Time is fractured
- Thread starter elle
- Start date
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
I see no reason to dumb myself down to your level. Or did you give me that "homework assignment" for me to find out that you are Miles Mathis' biggest fan? Or perhaps that you ARE Miles Mathis? Do you want me to start pointing out all of his silly mistakes as well?
RMT
Einstein
Dimensional Traveler
Rainman
I'm back. We have some very interesting history. I'm always picking on you. You are always picking on me. We both see each other as adversaries. I really don't consider myself to be egotistical. But apparently maybe I might give that impression. I do see you as egotistical. You do give that impression. I kind of look at the world as all of us are equal. So I spent some time going over what you had to say about cubed acceleration. At first I thought about some of the errors that you made and was getting ready for a retaliatory strike. Then something clicked. And I said to myself, just stop and think about it for a while before I act. So I went back over every little detail you wrote down. Trying to comprehend why you comprehend cubed acceleration this way. Then it occurred to me that what if you were taught to comprehend it in this manner by your instructors. Well, then it becomes a belief. So I compared it to my beliefs. What was taught to me by my instructors. Its different. Not just a little. A lot. Basic definitions for some of the words we use appear to be interpreted differently. That was a very interesting find. So our basic knowledge is not the same. You speak an entirely different language than I do. Yet it was my belief that we both believe we were speaking the same one. It's obvious to me that I'm in error. We cannot communicate on a mathematical level because the mathematics I was taught, is not the same as what you were taught. In fact it may be that neither of us actually know anything about cubed acceleration. Just what we believe. So now I have to apologize for my "chicken" statement above. I really can't hold a persons belief system against him. Since I don't believe a persons belief system is his fault. It's the fault of his educators. My educators too. Since I have no way to tell off the bat if what I was taught is true and real. And now it occurs to me that I have to apologize about my psychological analysis of you. So sorry about that. I did happen to mention my little theory about a group of scientists being responcible for the F=MA formula, and what we were taught, not actually matching the physical observation. I guess this cubed acceleration example will further support that theory. Also no real major advancements in physics since the 1940's. This reminds me of the Tower of Babel.
Tower of Babel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I did come across something about Darby that peaked my interest. He has a university education in experimental psychology. So that makes me wonder just why he brought up the subject of cubed acceleration. Kind of like he took a baseball bat to a beehive. And then stepped back to watch the mayhem. Fess up Darby.
Now onto those physical observations that I wrote down. I did notice that you actually agreed with me on some of them. Is that a first? Rainman and Einstein agreed on something. It's not my intention to pick on you. It never was. So since we might have an avenue here on true collaboration over something we agree on, I think we might actually benefit from the outcome of that collaboration. I have noticed some patterns in the physical observations. Treat each one of the observations as if they were particles. Each particle has at least one vector associated with it. I'm just now realizing as I write this, that those particles can be combined. That results in a set of new vectors when you do that. So let's take a look at one such hypothetical example. I want to use the gravitational weight observation as one vector particle. I know you disagreed on this one when I said weight on the surface of the planet has no measurable acceleration associated with it. You agreed with the observation but did fall back and claim an acceleration has to be present. I know we are both taught that in school. But the observation shows that no measurable acceleration is present here in spacetime. I suppose that acceleration could be somewhere else. But lets push it off to the side for now and stick to the facts. I want to apply an inertial force on an object to hover it. Inertial force usually is associated with three vectors. Lets hypothectically use an electrically powered ducted fan hoverable aircraft for this scenario. Lets give a a weight of 2.2 pounds to our aircraft. Lets hover it two feet off the ground. Look at the vectors present. Here in spacetime we have a propulsive force vector exactly balancing the gravitational weight vector. They are opposed in opposite directions and equal to each other. The two other vectors normally present with an inertial force aren't present. The aircraft doesn't have an additional inertial weight or measurable acceleration. I guess you could say experimental proof that this aircraft is not accelerating through spacetime. Lets increase the propulsive force to 2.3 pounds. Now we have an inertial acceleration upwards and an additional inertial weight downwards. The vector count goes up to four. I've never done this before so this is new for me. But what I see right now is that I need to write down the modified force equation that reflects the gravitational weight vector. Now I don't know if this is new for you or not. But the assignment is to formulate that equation. I'll have it by tomorrow. Don't really need to accelerate the aircraft too high. No need to calculate the change in weight due to any radial distance away from the earth. This is just an exercise in creating math to represent real physical observations. If you want, get your students involved. Maybe Darby will take a stab at it. Lets call this mother natures class of observational math. There are other particle combinations. So there will be more math to formulate in this class after this lesson. Just remember, I'm a student too in this class. I'll check back tomorrow and see how everyone is doing or if even anyone wants to participate.
I'm back. We have some very interesting history. I'm always picking on you. You are always picking on me. We both see each other as adversaries. I really don't consider myself to be egotistical. But apparently maybe I might give that impression. I do see you as egotistical. You do give that impression. I kind of look at the world as all of us are equal. So I spent some time going over what you had to say about cubed acceleration. At first I thought about some of the errors that you made and was getting ready for a retaliatory strike. Then something clicked. And I said to myself, just stop and think about it for a while before I act. So I went back over every little detail you wrote down. Trying to comprehend why you comprehend cubed acceleration this way. Then it occurred to me that what if you were taught to comprehend it in this manner by your instructors. Well, then it becomes a belief. So I compared it to my beliefs. What was taught to me by my instructors. Its different. Not just a little. A lot. Basic definitions for some of the words we use appear to be interpreted differently. That was a very interesting find. So our basic knowledge is not the same. You speak an entirely different language than I do. Yet it was my belief that we both believe we were speaking the same one. It's obvious to me that I'm in error. We cannot communicate on a mathematical level because the mathematics I was taught, is not the same as what you were taught. In fact it may be that neither of us actually know anything about cubed acceleration. Just what we believe. So now I have to apologize for my "chicken" statement above. I really can't hold a persons belief system against him. Since I don't believe a persons belief system is his fault. It's the fault of his educators. My educators too. Since I have no way to tell off the bat if what I was taught is true and real. And now it occurs to me that I have to apologize about my psychological analysis of you. So sorry about that. I did happen to mention my little theory about a group of scientists being responcible for the F=MA formula, and what we were taught, not actually matching the physical observation. I guess this cubed acceleration example will further support that theory. Also no real major advancements in physics since the 1940's. This reminds me of the Tower of Babel.
Tower of Babel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I did come across something about Darby that peaked my interest. He has a university education in experimental psychology. So that makes me wonder just why he brought up the subject of cubed acceleration. Kind of like he took a baseball bat to a beehive. And then stepped back to watch the mayhem. Fess up Darby.
Now onto those physical observations that I wrote down. I did notice that you actually agreed with me on some of them. Is that a first? Rainman and Einstein agreed on something. It's not my intention to pick on you. It never was. So since we might have an avenue here on true collaboration over something we agree on, I think we might actually benefit from the outcome of that collaboration. I have noticed some patterns in the physical observations. Treat each one of the observations as if they were particles. Each particle has at least one vector associated with it. I'm just now realizing as I write this, that those particles can be combined. That results in a set of new vectors when you do that. So let's take a look at one such hypothetical example. I want to use the gravitational weight observation as one vector particle. I know you disagreed on this one when I said weight on the surface of the planet has no measurable acceleration associated with it. You agreed with the observation but did fall back and claim an acceleration has to be present. I know we are both taught that in school. But the observation shows that no measurable acceleration is present here in spacetime. I suppose that acceleration could be somewhere else. But lets push it off to the side for now and stick to the facts. I want to apply an inertial force on an object to hover it. Inertial force usually is associated with three vectors. Lets hypothectically use an electrically powered ducted fan hoverable aircraft for this scenario. Lets give a a weight of 2.2 pounds to our aircraft. Lets hover it two feet off the ground. Look at the vectors present. Here in spacetime we have a propulsive force vector exactly balancing the gravitational weight vector. They are opposed in opposite directions and equal to each other. The two other vectors normally present with an inertial force aren't present. The aircraft doesn't have an additional inertial weight or measurable acceleration. I guess you could say experimental proof that this aircraft is not accelerating through spacetime. Lets increase the propulsive force to 2.3 pounds. Now we have an inertial acceleration upwards and an additional inertial weight downwards. The vector count goes up to four. I've never done this before so this is new for me. But what I see right now is that I need to write down the modified force equation that reflects the gravitational weight vector. Now I don't know if this is new for you or not. But the assignment is to formulate that equation. I'll have it by tomorrow. Don't really need to accelerate the aircraft too high. No need to calculate the change in weight due to any radial distance away from the earth. This is just an exercise in creating math to represent real physical observations. If you want, get your students involved. Maybe Darby will take a stab at it. Lets call this mother natures class of observational math. There are other particle combinations. So there will be more math to formulate in this class after this lesson. Just remember, I'm a student too in this class. I'll check back tomorrow and see how everyone is doing or if even anyone wants to participate.
Okay, is that Romanian or what language is that? My parents tell me it's Romanian, and it's what they speak to each other, but when I met a Romanian person, they said that the phrases I knew weren't Romanian. I recognize the words "video", "vidi", "vos", and "vado". Pronounced in my house as "wee-DAY-oh", "wee-dee" "WOU-ss", and "WAA-doh". My parents tend to pronounce "V"s as "W"s and always forget to use "W" when spelling. And they also seem to always write their "U"s as "V"s. What does this mean?
Where do people speak Latin? Everything I find says it's a dead language, but my parents come from old Romania and all the Latin I find on the internet looks like what they call Romanian. None of the Romanian I find looks familiar. So are there still pockets of Latin speakers in Romania? This would answer a lot of questions for me.
Einstein
Dimensional Traveler
I'm not qualified to answer your questions. When I was in school, Latin was offered as an optional elective course. But I cheated and used a Latin translator on the internet. So that is the extent of my Latin abilities. But it was kind of amusing trying to find a translator to change the Latin back to English. I didn't find one. Luckily I remembered the English words I used to go from English to Latin.
I tried to take Latin in high school but my parents forbade it. Do you know how I could find this out? Nothing I've learned about Romania seems to correlate to what my parents say or my memory of it - what little I have. I've only met one Romanian person here in the United States, and they also seemed to contradict everything my parents told me about Romania and the Romanian language. If I could just find out that Latin is still spoken in rural parts of Romania, where they still wear tunics without pants, and where there are no phone lines or electricity, then I can just leave this site and live my life.
Einstein
Dimensional Traveler
Rainman
I never heard of this guy until today. So I gave him 20 minutes of my time. I chose the Michelson Morley topic he wrote about. I started to nod off while reading his dissertation. Does he ever make a point? I think he might do well as a senator. Definitely good filibustering skills.
I never heard of this guy until today. So I gave him 20 minutes of my time. I chose the Michelson Morley topic he wrote about. I started to nod off while reading his dissertation. Does he ever make a point? I think he might do well as a senator. Definitely good filibustering skills.
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Einstein,
As with Darby, I grow tired of your unquantified verbalizations and distractions, not to mention your assignments. When presented with facts about how your past words were incorrect, you just want to brush them off and leave them as more dead carrion in your march of ill-formed science. Darby showed where your units of your basic equation were wrong, I also showed you where the units of "cubed acceleration" do not match proper calculus derivatives, which is what you described.
We cannot progress in anything new you say, because of all the incorrect stuff you have already presented, but left un-addressed. This not merely a game of "Rainman's vs. Einstein's way of deriving equations." While you stand alone with your theories (and equations whose units do not balance), Darby & I present verfied equations and laws of physics that have stood the test of time, and many greater minds that came before us. You can't keep merely ignoring the scientific facts that Darby and I point out and expect for us to wish to continue to engage you.
Deal directly with the points we have made above. Don't run off starting something new.
RMT
As with Darby, I grow tired of your unquantified verbalizations and distractions, not to mention your assignments. When presented with facts about how your past words were incorrect, you just want to brush them off and leave them as more dead carrion in your march of ill-formed science. Darby showed where your units of your basic equation were wrong, I also showed you where the units of "cubed acceleration" do not match proper calculus derivatives, which is what you described.
We cannot progress in anything new you say, because of all the incorrect stuff you have already presented, but left un-addressed. This not merely a game of "Rainman's vs. Einstein's way of deriving equations." While you stand alone with your theories (and equations whose units do not balance), Darby & I present verfied equations and laws of physics that have stood the test of time, and many greater minds that came before us. You can't keep merely ignoring the scientific facts that Darby and I point out and expect for us to wish to continue to engage you.
Deal directly with the points we have made above. Don't run off starting something new.
RMT
Darby
Epochal Historian
Of course you can't count a Mol of atoms. You put a mass of n Mols of a substance on a scale and measure the effect of the gravitational acceleration on it as the mass impinges on the scale apparatus and determine its weight. You're not really measuring its mass with the scale. Rather, you're extrapolating the mass using an equation specific to the gravitational field (Earth). You know the weight (W) and the force (g) so all you need do is rearrange the equation and isolate mass: m = W/g (m = F/a).
Take the same mass to the Moon and it will weigh only 1/6th but the mass will be the same. Why? The gravitational acceleration is only 1/6th with reference to Earth but n Mols is n Mols is n Mols: 6.02 * 10^23 n atoms (discounting radionuclide decay).
What's actually going on with mass versus weight is that in common use we tend to use the wrong term. It's not a problem because we understand what we mean when talking informally. But in a physics or chem lab the terms are not interchangeable and using them loosely introduces unintentional vagueness and errors. Mass is a scalar and rest mass is a constant in the Newtonian weak field, low velocity limits. Weight is the "F" in F = ma. Mass is included as part of the definition of weight. If mass is one part of a two part definition of weight then mass, obviously, cannot be weight.
Eistein's problem understanding much of physics is his misapprehension that standing on the surface of the Earth you are not subject to a constant gravitational acceleration. You are. I've told him on more than one occassion that he fails to fully analyze his physics problems, specifically the forces involved and conservation laws. The same is true with this one. I'll ask you: You're receiving a constant gravitational acceleration while standing on the surface. Why don't you fall to the center of the Earth? Think about tall, marble Roman "poles" used in their buildings. The missing link's name is similar to the proper name for the "poles". Another hint: X is to one as Y is to 10^38.
Einstein
Dimensional Traveler
Rainman
I am going to deal with all the points you have made above. But the path I choose is going to be to reeducate myself with the truth. Getting that truth will be fun. Where does one go to get a calculus book dated before the suspected change took place? And the equations wont be that hard for me to look at in a converted form using weight instead of mass. Apparently I was educated with algebra that does work in the real world. I did the homework assignment if you're interested. There does appear to be an attempt to remove all mention of the term weight in my physics education. Centrifugal force was one such term, that a very hearty attempt was made, to make me think centrifugal force was a fictitious force. And then there was the mention by one of my instructors about a centrifugal force term that Lorentz used in his Lorentz force equation. I was told that no one knew or understood why Lorentz included the term in his equation. So the term was removed. So I really have to ask, just what is a centrifuge, if centrifugal force doesn't exist? So what about those unbalanced equations? Did you take a look at my above example of a hover-able aircraft? Apparently from the observation, the only time gravitational weight can be set equal to inertial weight is when no acceleration is present. The two types of weight don't add together. It's like a sharing is taking place. You did slip up you know. I saw you comprehend and say something about each one of my observations. That kind of tells me you can visualize. Sort of like tasting the forbidden fruit. Now Darby is another matter altogether. Kind of like a slippery snake. He's good. I still don't know if he's tasted the forbidden fruit. But I'll get him. He'll slip up eventually.
I am going to deal with all the points you have made above. But the path I choose is going to be to reeducate myself with the truth. Getting that truth will be fun. Where does one go to get a calculus book dated before the suspected change took place? And the equations wont be that hard for me to look at in a converted form using weight instead of mass. Apparently I was educated with algebra that does work in the real world. I did the homework assignment if you're interested. There does appear to be an attempt to remove all mention of the term weight in my physics education. Centrifugal force was one such term, that a very hearty attempt was made, to make me think centrifugal force was a fictitious force. And then there was the mention by one of my instructors about a centrifugal force term that Lorentz used in his Lorentz force equation. I was told that no one knew or understood why Lorentz included the term in his equation. So the term was removed. So I really have to ask, just what is a centrifuge, if centrifugal force doesn't exist? So what about those unbalanced equations? Did you take a look at my above example of a hover-able aircraft? Apparently from the observation, the only time gravitational weight can be set equal to inertial weight is when no acceleration is present. The two types of weight don't add together. It's like a sharing is taking place. You did slip up you know. I saw you comprehend and say something about each one of my observations. That kind of tells me you can visualize. Sort of like tasting the forbidden fruit. Now Darby is another matter altogether. Kind of like a slippery snake. He's good. I still don't know if he's tasted the forbidden fruit. But I'll get him. He'll slip up eventually.
Einstein
Dimensional Traveler
Darby
You know I'm just using the observable facts to support my claim. The fact that there is no measurable acceleration through space, while an object sits on the surface of the earth, is readily verifiable. So if you do want to make the statement that an acceleration is present, you'll have to show where it is. I think that's a fair requirement. I myself have given the idea of extra dimensions as a possible solution to where that assumed acceleration could be. But then I would have to prove the extra dimensions exist. I haven't heard of anyone doing that yet. So just where is this acceleration?
You know I'm just using the observable facts to support my claim. The fact that there is no measurable acceleration through space, while an object sits on the surface of the earth, is readily verifiable. So if you do want to make the statement that an acceleration is present, you'll have to show where it is. I think that's a fair requirement. I myself have given the idea of extra dimensions as a possible solution to where that assumed acceleration could be. But then I would have to prove the extra dimensions exist. I haven't heard of anyone doing that yet. So just where is this acceleration?
Darby
Epochal Historian
Oh, for Christ's sake. Extra dimensions? Really? A "problem" this simple for an Einstein and you have to resort to extra GD dimensions to attempt an explanation? It's a lot simpler than that.
Am I going to give you the answer right now? Nope. Hopefully Gpa will see the answer. It realy is simple. Embarassingly so.
Einstein
Dimensional Traveler
Darby, if you visualized it correctly then you have probably realized that the acceleration of any falling body is halted. And what results is the property of weight takes its place. But the inertial weight and the gravitational weight appear to share with each other. There is a distinction between the two if you pay attention to the the force and weight vectors. With my hypothetical hovering aircraft the applied inertial force vector is exactly balanced against the gravitational weight vector. They oppose each other with no measurable acceleration. Not so with gravitational weight and gravitational force vectors, both of which line up in the same direction. A distinction which the other Einstein tried to pass off as equivalent with his equivalency principal. A lie. And that lie would implicate him in this deception. Just remember mass is a scalar and doesn't have a vector associated with it. So the next time you are in your car and decide to press down on the gas pedal, you will feel the presence of weight which pushes you back in your seat as the vehicle accelerates. Both the weight and acceleration have opposing vectors. And of course there is the applied force vector as well. Just look at the vectors. Gravitational weight and inertial weight are not the same animal. But it appears there is no distinction when applying an inertial force. The big difference I see is inertial weight only occurs with acceleration through space time. Gravitational weight disappears with gravitational acceleration through space time. I'm going to stick with the observed facts on this one. And yes, I did the math.
Darby
Epochal Historian
But weight equals mass times gravitational acceleration, doesn't it? I mean, after all, you said so in a few posts back.
Anyway, the question wasn't really for you. You'll never get the answer, well, because you have no interest in the answer. It's contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism that's only important for you.
Darby;
I wasn't sure if the question was to me or Einstein and I will give it a shot.
The only thing I could come up with for the reason I don't continue on to the center of the earth is that everything that got here before me stops me and the force of gravity is insufficient to cause me to overcome the surface tension of the ground. So I am at equalibrium with both. Am I close? Or am I embarassed?
I wasn't sure if the question was to me or Einstein and I will give it a shot.
The only thing I could come up with for the reason I don't continue on to the center of the earth is that everything that got here before me stops me and the force of gravity is insufficient to cause me to overcome the surface tension of the ground. So I am at equalibrium with both. Am I close? Or am I embarassed?
Darby
Epochal Historian
Exactly. It's the Coulomb repulsion of the electrons between the ground and your feet. That's a force vector exactly opposed to gravitational acceleration. You're at equilibrium but you are being accelerated in both directions. An engineer would say that you were being strained and Hooke's Law applies to the situation - harmonic oscillation, just like a spring. The forces are not actually cancelled. An engineer would not ingore that fact. If we set the gravitational force to 1 then the EM force is 10^38. It takes every gram of Earth's matter to attract you with an acceleration of 9.8 m/sec^-2. It takes just the electrons under your feet to give you an equal but opposite acceleration. And Hooke's Law applies to scales. Stand on the scale and the spring mechanics compresses under your 9.8 m/sec^-2 acceleration - until the You + Scale system together reaches equilibrium...and you measure your weight which by implication allows you to calculate your mass.
But some say that's not acceleration. Some have forgotten the Principle of Equivalence. If you were in a large room with no windows and no other way to "look outside" at the environment (look, feel, hear or otherwise detect what's going on outside) there's no way you could determine whether the room was sitting on the ground or being towed through space with an acceleration of 1 g. No experiment that you could run would determine whether you were sitting on the Earth being accelerated toward the center of gravity (while being equally repelled by the Coulomb Force) or being towed out in space.
That reminds me of a discussion in Physics class. If you could drill a hole thru the earth and then drop in a bowling ball it would fall thru the center and the 'out' the other side until gravity over came its (velocity, or inertia?) and would fall the other direction and on and on. Each time the distance traveled would decrease until it finally 'appeared' motionless (Einstein's scientific method) while in reality (Darby or Rainman's scientific method and nearly everyone else's) it would actually be oscillating at an increasingly higher frequency (for infinity?). Sometimes things are not as they appear.