'warped/curved space....and if the 'force' aspect in 'gravity' curved space is in any way 'present' in the 'frame-dragged' space (curved or not?).
See what I need to clarify my own thinking on this? I already 'recalled' what your explanation of gravity force per se to ubavontuba at the time, so no need for that again. Its those further comparison aspects I mentioned above that I need now. Thanks for taking the time mate! Be back tomorrow. Cheers!
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Nov 25 2009, 01:18 AM)
.
Hi prometheus!
Not exactly what I was after mate. Following is my original post generally requesting the clarification I needed.
.
I have highlighted the 'comparative' aspects I need clarified between the two (gravity/frame-dragging) mechanism/effect regarding 'warped/curved space....and if the 'force' aspect in 'gravity' curved space is in any way 'present' in the 'frame-dragged' space (curved or not?).
See what I need to clarify my own thinking on this? I already 'recalled' what your explanation of gravity force per se to ubavontuba at the time, so no need for that again. Its those further comparison aspects I mentioned above that I need now. Thanks for taking the time mate! Be back tomorrow. Cheers!
RC.
.
Look at figure 3 and page F-14 for this project on spinning black holes.
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/SpinNEW.pdf
Hi prometheus!
Not exactly what I was after mate. Following is my original post generally requesting the clarification I needed.
.
I have highlighted the 'comparative' aspects I need clarified between the two (gravity/frame-dragging) mechanism/effect regarding 'warped/curved space....and if the 'force' aspect in 'gravity' curved space is in any way 'present' in the 'frame-dragged' space (curved or not?).
See what I need to clarify my own thinking on this? I already 'recalled' what your explanation of gravity force per se to ubavontuba at the time, so no need for that again. Its those further comparison aspects I mentioned above that I need now. Thanks for taking the time mate! Be back tomorrow. Cheers!
RC.
.
Look at figure 3 and page F-14 for this project on spinning black holes.
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/SpinNEW.pdf
QUOTE (brucep+Nov 25 2009, 02:45 AM)
Look at figure 3 and page F-14 for this project on spinning black holes.
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/SpinNEW.pdf
.
Thanks for that brucep. However, I nhave read quite a bit about black holes and the associated environmental/inherent aspects. That was quite OK but not what I want here. I would prefer to get prometheus's explanation of 'frame drag' aspects consistent with what he explained to ubavontuba about graviry 'force' aspect. By keeping the same 'source' for comparison it will help me to get a coherent picture of what prometheus pointed out then plus as informed by any difference/similarities etc which prometheus may enlighten me on spoecifically in his own perspective on the matter as so far presented here. Thanks again mate for your trouble. Chheers.
RC.
.
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/SpinNEW.pdf
.
Thanks for that brucep. However, I nhave read quite a bit about black holes and the associated environmental/inherent aspects. That was quite OK but not what I want here. I would prefer to get prometheus's explanation of 'frame drag' aspects consistent with what he explained to ubavontuba about graviry 'force' aspect. By keeping the same 'source' for comparison it will help me to get a coherent picture of what prometheus pointed out then plus as informed by any difference/similarities etc which prometheus may enlighten me on spoecifically in his own perspective on the matter as so far presented here. Thanks again mate for your trouble. Chheers.
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Nov 25 2009, 03:59 AM)
.
Thanks for that brucep. However, I nhave read quite a bit about black holes and the associated environmental/inherent aspects. That was quite OK but not what I want here. I would prefer to get prometheus's explanation of 'frame drag' aspects consistent with what he explained to ubavontuba about graviry 'force' aspect. By keeping the same 'source' for comparison it will help me to get a coherent picture of what prometheus pointed out then plus as informed by any difference/similarities etc which prometheus may enlighten me on spoecifically in his own perspective on the matter as so far presented here. Thanks again mate for your trouble. Chheers.
RC.
.
That is frame dragging. The extremal black hole just illustrates the effect at a maximum.
Thanks for that brucep. However, I nhave read quite a bit about black holes and the associated environmental/inherent aspects. That was quite OK but not what I want here. I would prefer to get prometheus's explanation of 'frame drag' aspects consistent with what he explained to ubavontuba about graviry 'force' aspect. By keeping the same 'source' for comparison it will help me to get a coherent picture of what prometheus pointed out then plus as informed by any difference/similarities etc which prometheus may enlighten me on spoecifically in his own perspective on the matter as so far presented here. Thanks again mate for your trouble. Chheers.
RC.
.
That is frame dragging. The extremal black hole just illustrates the effect at a maximum.
QUOTE (brucep+Nov 25 2009, 04:46 AM)
That is frame dragging. The extremal black hole just illustrates the effect at a maximum.
.
Hi brucep. I know. That is not what I need in this matter. I need the consistent comments of prometheus on the matter here in order that I grasp his perspective on BOTH gravity 'force' and 'frame dragging' 'effect as pertains to 'curved space' in the scenario being presented here by the thread's starter. I wish to keep a consistent view depending on what prometheus has to clarify consistent with what he clarified for ubavontuba as to 'force' aspects. Thanks again for your trouble though mate!
RC.
.
.
Hi brucep. I know. That is not what I need in this matter. I need the consistent comments of prometheus on the matter here in order that I grasp his perspective on BOTH gravity 'force' and 'frame dragging' 'effect as pertains to 'curved space' in the scenario being presented here by the thread's starter. I wish to keep a consistent view depending on what prometheus has to clarify consistent with what he clarified for ubavontuba as to 'force' aspects. Thanks again for your trouble though mate!
RC.
.
I've got to say that I'm not too familiar with frame dragging. From a very swift reading of the wiki page on frame dragging I'd say that it doesn't deform spacetime in the way that you're thinking. What happens is an inertial frame seems to get pulled along around the rotating object, but this is only visible to certain observers.
Gravity is spacetime curvature
Frame-dragging force is spining spacetime curvature
Frame-dragging force is spining spacetime curvature
Gravity is rest spacetime curvature.
Frame-dragging force causes the spacetime curvature spining.
Is that clear? RC!
Frame-dragging force causes the spacetime curvature spining.
Is that clear? RC!
QUOTE (wanchung+Nov 26 2009, 11:55 AM)
Gravity is rest spacetime curvature.
Frame-dragging force causes the spacetime curvature spining.
Is that clear? RC!
The only thing that's clear is you're an uneducable dunce.
Frame-dragging force causes the spacetime curvature spining.
Is that clear? RC!
The only thing that's clear is you're an uneducable dunce.
So does electromagnetism!
Electricity is rest spacetime torsion(vortex).
Magnetism causes the spacetime torsion(vortex) spin!
Electricity is rest spacetime torsion(vortex).
Magnetism causes the spacetime torsion(vortex) spin!
QUOTE (wanchung+Nov 28 2009, 08:22 AM)
Electricity is rest spacetime torsion(vortex).
Magnetism causes the spacetime torsion(vortex) spin!
Nonsensical clown talk. Ban this heap o' crap, please rp!
Magnetism causes the spacetime torsion(vortex) spin!
Nonsensical clown talk. Ban this heap o' crap, please rp!
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.