Hi, I've been reading this forum and there seems to be a number of very knowledgeable people here so I thought I might ask for your comments and criticisms regarding the feasibility of a design idea that came to me while I was working on trying to design a more efficient solar powered Stirling Generator.
I thought I might need a cooling system to carry off excess heat from the engine and got interested in the "Air-Cycle System" for the reason that like the Stirling engine itself, plain old air can be used as the working fluid and also because it is said to create extreme temperature differentials, more so than any other conventional refrigeration system primarily due to the fact that it utilizes a turbo-expander (used to cool gases in cryogenic processes, gas liquefaction and other cold temperature applications.)
I thought that this would be ideal in that the Stirling engine itself RUNS ON temperature differentials.
I came up with a few designs and as I was imagining this machine running and following through all the processes going on it seemed to dawn on me that this could indeed be a very efficient engine... Perhaps so efficient that it didn't even need a solar collector as once it was charged with compressed air and began operating it seemed to me that the addition of any additional heat would possibly be too much heat... The thing, it seemed to my mind, was actually running just on the solar energy stored in the air at ambient temperatures.
I have a few crude illustrations which I've uploaded:
Link: Stirling Air Turbine I (Removed)
Link: Stirling Air Turbine II (Removed)
I have also been discussing this on some other forums for a while now, which might be helpful in case anyone wants more information about it before commenting as the theory and design have already been discussed in some detail:
Link: Stirling Engine Forum (Removed)
Link: Science Forum (Beginning with post #58 "Stirling Turbine") (Removed)
I'm planning on trying to build a small model just to see if this thing works, but right now I don't have the facilities or equipment for that. In the mean time I thought I would get some other opinions.
Somehow I have some difficulty believing that this could work, but I've also been having a hard time figuring out any good reason why it wouldn't. I suppose there are mathematical formulas for figuring out the specifications for something like this but I'm not a mathematician.
Any comments for or against this idea would be most welcome.
Thanks.
Tom
P.S. I received the following message upon posting:
The error returned was:
Sorry, your post contains link(s), which are not allowed. New members are not allowed to make a post here linking elsewhere. Please remove all links from you post.
(Links Removed)
So... How long does this "New Member" status last ? Or is there some other way to link to this stuff ?
It sounds interesting. I forget exactly how many, but eventually you will be allowed to post links. Perhaps you can put up key words which are easy to google for now.
Have you ever heard of the Geek Group? They are a bunch of people who experiment making interesting things and support those who want to make stuff. Check out:
http://www.thegeekgroup.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq2X0BilStc
an example of the sort of stuff they do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT5_MmeSeDU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdYJgnWe40s&feature=channel
Have you ever heard of the Geek Group? They are a bunch of people who experiment making interesting things and support those who want to make stuff. Check out:
http://www.thegeekgroup.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq2X0BilStc
an example of the sort of stuff they do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT5_MmeSeDU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdYJgnWe40s&feature=channel
Perhaps you can put up key words which are easy to google for now.
Thanks.
Fortunately I've used the same user name, and I find that just entering that along with Stirling Turbine brings it up on the first top three Google hits - except for the illustrations, but there are links to those posted in the other forums.
To make that easier to c/p:
tom booth stirling turbine
Have you ever heard of the Geek Group? They are a bunch of people who experiment making interesting things and support those who want to make stuff. Check out:
No I haven't, Thanks again, and I will!
Thanks.
Fortunately I've used the same user name, and I find that just entering that along with Stirling Turbine brings it up on the first top three Google hits - except for the illustrations, but there are links to those posted in the other forums.
To make that easier to c/p:
tom booth stirling turbine
Have you ever heard of the Geek Group? They are a bunch of people who experiment making interesting things and support those who want to make stuff. Check out:
No I haven't, Thanks again, and I will!
Is this it?
http://prc_projects.tripod.com/stirling_air_turbine.html
Someone here may know more than me and can say more.
Here is another site that has very knowledgeable people about things of this sort:
http://saposjoint.net/Forum/
http://prc_projects.tripod.com/stirling_air_turbine.html
Someone here may know more than me and can say more.
Here is another site that has very knowledgeable people about things of this sort:
http://saposjoint.net/Forum/
QUOTE
Is this it?
(Link Removed)
(Link Removed)
That is the basic idea. There is also another more complete and somewhat modified version. If you change the end of the filename in the URL to:
stirling_air_turbine_2.html (add the: _2 to the file name)
It is worth taking a look at as it has some elements which may be essential. (extra cooling coils etc.)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Is this it? (Link Removed) |
That is the basic idea. There is also another more complete and somewhat modified version. If you change the end of the filename in the URL to:
stirling_air_turbine_2.html (add the: _2 to the file name)
It is worth taking a look at as it has some elements which may be essential. (extra cooling coils etc.)
Someone here may know more than me and can say more.
Here is another site that has very knowledgeable people about things of this sort:
(Link Removed)
Thanks, and thank you for finding and posting that for me.
I'm working on some additional modifications also. Mostly to the "displacer chamber". As your conventional Stirling Engine displacer arrangement isn't really optimized for pumping air directly like a compressor. I'm sure there is a lot of room for improvement there - possibly a rotary displacer, as some energy is lost in the constant changing of direction with the reciprocating displacer.
The main idea behind this is to replace the conventional compressor in an Air-Cycle refrigeration system with what I hope will constitute a more efficient compressor that operates on the temperature differential resulting from the Air-Cycle.
In most Air-Cycle Refrigeration Systems of this type, the power output of the expansion turbine is only used to run some power load, like a fan to draw energy from the expanding air to make it do work resulting in a drop in temperature. Generally speaking, the fan serves no purpose other than as an energy drain.
Here this "energy drain" function of the turbines power output has been changed to one of actual power production and the cold produced is used for the temperature differential to compress more air.
Theoretically this arrangement should "wring" the heat-energy from ambient air, convert that heat into electricity which leaves "cold" for your temperature differential.
Warm air is drawn in, the energy gotten out of it, and the spent cold air is evacuated.
I think I will start by making a simple Stirling type displacer chamber out of some old tin cans - solder on some check valves using some tubing and old bicycle ball bearings or something and see if that will at least pump air just by moving the displacer up and down with a candle under the thing.
If that can at least pump enough air to blow up a balloon or something, then it might be worth trying to build a sturdier model that could pump enough air to at least spin a small home made Tesla "CD" type Turbine. If that works, and if there is any kind of temperature drop from the air passing through the turbine... well, perhaps this will work.
It would be nice if I had a machine shop or something to build something a little more substantial, but if the concept works, it should work to some degree even with such a "tin can" model.
P.S. Still can't post links.
The part that reads "wringing heat out of ambient air" reminded me of a book I read once under section of thermodynamics where they engines only works at temps above ambient temps. It showed the hypothetical impossibility of making an engine that will suck in sea water, take out the heat to perform useful work, say propell a ship, and chunk out ice cubes on the other end. But I might have not grasped the information and am yet to check the link. Thanks.
Hi boit,
I also made a crude Gif animation:
Stirling Turbine Animation
Yay! I can post links now!
Here is a rather in depth discussion going on about this engine on another forum:
Classical Physics Forum
Beginning with post #58
And one more:
Stirling Engine Forum
I also made a crude Gif animation:
Stirling Turbine Animation
Yay! I can post links now!
Here is a rather in depth discussion going on about this engine on another forum:
Classical Physics Forum
Beginning with post #58
And one more:
Stirling Engine Forum
I checked the links and animations. I am completly taken. Come to think of it i remember reading another book i can't recall the title where this engine or something similar is used to power a generator on the moon once a colony is established. The cool end is placed on the back of the moon and the hot part on the side facing the sun. A fluids circulate between the two. Works like a dream. I wish i can get resources to try it out.
QUOTE (boit+Feb 23 2010, 07:00 PM)
I checked the links and animations. I am completly taken. Come to think of it i remember reading another book i can't recall the title where this engine or something similar is used to power a generator on the moon once a colony is established. The cool end is placed on the back of the moon and the hot part on the side facing the sun. A fluids circulate between the two. Works like a dream. I wish i can get resources to try it out.
What is the point of moving heat from one side of the moon to the other when the underground temperature on the sunny side would be just as cold as the temperature on the dark side?
What is the point of moving heat from one side of the moon to the other when the underground temperature on the sunny side would be just as cold as the temperature on the dark side?
Hi light. I don't know why. The other actually talked of four such engines strategically placed on the moon. It is over ten years ago and maybe i didn't get the concept correctly. I might be filling in my own thought where i failed to compresent in the first reading and then failed to make a follow up. "Ten thousand years from now." is probably the title. It mentioned Dynosphere made from dismantling jupiter among other futuristic amazing things .
QUOTE
I checked the links and animations. I am completely taken.
I wouldn't get too excited. There is probably some good reason why it won't work, at least not with much of any power output.
I'm thinking lately that, although I can't find any obvious flaw in the general concept, it seems probable that the expansion turbine, although producing a limited amount of potentially extremely cold air would not put out such cold air in amounts that would be sufficient to carry off the heat from the Stirling Engine portion of the thing.
I came to this realization after reading about this small Stirling cryocooler capable of reaching extremely cold temperatures (-193 degrees C) but still incapable of cooling a computer CPU.
http://www.frostytech.com/articleview.cfm?...eid=2424&page=5
I'm thinking that the same might be true of the expansion turbine. Yes it may get extremely cold, but probably in such a small quantity that it would have little effect on the heat output from the engine - like a grain of dry ice tossed into a furnace.
If it did work though, even only as a curiosity, like that "dippy bird" but without any appreciable power output I would still be happy. At any rate, I don't think it would be too difficult to build and it would be interesting to find out for sure one way or the other.
Will work better if placed in boundary layer of hot and cold air. This way we get a perpetual heat sink on the cold front. I guess this is the overall concept.
QUOTE
Will work better if placed in boundary layer of hot and cold air. This way we get a perpetual heat sink on the cold front
I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say here.
What will work better at what "boundary layer". I have a few guesses at what you are referring to... but I better just let you elaborate if you would please.
In a sterling type engine, the heat sink is typically the enviroment at ambient temperature. Since your engine wants to use the ambient temperature as the heat source, this will necessitate that we have two ambient enviroment at different temperatures.
If you have ever taken a plunge in the ocean you will discover some warm and some cool levels at some depth or even currents. Same thing occurs with air. Say the local temperature is 37 C. and there is a cold air convergence of say 20 C. You can exhaust cold air at say 22 C.
QUOTE
Since your engine wants to use the ambient temperature as the heat source, this will necessitate that we have two ambient environment at different temperatures.
You mean like the sunny and dark sides of the moon ?
The basic idea behind this is using an air-cycle heat exchanger (condenser (hot - above ambient) coils on top and expansion (cold - below ambient) coils on the bottom) with a Stirling type displacer chamber sandwiched between the hot and cold coils.
You get your Heat by compressing the ambient air and your cold by then expanding the air through a turbine. The load on the turbine converts the heat in the compressed air into work - leaving the air cold. The cold air from the turbine is then used as your "heat sink" for the Stirling "compressor.
As far as I can figure, this is similar to how that "dipping bird" novelty item works. i.e. by converting a temperature differential into a pressure differential to extract work.
By using an air-cycle heat exchanger with a turbine to get your cold "heat sink" this should produce a much greater temperature differential than what could be achieved by evaporative cooling and result in a greater power output than what the "dipping bird" contraption can achieve.
That last post was me BTW. I forgot to log in.
QUOTE
If you have ever taken a plunge in the ocean you will discover some warm and some cool levels at some depth or even currents. Same thing occurs with air. Say the local temperature is 37 C. and there is a cold air convergence of say 20 C. You can exhaust cold air at say 22 C.
OK, I'm not sure I follow you but if I understand what you are saying there, I don't think any such engine would run very reliably if it depended on a cold air current just happening along.
actually weather phenomenon can be a fairly predictable. This is the rationale of identifying wind farms for windmills. There are cold fronts charts on weather maps. Since your heat sorce can not be your heat sink this is the best bet. Also take note that air cycle refrigiration is actually stirling engine in reverse application, mechanical energy has to be supplied in order to reach those extreme cold temperatures. The turbine for obvious reason can not be the heat sink.
your analogy of ice cube and furnace to theorize or infer the limitation of the engine despite great temperature differential is good. Stirling type engines power is not all about temperature differential but also the amount of matter at those temperatures. A bucket of water at 10 C is a bigger heat sink than a kilo of ice at zero degree.
The major flaw in the machine as per the schematic is where the cold air is exhausted, at the same air temperature as the heat source. What is to stop heat flowing back into the system through the exhaust post? Stirling engines have either have heat source high and heat sink at ambient or heat source at ambient and heat sink at cryogenic temperatures. Having both source and sink at one place is akin to trying to siphon water from a drum and back to the drum
QUOTE
actually weather phenomenon can be a fairly predictable. This is the rationale of identifying wind farms for windmills. There are cold fronts charts on weather maps.
Well, sure, to an extent. But it would have to be some kind of pretty big engine to span the distance between weather fronts. This thing probably wouldn't be much bigger or smaller than a bread box.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| actually weather phenomenon can be a fairly predictable. This is the rationale of identifying wind farms for windmills. There are cold fronts charts on weather maps. |
Well, sure, to an extent. But it would have to be some kind of pretty big engine to span the distance between weather fronts. This thing probably wouldn't be much bigger or smaller than a bread box.
Since your heat source can not be your heat sink this is the best bet.... The turbine for obvious reason can not be the heat sink.
This is where I usually get an argument from people and I don't really understand why.
I keep bringing up the "dippy bird" toy as an example.
Here, with this "dippy bird" everything starts out at ambient temperature - everything.
The bird, the glass of water, the air around it - all at the same temperature.
True, the water may have cooled imperceptibly due to evaporative cooling, but I have experimented with this and the bird works even if you put warm water in the glass. The glass of water is not a heat sink for this contraption - in fact, if anything the glass of water is a heat source. When the bird dips its beak in the water, the water warms the fluid inside which boils and evaporates making the head lighter so it goes back upright.
It is while the bird is upright swinging back and forth in the air that the little drop of water on its beak evaporates making the beak cold which condenses the gas inside back into a fluid which makes the head heavier and it dips down for another drink.
So the "heat sink" is the water evaporating off of the beak when the bird is upright due to evaporative cooling - like a wet bulb thermometer.
In other words, the bird is in effect, creating its own "heat sink" by swinging back and forth in the upright position just like a wet bulb thermometer you swing around in the air to measure humidity.
When the birds beak is back in the relatively warm water there is no longer any heat sink. Everything goes back to ambient temperature and the bird stands back upright and the "heat sink" is re-created as the water evaporates off the beak again.
There is no real continuous "heat sink" or "cold reservoir" that the heat is traveling to. The heat is being taken up by the water molecules as a result of phase change.
But what does it matter? When the heat is taken up by the evaporating water molecules it is no longer available to the system and acts as an effective "heat sink" though there really isn't any heat sink.
With the turbine, the heat is being converted to work and likewise becomes unavailable to the system. There is no "heat sink" as such, but the cold air leaving the turbine is just as effective a heat sink as any though it is being created on the fly and would not exist without the engine in operation just as the "heat sink" for the "dippy bird" would not exist without the thing being in operation.
QUOTE
Also take note that air cycle refrigeration is actually Stirling engine in reverse application, mechanical energy has to be supplied in order to reach those extreme cold temperatures.
This is not exactly true. Some cryo-coolers are Stirling engines in reverse. This is not true of air-cycle refrigeration which generally consists of a compressor, heat exchangers and a turbine. The cold temperatures are a result of the compressed air expanding and doing work within the turbine.
QUOTE
The major flaw in the machine as per the schematic is where the cold air is exhausted, at the same air temperature as the heat source. What is to stop heat flowing back into the system through the exhaust
In any air-cycle air-conditioning system the cold air is exhausted back to a room full of warmer air. There is a pressure differential forcing the cold air out the exhaust vent.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The major flaw in the machine as per the schematic is where the cold air is exhausted, at the same air temperature as the heat source. What is to stop heat flowing back into the system through the exhaust |
In any air-cycle air-conditioning system the cold air is exhausted back to a room full of warmer air. There is a pressure differential forcing the cold air out the exhaust vent.
Having both source and sink at one place is akin to trying to siphon water from a drum and back to the drum
Not exactly.
With the "dippy bird" you have the same ambient temperature all around the thing. There is only a very small area around the birds beak that is being cooled.
The heat from the birds beak is changing form on a molecular level due to the water going through a phase change from liquid to a vapor.
With the turbine the heat is changing form in a different way but the effect is more or less the same. an area of cold is being created by converting the heat into work which leaves the system at that point.
The heat is converted into work and as a result the air exiting the turbine is cold. The heat does not "go back" where it came from, at least not directly. It is converted into work to power some remote load.
The dippy bird is rather a puzzling. In a closed system i guess the humidity will increase to cancel out the evaporation hence no heat removed from the system. It works in apparent ambient cause the vapor is released in the same environment. Increasing drought of air on the beak on the other hands improves the operation. It is my guess heat of vapourization is drawn more from conduction with solid beak than gaseous ambient air.
QUOTE
It is my guess heat of vapourization is drawn more from conduction with solid beak than gaseous ambient air.
I would think some heat would be drawn from both, though you are probably right as I would think the wet felt on the glass bulb would over all be a better heat conductor than the surrounding air. In any event, any cooling of the air around the birds beak wouldn't have much if any effect. It would be the heat being drawn away by conduction at the point of evaporation that would create the internal temperature differential and help to power the operation of the thing.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Feb 24 2010, 12:25 AM)
What is the point of moving heat from one side of the moon to the other when the underground temperature on the sunny side would be just as cold as the temperature on the dark side?
Because the ground will be saturated in a short time and the engine will stop. Putting the other end on the night side of the moon will ensure we have a heat sink that never gets saturated. There will always be a temperature differential. Imagine if you stoke a coal fire with a short poker. In short order heat will flow by conduction and reach your hand. Now substitue with a ten feet pole, then twenty, then thirty. . . At a certain length so much heat will radiate off the pole (and also lost by conduction through the air) that none will reach your hand. On the moon there is no air to conduct off heat but we have the moon surface (matter) to do that. Spread out to the opposite end it works better.
Because the ground will be saturated in a short time and the engine will stop. Putting the other end on the night side of the moon will ensure we have a heat sink that never gets saturated. There will always be a temperature differential. Imagine if you stoke a coal fire with a short poker. In short order heat will flow by conduction and reach your hand. Now substitue with a ten feet pole, then twenty, then thirty. . . At a certain length so much heat will radiate off the pole (and also lost by conduction through the air) that none will reach your hand. On the moon there is no air to conduct off heat but we have the moon surface (matter) to do that. Spread out to the opposite end it works better.
Quasiturbine
QUOTE
Patents for the Quasiturbine (in the most general AC concept with carriages) [1][2] are held by the Saint-Hilaire family of Quebec. As well as an internal combustion engine, the Quasiturbine has been proposed as a possible pump design, and a possible Stirling engine[3]. It has been demonstrated as a pneumatic engine using stored compressed air, and as a steam engine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiturbine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiturbine
Hello Tom Booth,
A late reply to your post.
All that you mention has been done by DaS Energy and posted in Open Technology many and various forums.
Carbon Dioxide R744 (CO2) being used as the driver. All forms of return have been trialed from free fall vacuum to screw pump and venturi return.
Carbon Dioxide at hot temperature of minus 10*C is lowest heat setting to obtain electric generation.
A pressure differential of 9 bar is required if a flow of one litre per second is exploited. 720 watts output increasing by pressure or volume of flow per second.
All parts are off the shelf, screw together, glue or weld.
Cheers Peter
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Feb 24 2010, 12:25 AM)
What is the point of moving heat from one side of the moon to the other when the underground temperature on the sunny side would be just as cold as the temperature on the dark side?
Two reasons why that's not a good idea.
Two reasons why that's not a good idea.
- The moon rotates once every 27.4 days.
- The underground temperature will be quickly saturated due to conduction.
For ice-cold coke in the Sahara.
this f****ing guy.
You fooled me, RC!! Guess what?
QUOTE (RealityCheck+ banned for Trollling, trolling and yet more trolling - Posted: Today @ 08:18)
Some people say I'm a filthy ugly insane festering pustule on the anus of scientific progress
Yes, I'd go along with that.
Yes, I'd go along with that.
QUOTE (RealityCheck wacko trolling+ trolling, troll)
A further account of my fathomless decent into absurd delusionalism (my forthcoming ToE) is now available for pre-order.
The military (Joke Warfare Division) has shown great interest after several proof readers were admitted to hospital, all in critical condition.
Not spamming again are you Mr Psychopath?
The military (Joke Warfare Division) has shown great interest after several proof readers were admitted to hospital, all in critical condition.
Not spamming again are you Mr Psychopath?
QUOTE (Lady Elizabeth+Feb 24 2013, 01:42 PM)
Not spamming again are you Mr Psychopath?
is this text right ?
RC ist eine solche Aufmerksamkeit Hure.
QUOTE (krash661+Feb 24 2013, 10:13 PM)
is this text right ?
RC ist eine solche Aufmerksamkeit Hure.
Genau.
RC ist eine solche Aufmerksamkeit Hure.
Genau.
QUOTE (Lady Elizabeth+Feb 24 2013, 02:17 PM)
Genau.
lol
lol
RealityCheck 'na fruitcake hollol wallgof rhithiol. 
RealityCheck is a terrorist. This post was him pathetically running his terror campaign.
Thus, nothing that RealityCheck does benefits humankind. He rapes and eats babies because they don't suck up to him. Well, sucking up to him isn't and shouldn't be your job. Thus he is banned.
Thus, nothing that RealityCheck does benefits humankind. He rapes and eats babies because they don't suck up to him. Well, sucking up to him isn't and shouldn't be your job. Thus he is banned.
Just watching the insanity grow.
QUOTE (AlexG+Feb 24 2013, 10:39 PM)
Just watching the insanity grow.
Yeah, it's truly astounding - RealityCheck's currently a stage 8 psychotic troll.
He's already well into the delusional coloured text phase ..... soon it'll be giant coloured text (stage 9) followed by complete gibberished illegibility (stage 10, commonly called the "Tesla 2 point").
Yeah, it's truly astounding - RealityCheck's currently a stage 8 psychotic troll.
He's already well into the delusional coloured text phase ..... soon it'll be giant coloured text (stage 9) followed by complete gibberished illegibility (stage 10, commonly called the "Tesla 2 point").
Next RC will start warning about the zombie apocalypse.
This post brought to you by the type of crackpot that employs a vanity press.
QUOTE (AlexG+Feb 24 2013, 11:11 PM)
Next RC will start warning about the zombie apocalypse.
.... well he's already admitted to writing a soon-to-be-published ToE; apparently, he thinks it'll be of significance to scientific advancement.
.... well he's already admitted to writing a soon-to-be-published ToE; apparently, he thinks it'll be of significance to scientific advancement.
You mean soon-to-be-self-published.
QUOTE (AlexG+Feb 24 2013, 11:24 PM)
You mean soon-to-be-self-published.
Sure, obviously a John 'farsight' Duffield type vanity press buffoon.
Can't wait for RC to appear in some self promotional stint on a typical low budget nutjob cable TV production.
I think I'd die laughing.
Sure, obviously a John 'farsight' Duffield type vanity press buffoon.
Can't wait for RC to appear in some self promotional stint on a typical low budget nutjob cable TV production.
I think I'd die laughing.
As should be quite obvious by now,
RC is a spambot.
RC is a spambot.
QUOTE (rpenner..........@+Feb 24 2013, 10:38 PM)
RealityCheck is a terrorist. This post was him pathetically running his terror campaign.
Thus, nothing that RealityCheck does benefits humankind. He rapes and eats babies because they don't suck up to him. Well, sucking up to him isn't and shouldn't be your job. Thus he is banned.
So very true.
Thus, nothing that RealityCheck does benefits humankind. He rapes and eats babies because they don't suck up to him. Well, sucking up to him isn't and shouldn't be your job. Thus he is banned.
So very true.
I can picture RC now;- buttons randomly pinging out of his mashed keyboard .... eyes all bloodshot through lack of sleep - raving maniacal abuse, like some nut in a demonic possession horror flick - I pity his neighbours. Perhaps the police have already been alerted.
It's gone awfully quiet. 
Obviously the authorities have arrived @ RC's pad - two guys in white coats wrestling with him on the floor attempting to fit a straightjacket no doubt.
Obviously the authorities have arrived @ RC's pad - two guys in white coats wrestling with him on the floor attempting to fit a straightjacket no doubt.
QUOTE (Ying Mann from China+)
lol that RealityCheck dude is nuts.
me and my friends in China no can stop laughing at Lady Elizabeths replies she make him look so big fool.
..... soon the whole world will know you for the psycho idiot troll you so clearly are.
me and my friends in China no can stop laughing at Lady Elizabeths replies she make him look so big fool.
..... soon the whole world will know you for the psycho idiot troll you so clearly are.
I think RC needs to cool down.
This cannot be healthy.
This cannot be healthy.
If you don't cool down you're only doing a disservice to yourself.
Case in point.
Your last post doesn't make sense.
Your last post doesn't make sense.
And that being?
RC. Is it possible you can post stuff through a proxy if you don't mind? Here is how it works.
No one can crucify your friend for posting your ideas. People have been quoting the bible and absurd things from the Hadiths without ever being as much as warned leave alone banning.
What about that?
You register with a neutral user name e.g pluto7- You PM a trusted friend in this forum your ideas (I am comfortable with your ideas and how you explain stuff by the way), who relays it through his account but give credit where it is due (you in this case).
No one can crucify your friend for posting your ideas. People have been quoting the bible and absurd things from the Hadiths without ever being as much as warned leave alone banning.
What about that?
If I could jump in this fun story for a quick question.
This thread reminds me of another argument that raged here a few years ago. There were people, before the LHC fired up, that said roughly, "When it goes on line it will make mini-black holes and the whole Earth will be destroyed!"
Obviously it didn't turn out that way. But have any of those people come back and apologized for wasting time or admitted they were wrong?
This thread reminds me of another argument that raged here a few years ago. There were people, before the LHC fired up, that said roughly, "When it goes on line it will make mini-black holes and the whole Earth will be destroyed!"
Obviously it didn't turn out that way. But have any of those people come back and apologized for wasting time or admitted they were wrong?
QUOTE (@boit+Feb 25 2013, 11:15 AM)
Hi boit.
Why would I want to do that, and let rpenner and his foulmouthed gang of spambot operators win and run roughshod over all future genuine members under threat of framing/banning if they don't cow-tow to the rpenner and his gang's abuses of power "for fun and profit"?
Besides, as you may already have read, I am nearing the publication of ALL my original work in a Complete and Consistent from Scratch ToE. Why risk others plagiarizing my ideas at this late stage?
No, I'm done with internet conversations/comparisons for now. I had already said I was withdrawing from posting when repenner and gang again framed and banned me. So who needs to post here again via 'proxies' etc? And why would I want to go to all that trouble when an apology from rpenner and re-instatement of RealityCheck is the ONLY PROPER REMEDY of the farce begun by rpenner's victimizations/abuses?
Mission accomplished for my ToE work/discourse.
Mission in progress for exposing rpenner and Lady Elizabeth spambot activities and abuses across sites. Unless rpenner apologizes and re-instates RealityCheck as a sign that he admits his mistakes and wants to make amends, then the only reason I have to still post here (albeit as unregistered poster) is because the perpetrators must not win over their victims. It's the principle of the thing. One's scientific/humanist duty is to fight such things, or what are we alive and striving for, if not for enlightenment both in science AND humanity, hey boit?
You CAN do the forum of genuine members a favour, though, boit, if you would? Since this post will probably be 'conveniently disappeared' by the record-destroying rpenner culprit, would you just quote it in full in your reply? That way rpenner will have to make himself EVEN MORE OBVIOUS in his 'cover up' attempts if he wishes to delete even YOUR QUOTE of my post, hey?
Thanks anyway for your well meant suggestions. You will be remembered as one of the good guys, boit, once all this is overtaken by events after I publish my complete ToE (yes, it's true! I will soon be sending a first-proofed copy to another ex-physforum member for his much respected perusal and suggestions before final layout and publishing. So don't fall for LE and AlexG's desperate disparaging denials of THAT imminent reality too, hey?).
Cheers, boit, sincerely from your true friend in Science AND Humanity, RealityCheck!
Cheers buddy. Wish you success in all you endeavours.
Sincerely your,
Boit.
Why would I want to do that, and let rpenner and his foulmouthed gang of spambot operators win and run roughshod over all future genuine members under threat of framing/banning if they don't cow-tow to the rpenner and his gang's abuses of power "for fun and profit"?
Besides, as you may already have read, I am nearing the publication of ALL my original work in a Complete and Consistent from Scratch ToE. Why risk others plagiarizing my ideas at this late stage?
No, I'm done with internet conversations/comparisons for now. I had already said I was withdrawing from posting when repenner and gang again framed and banned me. So who needs to post here again via 'proxies' etc? And why would I want to go to all that trouble when an apology from rpenner and re-instatement of RealityCheck is the ONLY PROPER REMEDY of the farce begun by rpenner's victimizations/abuses?
Mission accomplished for my ToE work/discourse.
Mission in progress for exposing rpenner and Lady Elizabeth spambot activities and abuses across sites. Unless rpenner apologizes and re-instates RealityCheck as a sign that he admits his mistakes and wants to make amends, then the only reason I have to still post here (albeit as unregistered poster) is because the perpetrators must not win over their victims. It's the principle of the thing. One's scientific/humanist duty is to fight such things, or what are we alive and striving for, if not for enlightenment both in science AND humanity, hey boit?
You CAN do the forum of genuine members a favour, though, boit, if you would? Since this post will probably be 'conveniently disappeared' by the record-destroying rpenner culprit, would you just quote it in full in your reply? That way rpenner will have to make himself EVEN MORE OBVIOUS in his 'cover up' attempts if he wishes to delete even YOUR QUOTE of my post, hey?
Thanks anyway for your well meant suggestions. You will be remembered as one of the good guys, boit, once all this is overtaken by events after I publish my complete ToE (yes, it's true! I will soon be sending a first-proofed copy to another ex-physforum member for his much respected perusal and suggestions before final layout and publishing. So don't fall for LE and AlexG's desperate disparaging denials of THAT imminent reality too, hey?).
Cheers, boit, sincerely from your true friend in Science AND Humanity, RealityCheck!
Cheers buddy. Wish you success in all you endeavours.
Sincerely your,
Boit.
QUOTE (RC+Feb 25 2013, 09:59 AM)
It so happens I took issue with BOTH ubavontuba AND rpenner on their mutual ASSUMPTION that Micro Black Holes could form therein.
I pointed out to BOTH of them that unless there is sufficient CUMULATIVE mass/gravity effect present, then no amount of micro-mass collisions could possibly form a black hole, no ammetr how 'dense' that micro-mass became during collision.
Simply because the DYNAMIC FORCES of the collision itself was too great for 'stable' formations of any kind to 'remain' at the event centre 'intact'; and MOREOVER, the QUANTUM SCALE FLUCTUATIONS and OTHER REPULSIVE FORCES would immediately overwhelm any micro-massed feature which formed TRANSIENTLY before 'exploding' due to all the quantum/e-m etc forces at that scale overwhelming the LACK of sufficient CUMULATIVE GRAVITY 'confinement' effect.
I haven't come across any of the former LHC debaters who have come back and apologised about their assumptions that black holes could form at all, let alone remain stable given all the other forces at play at that micro-massed quantum scale/dynamics.
If I recall correctly, ubavontuba posts over at the 'after split' PhysOrg.com "News site". Maybe you could register there and ask him about it?
Cheers, and g'night, ontheleft!
Is that the whole truth? Did they say anything about the holes evaporating even if they formed?
I pointed out to BOTH of them that unless there is sufficient CUMULATIVE mass/gravity effect present, then no amount of micro-mass collisions could possibly form a black hole, no ammetr how 'dense' that micro-mass became during collision.
Simply because the DYNAMIC FORCES of the collision itself was too great for 'stable' formations of any kind to 'remain' at the event centre 'intact'; and MOREOVER, the QUANTUM SCALE FLUCTUATIONS and OTHER REPULSIVE FORCES would immediately overwhelm any micro-massed feature which formed TRANSIENTLY before 'exploding' due to all the quantum/e-m etc forces at that scale overwhelming the LACK of sufficient CUMULATIVE GRAVITY 'confinement' effect.
I haven't come across any of the former LHC debaters who have come back and apologised about their assumptions that black holes could form at all, let alone remain stable given all the other forces at play at that micro-massed quantum scale/dynamics.
If I recall correctly, ubavontuba posts over at the 'after split' PhysOrg.com "News site". Maybe you could register there and ask him about it?
Cheers, and g'night, ontheleft!
Is that the whole truth? Did they say anything about the holes evaporating even if they formed?
QUOTE (ontheleft+Feb 25 2013, 09:26 AM)
If I could jump in this fun story for a quick question.
This thread reminds me of another argument that raged here a few years ago. There were people, before the LHC fired up, that said roughly, "When it goes on line it will make mini-black holes and the whole Earth will be destroyed!"
Obviously it didn't turn out that way. But have any of those people come back and apologized for wasting time or admitted they were wrong?
No they didn't. In 2010 I went to Hawaii to watch two of them argue a US Federal Appellate case.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?85...ety-and-the-Law
The above page has both the Federal decision and Appellate decision.
Also "RC" severely distorts the record as to his contributions. As he is no physicist his argument (if it was ever made contemporaneously) was not taken as a reason to trust in the safety of the LHC, as it ignores everything established about black holes. The anti-LHC people took a speculative idea and from there assumed black holes were eternal and dangerous, when both of the later ideas do not follow from the axioms used to create the original model. The bulk of the physics discussion was 1) there is no reason to expect them to be eternal when quantum physics strongly suggests that they must not be, and 2) there is no way a 14 TeV black hole would be dangerous from solely its gravity.
The arguments began on this forum before the original lawsuit was filed.
This thread reminds me of another argument that raged here a few years ago. There were people, before the LHC fired up, that said roughly, "When it goes on line it will make mini-black holes and the whole Earth will be destroyed!"
Obviously it didn't turn out that way. But have any of those people come back and apologized for wasting time or admitted they were wrong?
No they didn't. In 2010 I went to Hawaii to watch two of them argue a US Federal Appellate case.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?85...ety-and-the-Law
The above page has both the Federal decision and Appellate decision.
Also "RC" severely distorts the record as to his contributions. As he is no physicist his argument (if it was ever made contemporaneously) was not taken as a reason to trust in the safety of the LHC, as it ignores everything established about black holes. The anti-LHC people took a speculative idea and from there assumed black holes were eternal and dangerous, when both of the later ideas do not follow from the axioms used to create the original model. The bulk of the physics discussion was 1) there is no reason to expect them to be eternal when quantum physics strongly suggests that they must not be, and 2) there is no way a 14 TeV black hole would be dangerous from solely its gravity.
The arguments began on this forum before the original lawsuit was filed.
hmm, i wonder what they are saying after years of them being wrong about it.
lol they are saying,
" one day it will " ,
funny.
I'm upset because they are shutting down for upgrades.
very exciting and interesting ***.
lol they are saying,
" one day it will " ,
funny.
I'm upset because they are shutting down for upgrades.
very exciting and interesting ***.
Walter is my friend < He graduated from Sac State . He is pretty knowledgeable about genetics < I like him even being misguided sometimes < I respect him for his genetic contributions to the bank .
He is the type to take a bat with him if he hears noises in the basement , but at least he has the nerve to check it out .
Who does that , Apologizes for being wrong , Not many . Apologists do it all the time even when they are not. I have done it many times sincerely with no consequences.
Meaning the party still torched me and followed threw with what ever needles they had planned to stick me with . It was meaningless and Walter is an Attorney so you can see by his profession he would know it would mean nothing.
He is not involved now in something similar is he ?
He is the type to take a bat with him if he hears noises in the basement , but at least he has the nerve to check it out .
Who does that , Apologizes for being wrong , Not many . Apologists do it all the time even when they are not. I have done it many times sincerely with no consequences.
Meaning the party still torched me and followed threw with what ever needles they had planned to stick me with . It was meaningless and Walter is an Attorney so you can see by his profession he would know it would mean nothing.
He is not involved now in something similar is he ?
Reality Check again misses the point.
1) Under GR, the possibility of forming a black hole by proton-proton collision at 14 TeV or less is zero because 14 TeV implies a length scale of 10^-20 meters, a black hole has a Schwarzschild radius of 10^-50 meters and a proton has a radius of 10^-15 meters.
2) Walter L Wagner (anti-LHC), ubavontuba (anti-LHC) and I were discussing a modification to GR at small length scales such that between 10^-15 meters and 10^-20 meters gravity becomes much stronger. This was a highly speculative assumption, and one that rests on no evidence, but that was the topic of discussion.
3) Reality Check's contentions today don't address either set of assumptions or empirical reality, therefore do not have a nexus with the 2008 "why is the LHC safe?" discussion. This puts to doubt any claims that he was relevant back then, for he certainly isn't now.
4) Reality Check is banned.
1) Under GR, the possibility of forming a black hole by proton-proton collision at 14 TeV or less is zero because 14 TeV implies a length scale of 10^-20 meters, a black hole has a Schwarzschild radius of 10^-50 meters and a proton has a radius of 10^-15 meters.
2) Walter L Wagner (anti-LHC), ubavontuba (anti-LHC) and I were discussing a modification to GR at small length scales such that between 10^-15 meters and 10^-20 meters gravity becomes much stronger. This was a highly speculative assumption, and one that rests on no evidence, but that was the topic of discussion.
3) Reality Check's contentions today don't address either set of assumptions or empirical reality, therefore do not have a nexus with the 2008 "why is the LHC safe?" discussion. This puts to doubt any claims that he was relevant back then, for he certainly isn't now.
4) Reality Check is banned.
As you see -- Reality Check asserts that he knows what the laws of the universe are -- thus Reality Check is not engaged in physics.
QUOTE (krash661+Feb 25 2013, 05:48 PM)
hmm, i wonder what they are saying after years of them being wrong about it.
lol they are saying,
" one day it will " ,
funny.
I'm upset because they are shutting down for upgrades.
very exciting and interesting ***.
Walter has eaten a lot of crow . Let me tell you and he probably is still chewing . He gets ribbed every chance the gang can rib him and I imagine even still < Just like that guy that put in his academic paper that a number was prime that was not < They named the number after him to commemorate his mistake and I am surprised they have not come up with something like that for Walter < there is still time though
lol they are saying,
" one day it will " ,
funny.
I'm upset because they are shutting down for upgrades.
very exciting and interesting ***.
Walter has eaten a lot of crow . Let me tell you and he probably is still chewing . He gets ribbed every chance the gang can rib him and I imagine even still < Just like that guy that put in his academic paper that a number was prime that was not < They named the number after him to commemorate his mistake and I am surprised they have not come up with something like that for Walter < there is still time though
He became famous though < he was on all the talk shows < Leno , That other guy who sued his painter her in Montana < what is his name < interjection < When you make a bazillion dollars a year how do you over pay a painter . What is his name , He live s close by me < fuk < You know opposite Jay Leno < David Letterman That guys show , Walter was on David Letterman . He really made a stinky . Californians !
QUOTE (RC+Feb 25 2013, 10:34 PM)
QUOTE (rpenner+Feb 25 2013, 10:06 PM)
As you see -- Reality Check asserts that he knows what the laws of the universe are -- thus Reality Check is not engaged in physics.
what would happen if it was not 1 to 1 < like 5 plank mass to 1 plank volume
OOh my, now we are talking.
What you think < crazy talk ?
not at all.
P= density in one
P= momentum in another,
relation between momentum and density exist.
weird right.
and interesting.
now what about when you combine the fields or subjects or such ?
there's this,
Common symbol(s): P
SI unit: watt
In physics, power is the rate at which energy is transferred, used, or transformed. The unit of power is the joule per second (J/s)
so from what i gathered so far without looking into it appears it's because of
units of measurements, si and standard and such.
but I'm not sure that's correct.
all i know is it becomes a hassle when combining subject in one equation or formulas.
As far as waves and particles, from what I understand it's when and how you look at them. There may be some magic there.
At least for me.
everything consist of
wave, particle, energy, and/or matter
How lame and evasive was that from rpenner, ontheleft, everyone?
Instead of addressing what is the point, he makes a personal remark based on nothing presented in evidence so far.
It's not a personal remark, it is a syllogism.
1) A science is the art of confronting speculative models with empirical reality and retaining only the models that predict the best while assuming the least.
2) Models that are tested and preserved in science have a domain of applicability which is at least as big as the domain where they have been tested rigorously and be found to be the best of the models so far tested.
3) To assert from a preserved model that a behavior could not happen in a domain that has not been tested is therefore not science.
4) The behavior of gravity at scales at less than 10^-4 meters has not been well-studied.
5) Therefore to assume gravity function the same at all small scales as at the scale of planets and stars is not science -- it is a claim to knowledge that does not originate in science.
Also "putative" means "generally supposed" or "commonly put forth or accepted as true on inconclusive grounds", which is not the correct description of either microscopic black hole generation at colliders or speculative and unevidenced laws of physics which if true would permit them to form. "Putative" is the best we get in science, and we have the decimal places to demonstrate that our current "putative" works very well in physics. So we try new speculative theories and confront them with new experiments to try and find evidence that a new model should replace the current putative model.
The putative model for black holes in physics is the one vetted by science, GR in cosmology down to to close to 10^-35 meters where it collides with the other putative model, quantum field theory. Hawking radiation is the result when quantum field theory near an event horizon is studied, thus Hawking radiation also enjoys the status of the best putative physics model for a somewhat narrow domain.
In the face of all these vetted putative physics models, Reality Check asserts on his own authority that some unevidenced phenomenon called the "cumulative macro-mass gravity 'confinement' effect" exists for actual black holes, when this is not a claim originating from the GR model or the empirical observation record.
Instead of addressing what is the point, he makes a personal remark based on nothing presented in evidence so far.
It's not a personal remark, it is a syllogism.
1) A science is the art of confronting speculative models with empirical reality and retaining only the models that predict the best while assuming the least.
2) Models that are tested and preserved in science have a domain of applicability which is at least as big as the domain where they have been tested rigorously and be found to be the best of the models so far tested.
3) To assert from a preserved model that a behavior could not happen in a domain that has not been tested is therefore not science.
4) The behavior of gravity at scales at less than 10^-4 meters has not been well-studied.
5) Therefore to assume gravity function the same at all small scales as at the scale of planets and stars is not science -- it is a claim to knowledge that does not originate in science.
Also "putative" means "generally supposed" or "commonly put forth or accepted as true on inconclusive grounds", which is not the correct description of either microscopic black hole generation at colliders or speculative and unevidenced laws of physics which if true would permit them to form. "Putative" is the best we get in science, and we have the decimal places to demonstrate that our current "putative" works very well in physics. So we try new speculative theories and confront them with new experiments to try and find evidence that a new model should replace the current putative model.
The putative model for black holes in physics is the one vetted by science, GR in cosmology down to to close to 10^-35 meters where it collides with the other putative model, quantum field theory. Hawking radiation is the result when quantum field theory near an event horizon is studied, thus Hawking radiation also enjoys the status of the best putative physics model for a somewhat narrow domain.
In the face of all these vetted putative physics models, Reality Check asserts on his own authority that some unevidenced phenomenon called the "cumulative macro-mass gravity 'confinement' effect" exists for actual black holes, when this is not a claim originating from the GR model or the empirical observation record.
RC-
You should step outside yourself and look at the last three posts.
As an observer, who's evidence would you believe?
You should step outside yourself and look at the last three posts.
As an observer, who's evidence would you believe?
QUOTE (RC+Feb 26 2013, 12:12 AM)
Let rpenner or anyone else answer those last three questions and everyone can then judge for themselves. I have no 'personal investment' one way or the the other. The objective facts/points in evidence then and now should decide the matter. Good luck and good thinking, ontheleft, everyone.
why did that look like reduced < Step Out of your self to me , Did anyone else read that . It happened before I read it < it was a flash before I read it < did anyone get that image before they read it ? I don't under stand Fact divided by point either < can you explain that ?
If a point is real you divide it by facts , or if you gat lots of points and little facts ?
Some math man told me a fraction was not a division sign < that blew me away cause in real life models it is all the way < can anyone explain that to a simpleton. I use it quite successfully as a division sign < is it sometimes but not all the time kind of thing ? what gives ?
why did that look like reduced < Step Out of your self to me , Did anyone else read that . It happened before I read it < it was a flash before I read it < did anyone get that image before they read it ? I don't under stand Fact divided by point either < can you explain that ?
If a point is real you divide it by facts , or if you gat lots of points and little facts ?
Some math man told me a fraction was not a division sign < that blew me away cause in real life models it is all the way < can anyone explain that to a simpleton. I use it quite successfully as a division sign < is it sometimes but not all the time kind of thing ? what gives ?
what you guys think , I hinted at it already but have not come out and said the silly thing < That blind spot looks like a black hole that you mind fills in with dreamy stuff to make you feel better . Kind of like a port . A little tiny black hole that sucks up information in some other kind of bizzarro world < If you think about light cones < dueling light cones . Possible ? So we could be black holes in the cold universe on the other side of a heat spectrum and on that side it is a black hole but on this side it is a the opposite exposes where the what we call matter is. Speculative I know < like science fiction , but when you think of all the hoopla of mirror mirror on the wall and Alice look out for looking glass and even my zero point math flippy flop whole numbers critically it does pose an idea .
See in shaman school they taught us to lightly close your eyes and look at the sun to get your voodoo power < we call it soaking in energy direct from the sun instead of getting energy from food < then after a while you look at plant life , trees and such and soak up the green emanations from the plants . So you get a double fold blast of pure energy . Then we do this self empowerment thing where you say as you flex your muscles . Snap your fingers crunching up fists and isometric kind of things with your whole body as you say out loud < Power Energy Power Energy Power Energy.
It is great exercise and self rewarding < Kind of like Ti Che and with the power quotes it is self affirming also
But that leads me to the point of what I first said as we do know that winter time depression is higher then in summer and that we need sun light just as all the creature that have evolved in sun light do. Yeah you might be able to live a miserable life in total darkness but how long can you sustain that
Note to self < God that was so hard to spell Miserable , I did it ((( Yeah , Pat on Back
Edit: for putting son in for sun , i changed it cause I am talking about the star that feeds the planet with light . That burning ball in the sky we circle around
See in shaman school they taught us to lightly close your eyes and look at the sun to get your voodoo power < we call it soaking in energy direct from the sun instead of getting energy from food < then after a while you look at plant life , trees and such and soak up the green emanations from the plants . So you get a double fold blast of pure energy . Then we do this self empowerment thing where you say as you flex your muscles . Snap your fingers crunching up fists and isometric kind of things with your whole body as you say out loud < Power Energy Power Energy Power Energy.
It is great exercise and self rewarding < Kind of like Ti Che and with the power quotes it is self affirming also
But that leads me to the point of what I first said as we do know that winter time depression is higher then in summer and that we need sun light just as all the creature that have evolved in sun light do. Yeah you might be able to live a miserable life in total darkness but how long can you sustain that
Note to self < God that was so hard to spell Miserable , I did it ((( Yeah , Pat on Back
Edit: for putting son in for sun , i changed it cause I am talking about the star that feeds the planet with light . That burning ball in the sky we circle around
plank mass divided by plank volume
Thanks Krash < Man you are one smart cookie
Is that what you where talking about R.C. ?
what would happen if it was not 1 to 1 < like 5 plank mass to 1 plank volume
Thanks Krash < Man you are one smart cookie
Is that what you where talking about R.C. ?
what would happen if it was not 1 to 1 < like 5 plank mass to 1 plank volume
QUOTE (Mekigal+Feb 26 2013, 10:57 AM)
what would happen if it was not 1 to 1 < like 5 plank mass to 1 plank volume
OOh my, now we are talking.
would it kick out the extra planks ? So as to reestablish back to the 1 to 1 ratio ?
Would it cause a chain reaction by dislodging other planks as the 1 to planks took on the extra planks by radiation of the ejected planks ?
And then how about illumination of objects ? is that planks being ejected so what ever is absorbing planks has to eject what it can't hold in its own world of sustainability dictated by what the object is ? Its version of one to one that being coded by its elemental standing on a periodic chart of elements and things like uranium go past the limit of plank containment so they got to get them fukkers out of there system ?
What you think < crazy talk ?
Would it cause a chain reaction by dislodging other planks as the 1 to planks took on the extra planks by radiation of the ejected planks ?
And then how about illumination of objects ? is that planks being ejected so what ever is absorbing planks has to eject what it can't hold in its own world of sustainability dictated by what the object is ? Its version of one to one that being coded by its elemental standing on a periodic chart of elements and things like uranium go past the limit of plank containment so they got to get them fukkers out of there system ?
What you think < crazy talk ?
QUOTE (Mekigal+Feb 26 2013, 11:14 AM)
What you think < crazy talk ?
not at all.
that formula p=m/v
why did they use p ? is that a direct relationship to a plank or is that coincident ?
why did they use p ? is that a direct relationship to a plank or is that coincident ?
QUOTE (Mekigal+Feb 26 2013, 11:44 AM)
that formula p=m/v
why did they use p ? is that a direct relationship to a plank or is that coincident ?
I don't know that,
but i found in most subjects a symbol in one subject means something else in another.
then there's symbols for that issue.
sometimes when getting into deferential equations or such, it can get confusing and such.
why did they use p ? is that a direct relationship to a plank or is that coincident ?
I don't know that,
but i found in most subjects a symbol in one subject means something else in another.
then there's symbols for that issue.
sometimes when getting into deferential equations or such, it can get confusing and such.
yeah like M means a lot of things , nothing is standardized,
It is field dependent I guess
I am going to see if i can the history of why M/V is P and what exactly was the reason P was picked < There usually is some funny back story lurking , Like the guy that did something stupid or brilliant with the name Peter and every one laughed and said lets call it P for Peter
It is field dependent I guess
I am going to see if i can the history of why M/V is P and what exactly was the reason P was picked < There usually is some funny back story lurking , Like the guy that did something stupid or brilliant with the name Peter and every one laughed and said lets call it P for Peter
Wow that took me right to a first hit of "Momentum of a Particle " where
p=mv
is that all part of the same creature ?
p=mv
is that all part of the same creature ?
does it stand to reason that a partial or a point is a still in time . Or a frozen moment in time taking out of the active flow of time which is the wave < active flow of time being the wave aspect of an object ?
QUOTE
It is field dependent I guess
P= density in one
P= momentum in another,
relation between momentum and density exist.
weird right.
and interesting.
now what about when you combine the fields or subjects or such ?
there's this,
Common symbol(s): P
SI unit: watt
In physics, power is the rate at which energy is transferred, used, or transformed. The unit of power is the joule per second (J/s)
so from what i gathered so far without looking into it appears it's because of
units of measurements, si and standard and such.
but I'm not sure that's correct.
all i know is it becomes a hassle when combining subject in one equation or formulas.
i guess it is what we decide to use as our partial whether it be a planet or a plank
That makes me think of my law of ends in any string of numbers being being equal distant from a center
123 and 2 is half the equal distant to the ends sum .
Is that a law already expressed in another way ? I like to think it an original thought but as we have already speculated that thoughts are not private property to an individual light cone
That makes me think of my law of ends in any string of numbers being being equal distant from a center
123 and 2 is half the equal distant to the ends sum .
Is that a law already expressed in another way ? I like to think it an original thought but as we have already speculated that thoughts are not private property to an individual light cone
here is a contemplation < what if there is no center
1234 You see how that zeros out , It is my crazy carpenter math law of evens
it is all 5 until you get to the middle of nothing . Lets see if it holds up 12345678910
See how it does 12345/678910 and how that is all 11 . It is my law of evens .
Does that exist in another expression ?
1234 You see how that zeros out , It is my crazy carpenter math law of evens
it is all 5 until you get to the middle of nothing . Lets see if it holds up 12345678910
See how it does 12345/678910 and how that is all 11 . It is my law of evens .
Does that exist in another expression ?
QUOTE (Mekigal+Feb 26 2013, 01:26 PM)
here is a contemplation < what if there is no center
1234 You see how that zeros out , It is my crazy carpenter math law of evens
it is all 5 until you get to the middle of nothing . Lets see if it holds up 12345678910
See how it does 12345/678910 and how that is all 11 . It is my law of evens .
Does that exist in another expression ?
I have no idea but it does add up..
it's interesting,well IMO anyways.
~~~~~~~`
below is irrelevant to anything, i just wanted to see something
12345/6/78910
...........^-------------------->1112131415/16/1718192021
1234 You see how that zeros out , It is my crazy carpenter math law of evens
it is all 5 until you get to the middle of nothing . Lets see if it holds up 12345678910
See how it does 12345/678910 and how that is all 11 . It is my law of evens .
Does that exist in another expression ?
I have no idea but it does add up..
it's interesting,well IMO anyways.
~~~~~~~`
below is irrelevant to anything, i just wanted to see something
12345/6/78910
...........^-------------------->1112131415/16/1718192021
i wonder if one is defining a particle and the other is setting that particle back into a wave . That would somewhat agree with relativity wouldn't it setwise and stepwise
11 is a funny number all to it self , it is a 2 you know in reduction math so it is I believe the first number that brakes the evenness of 2 that is still related to a 2 by its reduction . The first odd 2 in the flip flop or rotation of whole numbers or the first with a center . That center being 6 which to me is the heart of me number theory that defines the pattern of prime parabolic and diabolic aspects of "Me number Games"
I just had to throw that in there as one of my names .
Got Milk
I just had to throw that in there as one of my names .
Got Milk
QUOTE (krash661+Feb 26 2013, 10:09 PM)
I have no idea but it does add up..
it's interesting,well IMO anyways.
~~~~~~~`
below is irrelevant to anything, i just wanted to see something
12345/6/78910
...........^-------------------->1112131415/16/1718192021
That is an artifact of using base 10 for a numbering system. No magic.
As far as waves and particles, from what I understand it's when and how you look at them. There may be some magic there.
At least for me.
it's interesting,well IMO anyways.
~~~~~~~`
below is irrelevant to anything, i just wanted to see something
12345/6/78910
...........^-------------------->1112131415/16/1718192021
That is an artifact of using base 10 for a numbering system. No magic.
As far as waves and particles, from what I understand it's when and how you look at them. There may be some magic there.
At least for me.
QUOTE (caillan+Feb 26 2013, 10:37 PM)
That is an artifact of using base 10 for a numbering system. No magic.
As far as waves and particles, from what I understand it's when and how you look at them. There may be some magic there.
At least for me.
so what is the law in the artifact ? Tell me please I am dying to know and does the law of ends hold up in all base numbering systems < meaning do does the equal distance to the ends ad up to the sum like I have shown in base 10 ?
Do you know ?
As far as waves and particles, from what I understand it's when and how you look at them. There may be some magic there.
At least for me.
so what is the law in the artifact ? Tell me please I am dying to know and does the law of ends hold up in all base numbering systems < meaning do does the equal distance to the ends ad up to the sum like I have shown in base 10 ?
Do you know ?
QUOTE (caillan+Feb 26 2013, 02:37 PM)
That is an artifact of using base 10 for a numbering system. No magic.
As far as waves and particles, from what I understand it's when and how you look at them. There may be some magic there.
At least for me.
no one said it was magic,
if you understood what i said,
I said this,
As far as waves and particles, from what I understand it's when and how you look at them. There may be some magic there.
At least for me.
no one said it was magic,
if you understood what i said,
I said this,
QUOTE
below is irrelevant to anything, i just wanted to see something
QUOTE (caillan+Feb 26 2013, 02:37 PM)
As far as waves and particles, from what I understand it's when and how you look at them. There may be some magic there.
At least for me.
everything consist of
wave, particle, energy, and/or matter
o.k. will you guys were arguing the argument I was googling < strange for SI came up again in the Metric system " International system of units "
It was a little strange for me feeble mind
It was a little strange for me feeble mind
Krash, I can't fault you for your signature being inaccurate.
QUOTE (caillan+Feb 26 2013, 02:50 PM)
Krash, I can't fault you for your signature being inaccurate.
O.k
thanks for your opinion.
O.k
thanks for your opinion.
I got to go but I will leave you with juggling . You either have 2 balls in the air or you have one to define juggling at its lowest common denominator But we don't really consider one ball in the air juggling yet . You have to have 2 balls in the air for real juggling .
I can juggle balls < it is fun < getting 2 balls in the air is a lot tougher then one
on matter though for there is either one in the hand or one in the air
I can juggle balls < it is fun < getting 2 balls in the air is a lot tougher then one
on matter though for there is either one in the hand or one in the air
QUOTE (Mekigal+Feb 26 2013, 02:48 PM)
o.k. will you guys were arguing the argument I was googling < strange for SI came up again in the Metric system " International system of units "
It was a little strange for me feeble mind
try langue's,
alphabet's in langue,
that could be a reason for same symbols and different meanings.
It was a little strange for me feeble mind
try langue's,
alphabet's in langue,
that could be a reason for same symbols and different meanings.
Now that was funny Phonemics , phoneme and the first 2 are ox house
You are a funny guy < you know that just is incorrigible
You are a funny guy < you know that just is incorrigible
the frequency of rotation by three balls 3^3 is the landscape in the SI system
123 456 and 789 , you can group them in binary also . That is the magic
you got odd 258s and you got even 258s and by the law of 2 they rotate back and forth between the two fields example would be 2
so you got 2,11,20,29,38,47 and so on
see how they alternate in a pattern
why is that important cause in the land of 2 sticks they either cross or they don't unless they are bent sticks but if they parallel they extend to ......................infinity they will never intersect but if they are not they will .
so you see how they are odd or even and alternating in the lineal expression . It is the dualistic nature of 2
i wonder what the growth pattern is ? it appears to be 9
pick up sticks .
So maybe you can see how it is based on 3 sticks and a one 0 yet everything falls in the 3 groups regardless and shows 0 as a place marker containing nothing .
I am talking about a code like 5 what it means to be a five . The code is
5162738495 repeat see how it is the turn around in the expression
51627/38495 see how they all ad to 10 from center out which does follow my law of equal ends quite well and if you add one more to the list < the next in the sequence it will 6 up the middle and be one half the equal distance to the end
51627/3/84951 all by reduction math, see that , it is perfect in the expression
but what is interesting to me is the either or the other aspect of the 5 code for it is binary in nature as 2 by its code
see the either or the other in it . Every other is a count linear up and a count up
still dualistic you see that
take out every other 56789 and 12345 interwoven in the knot and if you think about it that is exactly the nature of counting by fives cause well every other 5 is 0 or 5 in its final say
123 456 and 789 , you can group them in binary also . That is the magic
you got odd 258s and you got even 258s and by the law of 2 they rotate back and forth between the two fields example would be 2
so you got 2,11,20,29,38,47 and so on
see how they alternate in a pattern
why is that important cause in the land of 2 sticks they either cross or they don't unless they are bent sticks but if they parallel they extend to ......................infinity they will never intersect but if they are not they will .
so you see how they are odd or even and alternating in the lineal expression . It is the dualistic nature of 2
i wonder what the growth pattern is ? it appears to be 9
pick up sticks .
So maybe you can see how it is based on 3 sticks and a one 0 yet everything falls in the 3 groups regardless and shows 0 as a place marker containing nothing .
I am talking about a code like 5 what it means to be a five . The code is
5162738495 repeat see how it is the turn around in the expression
51627/38495 see how they all ad to 10 from center out which does follow my law of equal ends quite well and if you add one more to the list < the next in the sequence it will 6 up the middle and be one half the equal distance to the end
51627/3/84951 all by reduction math, see that , it is perfect in the expression
but what is interesting to me is the either or the other aspect of the 5 code for it is binary in nature as 2 by its code
see the either or the other in it . Every other is a count linear up and a count up
still dualistic you see that
take out every other 56789 and 12345 interwoven in the knot and if you think about it that is exactly the nature of counting by fives cause well every other 5 is 0 or 5 in its final say
ultimately what are we talking about < i think it is equal potential planes . It mercies up well to an electrical circuit diagram . how electrons peel off in induction . Reenforcing the flow of current off a monopole and is what causes the flip flop of a common magnet . The rotation . So now I am adding a name to my periodic chart < So it will now be
The Periodic chart of whole numbers in SI module 7 . and if you get lost in it so be it cause it will blow your mind how perfect the expression is
If we can master it and apply it ????? Frankie Raphie why don't you venture out on other threads . Raphie knows what I am talking about . He is the one who introduced the idea of compatibility with natural occurrences or mathematical laws for that matter. Also Albert the Piano tuner in his tile work . The flip flop of tiling 7s and 3s in tiling
Yeah Mason stuff all the way . It is real life structures of compounds. Crystallized moments of math structures manifested
The Periodic chart of whole numbers in SI module 7 . and if you get lost in it so be it cause it will blow your mind how perfect the expression is
If we can master it and apply it ????? Frankie Raphie why don't you venture out on other threads . Raphie knows what I am talking about . He is the one who introduced the idea of compatibility with natural occurrences or mathematical laws for that matter. Also Albert the Piano tuner in his tile work . The flip flop of tiling 7s and 3s in tiling
Yeah Mason stuff all the way . It is real life structures of compounds. Crystallized moments of math structures manifested
For anyone considering purchasing RealityCheck's book of nonsense, can I please suggest the far superior, cheaper original work:
Click
Click
RealtyCheck is a sad troll.
リアリティチェックは精神病愚かである
Verkligheten-kontrollera är en hjärna knullad mutterjobb
Verkligheten-kontrollera är en hjärna knullad mutterjobb
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.