| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Peter Kinane" |
| Date: |
13 Dec 2003 06:52:21 AM |
| Object: |
Miscellaneous Items |
Miscellaneous Items
1. Gardner's Paradox
2. The Theory of Relativity
3. ...
1. Gardner's Paradox
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk Courtesy of Androcles
Instead of, as in Gardner's Paradox, perceiving the movement of the beam of
light as a "V" shape and adopting the strategy of explanation that the clock
of the reference frame is running faster than that on the other ship - that
the clock on the other ship is slower than on the ref. frame ship - and then
attempting to develop the math. to correct that strategy which in turn leads
to developing a chaotic model of Nature, let's get the inertial frame clear-
well defined - and thereby establish the movement the beam of light makes.
Having got these basics clear, one can then either measure the movement of
the beam of light as between two fixed positions in the inertial frame and
get the right speed or one can measure it against a moving background - the
ship, or the back wall of the cabin of the ship - against which it would of
course take the "V" shape. To allow for the movement of the ship and the "V"
shape simply close the "V" to make an isosceles triangle and measure the
height of the line that would equally dissect the triangle. Again, thereby
getting the right speed of the beam of light.
---
2. The Theory of Relativity
It seems to me that this title was settled upon because we only perceive
inter-related forces - Einstein's no background at rest idea.
Value effecting through relational forces is better described as relational
value than relative value; it seems to lead to a subtly different
understanding of things - if only in our predispositions.
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/
.
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Miscellaneous Items |
13 Dec 2003 12:04:55 PM |
|
|
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:brf1tu$cgl$1@kermit.esat.net...
Miscellaneous Items of Relevance to TTRFM
The Theory of Relational Forces Model:
Given *Time- -Being and a "standard movement speed" or clock.
Establish an inertial spatial frame, through [...]
(So, I suppose that becomes the reference frame (Man/Person- -Ground) - even
if it is galactic in dimensions).
It would remain for one to estimate the position of given moving objects, or
whatever, within the spatial frame at different times.
*Time- -Being: Effect, through tension of forces.
1. Gardner's Paradox
2. The Theory of Relativity
3. ...
1. Gardner's Paradox
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk Courtesy of Androcles
Instead of, as in Gardner's Paradox, perceiving the movement of the beam
of
light as a "V" shape and adopting the strategy of explanation that the
clock
of the reference frame is running faster than that on the other ship -
that
the clock on the other ship is slower than on the ref. frame ship - and
then
attempting to develop the math. to correct that strategy which in turn
leads
to developing a chaotic model of Nature, let's get the inertial frame
clear-
well defined - and thereby establish the movement the beam of light makes.
Having got these basics clear, one can then either measure the movement of
the beam of light as between two fixed positions in the inertial frame and
get the right speed or one can measure it against a moving background -
the
ship, or the back wall of the cabin of the ship - against which it would
of
course take the "V" shape. To allow for the movement of the ship and the
"V"
shape simply close the "V" to make an isosceles triangle and measure the
height of the line that would equally dissect the triangle. Again, thereby
getting the right speed of the beam of light.
Edit:
To allow for the movement of the ship and the consequent "V" shape of the
light beam movement simply close the "V" to make a triangle and measure the
height of the perpendicular line from the base which would intersect the
opposite angle and multiply by two. Again, thereby getting the right speed
of the beam of light.
---
2. The Theory of Relativity
It seems to me that this title was settled upon because we only perceive
inter-related forces - Einstein's no background at rest idea.
Value effecting through relational forces is better described as
relational
value than relative value; it seems to lead to a subtly different
understanding of things - if only in our predispositions.
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Miscellaneous Items |
13 Dec 2003 02:14:27 PM |
|
|
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:brfk5o$krp$1@kermit.esat.net...
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:brf1tu$cgl$1@kermit.esat.net...
Miscellaneous Items of Relevance to TTRFM
The Theory of Relational Forces Model:
Man- -Ground in tension with Moving Object/Animal - Time- -Being.
Define within Man- -Ground an inertial field.
Within that field is distance from A to B. Call it DX.
Moving Object/Animal in relationship with DX is an event.
The duration of the particular movement (DX) shall be SMS (Standard Movement
Speed).
Different movements DX would be Different times SMS (or DtSMS).
Given Time- -Being and a "standard movement speed" or clock.
Establish an inertial spatial frame, perhaps galactic in dimensions, through
....
Within this establish reference frame.
Action in relationship with this reference frame is an event.
1. Gardner's Paradox
2. The Theory of Relativity
3. ...
1. Gardner's Paradox
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk Courtesy of Androcles
Instead of, as in Gardner's Paradox, perceiving the movement of the beam
of
light as a "V" shape and adopting the strategy of explanation that the
clock
of the reference frame is running faster than that on the other ship -
that
the clock on the other ship is slower than on the ref. frame ship - and
then
attempting to develop the math. to correct that strategy which in turn
leads
to developing a chaotic model of Nature, let's get the inertial frame
clear-
well defined - and thereby establish the movement the beam of light
makes.
Having got these basics clear, one can then either measure the movement
of
the beam of light as between two fixed positions in the inertial frame
and
get the right speed or one can measure it against a moving background -
the
ship, or the back wall of the cabin of the ship - against which it would
of
course take the "V" shape. To allow for the movement of the ship and the
"V"
shape simply close the "V" to make an isosceles triangle and measure the
height of the line that would equally dissect the triangle. Again,
thereby
getting the right speed of the beam of light.
Edit:
To allow for the movement of the ship and the consequent "V" shape of the
light beam movement simply close the "V" to make a triangle and measure
the
height of the perpendicular line from the base which would intersect the
opposite angle and multiply by two. Again, thereby getting the right speed
of the beam of light.
---
2. The Theory of Relativity
It seems to me that this title was settled upon because we only perceive
inter-related forces - Einstein's no background at rest idea.
Value effecting through relational forces is better described as
relational
value than relative value; it seems to lead to a subtly different
understanding of things - if only in our predispositions.
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Miscellaneous Items |
17 Dec 2003 03:41:20 AM |
|
|
Is there an archer amongst us?
The Theory of Relational Forces Model
TTRFM, informed by the principles of the philosophy system
"Effectuationism",
http://www.effectuationism.com/ , and the basic formula for a four
dimensional Universe, is an alternative formula for the four
dimensional apparent Universe.
Making an SMS (Standard Movement Speed):
Time- -Being: Tension of indefinite and dynamic forces.
To establish value through a definite reference frame, establish an
inertial field.
Within that field is distance from A to B. Call it DX.
Action - e.g. moving Object/Animal - in relationship with DX is an
event.
The duration of the particular movement (DX) shall be SMS (Standard
Movement
Speed).
Different movements DX would be Different times SMS (or DtSMS).
A formula for a four dimensional Universe:
Given: Time- -Being.
Establish an inertial spatial frame, perhaps galactic in dimensions,
through co-ordinates.
Within this establish reference frame, and frames within frames. (Have
we an archer present?)
We measure speed of movement within this space by comparing it with an
SMS.
* I expect that people are not used to using, perhaps even thinking
of, a clock as an SMS.
Oh there you are.
I want you to shoot an arrow through the centre of the sun in the
direction of the sun's path in relation to the rest of the galaxy
thereby making a line. Through this we shall have North South
direction and, because we know which side of the sun the rest of the
galaxy is, we shall also have East West. On this we can build lines of
longitude and latitude such that we can map an adequate inertial field
of the Universe. (Don't be nervous).
Good job. Now, such a line deserves a name. The name shall be, not
just for its obvious suitability, but also that it might have some
connotations of this community, La Linea del Sol.
SMS: Let's be economical and make the SMS that of the existing clocks,
determined by a point, such as Big Ben, on the earth, spinning on its
axis, in relation to the sun.
Attempt to verify the model:
With a watch/clock showing 10.30 am, and running, one leaves the door
of one's house to walk the 1 mile to the local mathematician (to chat
about how to calculate the speed of one's return walk). On arrival the
watch is showing 10.40 am - better at walking than at math.
What does ten mins. represent? The earth at the equator does 24,901
thousand miles in 24 hours (1440 mins). It does 24,901 miles divided
by 1440 in one min. (17.3). So, the result multiplied by 10 is what
it does in 10 mins. In comparison with this SMS, the walker has done 1
mile in 10 mins.
Of course the scene can be complicated by having different walkers
commence from different points and walking at the necessary speed to
meet the mathematician simultaneously, though he is on his way to the
golf course.
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Miscellaneous Items |
17 Dec 2003 11:35:36 AM |
|
|
Peter Kinane wrote:
Is there an archer amongst us?
The Theory of Relational Forces Model
TTRFM, informed by the principles of the philosophy system
"Effectuationism",
[snip]
and the basic formula for a four
dimensional Universe, is an alternative formula for the four
dimensional apparent Universe.
Making an SMS (Standard Movement Speed):
Time- -Being: Tension of indefinite and dynamic forces.
To establish value through a definite reference frame, establish an
inertial field.
[snip]
Not merely stooopid, but a full-bore fucking imbecile.
1) http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
<http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm>
2)
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity.
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/index.html>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
Relativity in the GPS system
Relativity is empirically correct to the extreme limits of measurement
in all venues - from a single electron orbiting a uranium nucleus
(man, that's gotta hurt) to the Global Positioning Satellite System to
Einstein rings. Any "theory" that says otherwise is empirical *****.
Look up the meaning of "empirical."
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Miscellaneous Items |
17 Dec 2003 03:42:24 AM |
|
|
Page 2.
The Dynamic of the Universe
This exercise of developing a model of, shall we say, The Dynamic of
the Universe, may be of interest to some, if only, if I may say so, as
an example of how I develop models. I did the exercise which resulted
in TTRFM publicly, too, in part for that reason.
I also believe that in giving the world a beautiful system, such as
the Effectuationism philosophy system, it is important to attempt to
do so beautifully.
Note: One can put long years of work into the possibility of
developing a quite original model, aware that every day one wakes up
all of the previous years of work may collapse.
The Earth 'spins' at approx. 1,030 m/p/h (miles per hour) at the
equator ...
Let's assume a Big Bang splashing material outward into free-space in
somewhat different concentrations, because of the type of collision
from which it occurs or the type of explosion it is, thereby creating
galaxies. Within these secondary (second generation) explosions occur,
and perhaps, too, third generations develop. Within these different
generations, suns develop. But the speeds of motion of these
subsequent generations would, perhaps, be faster than the immediately
preceding one. (Explosions, presumably, would speed things up, and
collisions slow things down).
The speed of material within all systems, having peaked, would remain
constant, at the rate of its formation (determined by the force of the
collisions), unless acted upon.
Also, through splashing- -exploding apart, out into free-space, in
somewhat different concentrations, at least some of the material,
would be coming out in the shape of an arc. I presume all continuous
arcs in free-space, unless acted upon, end up as circles. So, these
'arcs', caused by pressure which is decreasing, would almost become
circles.
Up to this stage, and continuing, the systems are acting on each
other.
The suns in their turn, or some of them, would, while being whirled
spinning ever outward, develop (presumably) into various solar
systems. The spinning would be keep bodies from disintegrating.
An explosion of a sun, within the pressure chamber of the tension of
itself and its neighbours, throwing materials outward in the chamber.
Perhaps the heaviest material should be thrown furthest, if the system
was otherwise inertial, but the sun and general chamber is still
spinning and so the heavier materials seem to end up shorter distances
from the sun. The explosion would also have some impact on the paths,
etc., of the neighbours.
The material scattered by the sun within its world - a tension of
pressure between the sun, at the centre of that world and its
neighbours bordering - would be in a constant pressure zone - in
effect in an inertial field, apart from occasional action upon it. The
various weight materials, having being thrown out a certain radius
from the sun, form circles- -rings. Each ring should retain their
position from the sun, unless novely acted upon. However, the material
in such rings, in the early stages colliding a good deal as it
settled, could tend to bunch up in their respective ring paths, as
collisions would slow some material - so a pile up would develop.
These piles- -planets, perhaps with moons, etc., developed by the same
principles, would probably be spinning, having been formed through
collisions. Also, as seen already, they are within a pressure chamber
- the world - and so their surfaces, etc., would not blow away into
space.
As such a Universe continues to push outward into space, the pressure
of, and in, the various chambers would ease and presumably the radius
of their paths would increase with increasing speed. Eventually, it
would disintegrate 'into dust' somewhat at a 90% angle to its prior
path, thereby gradually enclosing the more inward universe in a
blanket, and trapping it as it arrives through the same process of
disintegration.
Perhaps this blanket would lead to pile ups, and the possibility of
regeneration.
So, in so far as this theory has some weight, I guess that is a
solution to the 'gravity' problem.
As to Black Holes, the only hypothesis I can offer, is that the
interaction of the pressure chambers would occasionally develop weaker
pressure chambers in the system/Universe, causing local systems to go
in a somewhat inward direction - in effect that the speed of the
source, in this case a source somewhat going into reverse, would lead
to 'a break' in the light output.
Light speed is perhaps determined by its source and the somewhat
varying pressures of the different chambers through which it is
propagated. As to its further nature, ...
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Miscellaneous Items |
17 Dec 2003 05:06:56 PM |
|
|
Page 2, revised very slightly.
The Dynamic of the Universe
This exercise of developing a model of, shall we say, The Dynamic of
the Universe, may be of interest to some, if only, if I may say so, as
an example of how I develop models. I did the exercise which resulted
in TTRFM publicly, too, in part for that reason.
I also believe that in giving the world a beautiful system, such as
the Effectuationism philosophy system, it is important to attempt to
do so beautifully.
Note: One can put long years of work into the possibility of
developing a quite original model, aware that every day one wakes up
all of the previous years of work may collapse.
The Earth 'spins' at approx. 1,030 m/p/h (miles per hour) at the
equator ...
Let's assume a Big Bang splashing material outward into free-space in
somewhat different concentrations, because of the type of collision
from which it occurs or the type of explosion it is, thereby creating
galaxies. Within these secondary (second generation) explosions occur,
and perhaps, too, third generations develop. Within these different
generations, suns develop. But the speeds of motion of these
subsequent generations would, perhaps, be faster than the immediately
preceding one. (Explosions, presumably, would speed things up, and
collisions slow things down).
The speed of material within all systems, having peaked, would remain
constant, at the rate of its formation (determined by the force of the
collisions), unless acted upon.
Also, through splashing- -exploding apart, out into free-space, in
somewhat different concentrations, at least some of the material,
would be coming out in the shape of an arc. I presume all continuous
arcs in free-space, unless acted upon, end up as circles. So, these
'arcs', caused by pressure which is decreasing, would almost become
circles.
Up to this stage, and continuing, the systems are acting on each
other.
The suns in their turn, or some of them, would, while being whirled
spinning ever outward, develop (presumably) into various solar
systems. The spinning would keep bodies from disintegrating.
An explosion of a sun, within the pressure chamber of the tension of
itself and its neighbours, throws materials outward in the chamber.
Perhaps the heaviest material should be thrown furthest, if the system
was otherwise inertial, but the sun and general chamber is still
spinning and so the heavier materials seem to end up shorter distances
from the sun. The explosion would also have some impact on the paths,
etc., of the neighbours.
The material scattered by the sun within its world - a tension of
pressure between the sun at the centre of that world and its
neighbours bordering - would be in a constant pressure zone - in
effect in an inertial field, apart from occasional action upon it. The
various weight materials, having being thrown out a certain radius
from the sun, form circles- -rings. Each ring should retain its
position from the sun, unless sustaining novel action. However, the
material in such rings, in the early stages colliding a good deal as
it settled, could tend to bunch up in their respective ring paths, as
collisions would slow some material - so a pile up would develop.
These piles- -planets, perhaps with moons, etc., developed by the same
principles, would probably be spinning, having been formed through
collisions, and so their surfaces, etc., would not blow away
throughout the chamber - the world.
As such a Universe continues to push outward into space, the pressure
of, and in, the various chambers would ease and presumably the radius
of their paths would increase with increasing speed. Eventually,
through decrease of pressure in the chamber and with no further
acceleration, it would disintegrate 'into dust' somewhat at a 90%
angle to its prior path, thereby gradually enclosing the more inward
universe in a blanket, and trapping it as it arrives through the same
process of disintegration.
Perhaps this blanket would lead to pile ups, and the possibility of
regeneration.
However, this particular universe would never get to this stage,
because Earthlings, true to their farming and high technology
ancestry, would have a computer governing each chamber which would
bring it in twice daily for milking.
So, in so far as this theory has some weight, I guess that is a
solution to the 'gravity' problem. (Perhaps GUT, too).
As to Black Holes, the only hypothesis I can offer, is that the
interaction of the pressure chambers would occasionally develop weaker
pressure chambers in the system/Universe, causing local systems to go
in a somewhat inward direction - in effect that the speed of the
source, in this case a source somewhat going into reverse, would lead
to 'a break' in the light output.
Light speed is perhaps determined by its source and the somewhat
varying pressures of the different chambers through which it is
propagated. As to its further nature, ...
Peter Kinane
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Miscellaneous Items |
20 Dec 2003 06:53:46 AM |
|
|
In accordance with the model so far, our chamber would get its
rotation through the pressure of its immediate inner neighbours moving
outwards. In doing so their circumferences increase and so cause our
chamber to rotate. Such a rotating chamber, from the sun at the center
to the periphery, would be one system.When the sun explodes, the
system would impact more, or better catch, the 'heavier' material
issuing. When the various materials settled as planets, and as the
movement of the system is virtually circular, they would be inclined
to lag in the direction of the periphery of the system - in effect
anti-sunwise (anti-clockwise) - and this would be their spin
direction. In their slip stream, lesser bodies might spin in the
opposite direction.
This leaves the matter of the term "heavy" ...
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Miscellaneous Items |
20 Dec 2003 11:48:09 AM |
|
|
Is there an archer amongst us?
The Theory of Relational Forces Model
TTRFM, informed by the principles of the philosophy system
"Effectuationism",
http://www.effectuationism.com/ , and the basic formula for a four
dimensional Universe, is an alternative formula for the four
dimensional apparent Universe.
Making an SMS (Standard Movement Speed):
Time- -Being: Tension of indefinite and dynamic forces.
To establish value through a definite reference frame, establish an
inertial field.
Within that field is distance from A to B. Call it DX.
Action - e.g. moving Object/Animal - in relationship with DX is an
event.
The duration of the particular movement (DX) shall be SMS (Standard
Movement
Speed).
Different movements DX would be Different times SMS (or DtSMS).
A formula for a four dimensional Universe:
Given: Time- -Being.
Establish an inertial spatial frame, perhaps galactic in dimensions,
through co-ordinates.
Within this establish reference frame, and frames within frames. (Have
we an archer present?)
We measure speed of movement within this space by comparing it with an
SMS.
* I expect that people are not used to using, perhaps even thinking
of, a clock as an SMS.
Oh there you are.
I want you to shoot an arrow through the centre of the sun in the
direction of the sun's path in relation to the rest of the galaxy
thereby making a line. Through this we shall have North South
direction and, because we know which side of the sun the rest of the
galaxy is, we shall also have East West. On this we can build lines of
longitude and latitude such that we can map an adequate inertial field
of the Universe. (Don't be nervous).
Good job. Now, such a line deserves a name. The name shall be, not
just for its obvious suitability, but also that it might have some
connotations of this community, La Linea del Sol.
SMS: Let's be economical and make the SMS that of the existing clocks,
determined by a point, such as Big Ben, on the earth, spinning on its
axis, in relation to the sun.
Attempt to verify the model:
With a watch/clock showing 10.30 am, and running, one leaves the door
of one's house to walk the 1 mile to the local mathematician (to chat
about how to calculate the speed of one's return walk). On arrival the
watch is showing 10.40 am - better at walking than at math.
What does ten mins. represent? The earth at the equator does 24,901
thousand miles in 24 hours (1440 mins). It does 24,901 miles divided
by 1440 in one min. (17.3). So, the result multiplied by 10 is what
it does in 10 mins. In comparison with this SMS, the walker has done 1
mile in 10 mins.
Of course the scene can be complicated by having different walkers
commence from different points and walking at the necessary speed to
meet the mathematician simultaneously, though he is on his way to the
golf course.
Peter Kinane
--------- --------
Page 2.
The Dynamic of the Universe
This exercise of developing a model of, shall we say, The Dynamic of
the Universe, may be of interest to some, if only, if I may say so, as
an example of how I develop models. I did the exercise which resulted
in TTRFM publicly, too, in part for that reason.
I also believe that in giving the world a beautiful system, such as
the Effectuationism philosophy system, it is important to attempt to
do so beautifully.
Note: One can put long years of work into the possibility of
developing a quite original model, aware that every day one wakes up
all of the previous years of work may collapse.
The Earth 'spins' at approx. 1,030 m/p/h (miles per hour) at the
equator ...
Let's assume a Big Bang splashing material outward into free-space in
somewhat different concentrations, because of the type of collision
from which it occurs or the type of explosion it is, thereby creating
galaxies. Within these secondary (second generation) explosions occur,
and perhaps, too, third generations develop. Within these different
generations, suns develop. But the speeds of motion of these
subsequent generations would, perhaps, be faster than the immediately
preceding one. (Explosions, presumably, would speed things up, and
collisions slow things down).
Any acceleration of speed of material within systems would be retained
(resulting from the force of the explosions), unless acted upon.
Also, through splashing- -exploding apart, out into free-space, in
somewhat different concentrations, at least some of the material,
would be coming out in the shape of an arc. I presume all continuous
arcs in free-space, unless acted upon, end up as circles. So, these
'arcs', caused by pressure which is decreasing, would almost become
circles.
Up to this stage, and continuing, the systems are acting on each
other.
The suns in their turn, or some of them, would get their rotation
through the pressure of their immediate inner neighbours moving
outwards. In doing so their circumferences increase and so cause the
chambers to rotate. Such a rotating chamber, from the sun at the
center to the periphery, would be one spinning system.
An explosion of a sun or nucleus, within the pressure chamber of the
tension of itself and its neighbours, sends materials outward in the
chamber. The system would impact more, or better catch, the 'heavier'
material issuing, and so the 'heavier' materials would end up shorter
distances from the sun. The explosion would also have some impact on
the paths, etc., of the neighbours.
The sun and the material scattered by the sun within its world - a
tension of pressure between the sun at the centre of that world and
its neighbours bordering - would be a constant pressure zone - in
effect in an inertial field, apart from occasional action upon it.
This zone- -world would be whirling or spinning - driven by the
neighbours, pressing outwards and thereby increasing their
circumferences. The various weight materials, having being thrown out
a certain radius from the sun, form circles- -rings. Each ring should
retain its position from the sun, unless sustaining novel action.
However, the material in such rings, in the early stages colliding a
good deal as it settled, could tend to bunch up in their respective
ring paths, as collisions would slow some material - so a pile up
would develop.
When the various materials settled as planets, and as the movement of
the system is virtually circular, they would be inclined to lag in the
direction of the periphery of the system - in effect anti-sunwise
(anti-clockwise) - and this would be their spin direction - counter
their orbit direction. In their slip stream, lesser bodies might spin
in the opposite direction.
This leaves the matter of the term "heavy" ...
As such a Universe continues to push outward into space, the pressure
of, and in, the various chambers would ease and presumably the radius
of their paths would increase with increasing speed, albeit the rate
of acceleration declining. Eventually, through decrease of pressure in
the chamber and with no further acceleration, it would disintegrate
'into dust' somewhat at a 90% angle to its prior path, thereby
gradually enclosing the more inward universe in a blanket, and
trapping it as it arrives through the same process of disintegration.
Perhaps this blanket would lead to pile ups, and the possibility of
regeneration.
However, this particular universe would never get to this stage,
because Earthlings, true to their farming and high technology
ancestry, would have a computer governing each chamber which would
bring them in twice daily for milking.
So, in so far as this theory has some weight, I guess that is a
solution to the 'gravity' problem. (Perhaps GUT, too).
As to Black Holes, the only hypothesis I can offer, is that the
interaction of the pressure chambers would occasionally develop weaker
pressure chambers in the system/Universe, causing local systems to go
in a somewhat inward direction - in effect that the speed of the
source, in this case a source somewhat going into reverse, would lead
to 'a break' in the light output.
Light speed is perhaps determined by its source and the somewhat
varying pressures of the different chambers through which it is
propagated. As to its further nature, ...
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Miscellaneous Items |
21 Dec 2003 12:42:51 PM |
|
|
(Peter Kinane) wrote in message news:<d8097fcc.0312200948.75d4b624@posting.google.com>...
The Theory of Relational Forces Model
So, in so far as this theory has some weight, I guess that is a
solution to the 'gravity' problem. (Perhaps GUT, too).
As to Black Holes, the only hypothesis I can offer, is that the
interaction of the pressure chambers would occasionally develop weaker
pressure chambers in the system/Universe, causing local systems to go
in a somewhat inward direction - in effect that the speed of the
source, in this case a source somewhat going into reverse, would lead
to 'a break' in the light output.
Light speed is perhaps determined by its source and the somewhat
varying pressures of the different chambers through which it is
propagated. As to its further nature, ...
The 'pressure material' in the "chambers", perhaps I should call it
"aether", would, (also) inferentially, seem quite apparent if, for
example, one of our non-clustered planets - free from 'back wash'
influence of other planet(s) - was spinning in an inward direction to
its orbit of the sun.
To do this we would have to show a consistency of speed of the other
planets, based on their respective density, circumference, and
distance from the center of the chamber.
In contrast with this principle of spinning rate, the inward to orbit
spinning planet should be slower and slowing down.
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Miscellaneous Items |
15 Jan 2004 05:03:55 AM |
|
|
Push Gravity
(Some of the points here may be counter 'factual').
The Earth 'spins' at approx. 1,030 mph (miles per hour) at the
equator ...
Let's assume a Big Bang splashing material outward into freer-space in
somewhat different concentrations, because of the type of collision
through which it occurs or the type of explosion it is, thereby
creating galaxies. Within these, secondary (second generation)
explosions occur, and perhaps, too, third generations develop. Within
these different generations, suns and solar systems with planets
develop. But the speeds of motion of these subsequent generations
would, perhaps, be faster than the immediately preceding one.
(Explosions, presumably, would speed things up, and collisions slow
things down).
Any acceleration of speed of material within systems would gradually
dissipate from these, through being acted upon by slower neighbours.
Also, through splashing- -exploding apart, out into freer-space, in
somewhat different concentrations, (at least some of) the material,
would be coming out in the shape of an arc -arcs - unless sustaining
secondary action. I presume all continuous arcs in freer-space, unless
acted upon, end up as circles. So, these 'arcs', caused by pressure
which is decreasing, would almost become circles.
Up to this stage, and continuing, the systems are acting on each
other.
The suns in their turn, or some of them, would get their rotation
through the pressure of their immediate neighbours moving outwards -
the most immediate inner ones generally being the strongest- -pushiest
neighbours. This interactive movement outwards of the chambers further
causes
the chambers to rotate. As well as being pushy, let's think of these
chambers as spongy. Such a rotating, spongy chamber, from the sun as
the most intense point to the periphery, would be one spinning system.
It would be one spinning system to the degree that much like water
carrying a stone which is moving (being carried) at a slower pace than
the main body of water, the planets and heavier materials - sun,
pretty much, only revolving - would be slower than the 'sponge'-
-water in which they are carried. Also, the sun would be somewhat
off-centre - being in the more squeezed area, as the surrounding
pressure to the chamber would not be equal.
An explosion of a sun, or nucleus, within the pressure chamber of the
tension of itself and its neighbours, sends materials outward in the
chamber. The system- -sponge would impact more, or better catch, the
'heavier' material issuing, and so the 'heavier' materials would end
up shorter distances from the sun. The explosion would also have some
impact on the paths, etc., of the neighbours.
The solar system or world is a spinning- -revolving chamber of
pressure, driven by the initial explosion and by the spongy neighbours
pushing outwards, all increasing their circumferences in the process.
The various weight materials, having
been thrown out their respective distances from the sun and been
caught by the spongy environment, also revolve - somewhat as rings.
Each ring should retain its position from the sun, unless sustaining
novel action. However, the material in such 'rings', in the early
stages colliding a good deal as it settled and so slowing down, would
tend to pile up in their respective orbits.
When the various materials settled as planets, and, carried in the
spongy environment of a system which is slightly increasing its
circumference, they would tend to lag to the periphery of the system -
to outward of orbit - in effect anti-sunwise (anti-clockwise), and
generally this would be their spin direction. In their slip stream,
lesser
bodies- -neighbours might spin in the opposite direction.
The speed of orbit of each respective planet would, presumably, be
influenced by the 'weight', or catchiness, of its material, by its
volume, by its distance from the 'center'- -sun of the system, and by
any
possible moons, etc. Perhaps it would be further influenced by its
position along its orbit, as, for example, when passing through the
squeeze area with the most pushy neighbours of the system. If so,
this should change (increase) the rate of spin. If it speeded up, the
day would
shorten. Likewise, the rate should change (slow) in the most spacious-
-free position along its orbit - perhaps, in such conditions, our
clocks too change pace accordingly.
Given that this is a push gravity model, presumably, as well as the
rate of travel change, there is matter contraction- -expansion,
respectively.
If pace is increasing and size is contracting, perhaps the combined
effect, apparently not noticeable, at the actual degree, within the
frame of reference (FOR), would, from other FORs, as a principle, have
potential - be interesting.
It seems to me that such change under certain conditions could simply
be established, in relation to a standard FOR, by commencing, in the
SFOR, with two similar clocks (or four as a double check) and
retaining one in the SFOR and subjecting the other to the local FOR.
Then comparing the two - in the SFOR.
Of course, planetary positions are in three dimensions.
This leaves the matter of the term "weight":
Given the principle of a pushy relationship 'of forces'; bodies-
-matter, effecting through
relationship 'of forces', in the sense that such a relationship of
pushy forces effects
a compaction- -expansion tension.
Given such a principle of matter- -energy, and that the forces are
indefinite and dynamic, there will be change. Any given tension will
be indefinite and dynamic and so the whole system will be in something
of a state of flux. Energy- -matter, or energy or/and matter, will be
interacting, and in doing so tilting the equilibrium - setting off
chain reactions. Perhaps, as I. Newton said, every action will have an
opposite and equal reaction of the same magnitude, perhaps (much) as
you say below - and thereby give us the concept of weight, etc.
My thanks to those who attempted to contribute positively in my chance
at developing a model.
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Miscellaneous Items |
18 Jan 2004 04:46:52 PM |
|
|
Expansion Pressure Gravity
(Some of the points here may be counter 'factual').
The Earth 'spins' at approx. 1,030 mph (miles per hour) at the equator
....
Let's assume a Big Bang generating ‘material' – electromagnetic
radiation – which (in tension with ‘freer-space') expands, and in
somewhat different intensities- -concentrations, thereby somewhat
demarcating and effecting galaxies. Within these, secondary (second
generation) explosions- -collisions occur, and perhaps, too, third
generations develop. Within these different generations, suns and
solar systems with planets develop. But the intensity of force and
speeds of motion of these subsequent generations would, perhaps, be
greater than the immediately preceding one. (Explosions- -collisions,
presumably, would intensify pressure, and speed things up, and
reduction of intensity would slow things down).
Any increase of intensity- -speed of material – matter ‘or/and' energy
- within systems would, through interaction with slower – less intense
– neighbours, gradually balance towards equilibrium. However, a
complex interactive dynamic system implicitly would also feature a
counter principle of ongoing variation- -dynamism. In effect, the
system (Universe- -‘Nature') might be described as expressing
demarcatory interactivity – or as effecting through, indeed as, a
tension of demarcatory interactivity.
Such somewhat demarcating, yet interactive, and expanding galaxies
would effect rotation of each other. Their expansion as somewhat
demarcated chambers would be arc-like, unless sustaining secondary
action – thereby the demarcation develops- -progresses. I presume such
arc-like expansion culminates in circularity- -roundness. In which
case, such arc-like expansion would become rotating, almost round,
bodies.
Up to this stage, and continuing, the systems are acting on each
other.
The suns in their turn, or some of them, would each, somewhat
reciprocally, get their rotation through expansion pressure with their
immediate neighbours - the most immediately inner ones generally being
the most intense. This interactive expansion pressure of the chambers
effects rotation of the chambers. This expansion pressure relationship
might, for conceptual convenience, be thought of as spongy. Such a
rotating, spongy chamber, from the sun as the most intense point to
the periphery, would, if featuring- -effecting matter of different
form- -intensity, be one spinning system.
It would be so, in that, much like rapidly moving water effecting
movement of a stone, but at a slower pace than the main body of water
is moving, the planets, perhaps, would be slower moving than the
'sponge'- -water in which they are carried. Additionally, this
pressure chamber effects the stone- - planet.
The sun, pretty much, would only be revolving, and would be somewhat
off-center, in a tension with the most intense neighbours - the
surrounding pressure to the chamber would not be equal – if the entire
(inferential) event is expanding.
An explosion of a sun, or nucleus, within the pressure chamber of the
tension of itself and its neighbours, generates new matter along the
range of .intensity of pressure of the chamber – along the radius from
the sun to the periphery. The explosion would also have some impact on
the paths, etc., of the neighbours – thereby contributing to the
dynamism of the galaxy.
The solar system or world is a spinning- -revolving chamber of
pressure, driven by the initial explosion and by the expansive tension
with the neighbours - all increasing their circumferences in the
process. The various new matter forms, in relationship with the
revolving general sponge matter, also revolve - somewhat as rings.
Each ring effecting through the tension of chamber at its particular
distance along the radius of the system, unless the generative tension
changes.
However, the matter in such revolving rings, let's presume, would tend
to pile up, in their respective orbits of the sun.
So, the various materials form planets, and orbit at the radius from
the sun through which they are generated. This radius is of a chamber
of gradually increasing circumference. If, as earlier, speed increases
through increased intensity of pressure, then in this chamber of,
let's presume, declining intensity – this is determined by both the
principle of increasing circumference and, or in relationship with,
the ‘momentary' intensity of the neighbours - the spin direction of
the planets would be determined. In their ‘slip stream', lesser
bodies- -neighbours might spin in the opposite direction.
If speed increases through increased intensity of pressure, and if
intensity of pressure determines the nature- - form of matter then
intensity of pressure determines the planets and their respective
rates of orbit of the sun.
If a planet is orbiting in a zone of greater than general intensity of
pressure, then, it would seem, the rate of orbit and the density of
the matter- -planet would fluctuate. Presumably, the speed would
increase – the day would shorten. The form of the matter would change-
-contract –increase in mass, or even more extremely, given sufficient
change in intensity of pressure. These forces, for increase in speed
(of movement) and increase in mass, would perhaps neutralise- -balance
each other, or alternatively, mitigate each other, locally. Of course,
locally they would not be perceived, unless inferentially – not being
in relationship with anything else through which to effect perception-
-value.
If matter undergoes such changes, then that presumably would include
clocks too. Perhaps all this goes too for us, may I say, organisms. In
which case, as already, other than inferentially, or through sending
clocks on rocket trips – that is away from us for a while – we would
not notice a change. ‘Such change' would not be in relationship-
-tension to any other value we feature, and would be too deep and
familiar a part of our nature to effect as value- -perception.
We (would) effect detection of the degree that clocks and metric
measures and general matter increase in mass, and the relationship of
this to any force for increase in speed of movement, locally by
comparison to wherever arbitrary standard we select.
This theory of expansion pressure gravity, in effect is a theory of
matter.
It seems beautifully supportive of The Effectuationism Philosophy
System which expresses value as effecting through relational forces,
indefinite, dynamic and inferentially multi-faceted.
Given such a principle of expansion pressure gravity- -matter-
-energy, perhaps, as I. Newton said, every action will have an
opposite and equal reaction of the same magnitude, and thereby give us
the concept of weight, etc.
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Miscellaneous Items |
09 Jan 2004 03:34:34 AM |
|
|
Edit:
From http://www.effectuationism.com/forum/messages/27/27.html?1071620499
* The Effectuationism Physics Model
The Effectuationism Physics Model, informed by the principles of the
philosophy system "Effectuationism", is a model for a four dimensional
Universe.
Given: Tension of indefinite and dynamic forces. With further
development: Indefinite and dynamic Man- -Ground in tension with
moving animal/object - Time- -Being.
To establish value through a definite and static frame of reference
(FOR), establish an
inertial field, perhaps galactic in dimensions, through co-ordinates -
within tension of indefinite and dynamic forces.
That field is frame of reference (Man- -Ground), and expressing more
local FORs, perhaps,
for example, distance from A to B. Call it DX.
Moving Object/Animal in relationship with FOR-DX is an event.
The duration of that particular movement- -event shall be SMS
(Standard
Movement Speed).
Different movement speeds- -values can be determined through
relationship
with that SMS.
* I expect that people are not used to using, perhaps even thinking
of, a
clock as an SMS.
This model features a quite distinct concept of time to that which A.
Einstein expressed. Here 'the event is time', whereas for A. E. an
event
takes place in time. I believe that through this model a much simpler
mathematics could emerge.
All that is required is the inertial field, and there-in more local
fields -
the frame of reference - which would be the co-ordinates against which
particular movements take place - in effect, the observer and the
movement.
Thereby, 'the event', and there-in _time_ effects.
SMS: Let's be economical and make the SMS that of the existing clocks,
determined by a point, such as Big Ben, on the earth, spinning on its
axis,
in relation to the sun.
Attempt to demonstrate the model:
With a watch/clock showing 10.30 am, and running, one leaves the door
of
one's house to walk the 1 mile to the local mathematician (to chat
about how
to calculate the speed of one's return walk). On arrival the watch is
showing 10.40 am - better at walking than at math.
What does ten mins. represent? The earth at the equator does 24,901
thousand
miles in 24 hours (1440 mins). It does 24,901 miles divided by 1440 in
one
min. (17.3). So, the result multiplied by 10 is what it does in 10
mins. In
comparison with this SMS, the walker has done 1 mile in 10 mins.
Of course the scene can be complicated by having different walkers
commence
from different points, and in the three dimensions, and walking at the
necessary speed to meet the mathematician simultaneously, though he is
on
his way to the golf course.
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/ *
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Physics- -Philosophy |
21 Dec 2003 03:21:43 PM |
|
|
Here, Physics seems to be moving into Philosophy, so new post seems in
order. Also, as I'm posting through Google - of the many benefits - the
original thread won't be up like for a while - much as with this one.
"Jeff Relf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:18b3q9l02baa5.dlg@__.Jeff.Relf...
Hello Peter Kinane , You wrote ,
" Under the space-time concept it was asserted that
only one reality existed "
Hi Jeff,
Would it not be more accurate to say that I wrote, and interpreted the post
to which I was replying as 'sensing', "Value- -Event, a tension of forces
and somewhat first person, and inferentially multi-faceted", disagreeing
with the (based on your reply) apparent idea of "the space-time concept
[that] only one reality existed"?
(Note, to save difficulties in the future: In disagreeing with that idea, I
do not necessarily subscribe to any of the concepts- -terminology through
which I do so, above. (Concepts do not translate or transfer across
systems)).
Physics doesn't have " Realities " ,
is has observations ... there's a big difference .
For example :
Special relativity uses Minkowskian spacetime ,
General relativity uses Einsteinian spacetime .
All scientists everywhere have incomplete information ,
so metaphysics is used to fill in the gaps .
Would it not be fair to say about 'incomplete information', "that's life"?
The most basic assumption , adopted by many scientists ,
is that the boundary between physics and metaphysics
can always be pushed back
because material fatalism ( Fate )
is probably absolute .
Me too; I find that value is indefinite and dynamic.
For example :
Our famously inaccurate weather reports
are simply due to incomplete information ...
Not because nature is Intrinsically random .
Yet , because this assumes that the future is fixed ,
it devalues human dignity ,
so it's often not the best one to use .
( For more see http://www.NCPlus.NET/~jeff-relf/ )
I find that value is relational, and as Nature is not in a relationship ---
However, in that value is indefinite - center of intensity jumping around -
some 'observation' is possible or effects, and I feel- -express _openness_
..
In the jumping around, value, through indefinite and dynamic relational
forces, has to effect. (Can't sit on the fence forever). One am the data;
the data is alive, and assessing the best form in which to express - which
in turn will be a force to determining tomorrow.
Thanks for the generally great post. :)
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re What is the Problem |
23 Dec 2003 06:04:10 PM |
|
|
Thanks for both replies.
Re, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html ,
which perhaps I have not studied sufficiently:
"For example, if a particle travels at a speed v with respect to a
stationary observer, and another particle travels at a speed with
respect to the first particle, the speed u of particle two seen by the
observer is not as would be the case in Newtonian mechanics []":
1: Not claiming to know much about Newtonian mechanics, but I don't
see how it would occur to anyone that the speed of the second particle
(v') would be that of the two particles' speeds combined. Indeed also,
to attempt to combine them one would have to know that of v'.
2. It would seem that one should measure the speed of v' in the same
way (by the same SMS) as used for that of v.
Any further comments, please?
-----
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:3FE8C835.D28F57AB@mchsi.com...
Peter Kinane wrote:
Although the holiday period draws close, I'm opening a new thread
while the data is active in my mind, and in any case I shall soon have
to disengage for quite some time.
As regards what the problem is below, perhaps I'm missing something,
so ...
Einstein, in his "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, 1905",
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Special Relativity
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics- -Philosophy |
23 Dec 2003 06:05:57 PM |
|
|
Thanks for both replies.
Re, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html ,
which perhaps I have not studied sufficiently:
"For example, if a particle travels at a speed v with respect to a
stationary observer, and another particle travels at a speed with
respect to the first particle, the speed u of particle two seen by the
observer is not as would be the case in Newtonian mechanics []":
1: Not claiming to know much about Newtonian mechanics, but I don't
see how it would occur to anyone that the speed of the second particle
(v') would be that of the two particles' speeds combined. Indeed also,
to attempt to combine them one would have to know that of v'.
2. It would seem that one should measure the speed of v' in the same
way (by the same SMS) as used for that of v.
Any further comments, please?
-----
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:3FE8C835.D28F57AB@mchsi.com...
Peter Kinane wrote:
Although the holiday period draws close, I'm opening a new thread
while the data is active in my mind, and in any case I shall soon have
to disengage for quite some time.
As regards what the problem is below, perhaps I'm missing something,
so ...
Einstein, in his "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, 1905",
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Special Relativity
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics- -Philosophy |
23 Dec 2003 06:49:18 PM |
|
|
Thanks for both replies.
Re, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html ,
which perhaps I have not studied sufficiently:
"For example, if a particle travels at a speed v with respect to a
stationary observer, and another particle travels at a speed with
respect to the first particle, the speed u of particle two seen by the
observer is not as would be the case in Newtonian mechanics []":
1: Presuming there is a reason why one could not measure the speed of
v' in the same way (directly and by the same SMS) as used for that of
v. So, if the speed of v is X m/p/h and that of v' is v + 20% ==> v'
= X + X.2 (i.e. 120%X).
Is there still a problem?
-----
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:3FE8C835.D28F57AB@mchsi.com...
Peter Kinane wrote:
Although the holiday period draws close, I'm opening a new thread
while the data is active in my mind, and in any case I shall soon have
to disengage for quite some time.
As regards what the problem is below, perhaps I'm missing something,
so ...
Einstein, in his "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, 1905",
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Special Relativity
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: What is the Problem? |
23 Dec 2003 05:51:16 PM |
|
|
Thanks for both replies.
Re, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html ,
which perhaps I have not studied sufficiently:
"For example, if a particle travels at a speed v with respect to a
stationary observer, and another particle travels at a speed with
respect to the first particle, the speed u of particle two seen by the
observer is not as would be the case in Newtonian mechanics []":
1: Not claiming to know much about Newtonian mechanics, but I don't
see how it would occur to anyone that the speed of the second particle
(v') would be that of the two particles speeds combined. Indeed also,
to attempt to combine them one would have to know that of v'.
2. It would seem that one should measure the speed of v' in the same
way (by the same SMS) as used for that of v.
Any further comments, please?
-----
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:3FE8C835.D28F57AB@mchsi.com...
Peter Kinane wrote:
Although the holiday period draws close, I'm opening a new thread
while the data is active in my mind, and in any case I shall soon have
to disengage for quite some time.
As regards what the problem is below, perhaps I'm missing something,
so ...
Einstein, in his "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, 1905",
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Special Relativity
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: What is the Problem? |
23 Dec 2003 05:56:08 PM |
|
|
Thanks for both replies.
Re, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html ,
which perhaps I have not studied sufficiently:
"For example, if a particle travels at a speed v with respect to a
stationary observer, and another particle travels at a speed with
respect to the first particle, the speed u of particle two seen by the
observer is not as would be the case in Newtonian mechanics []":
1: Not claiming to know much about Newtonian mechanics, but I don't
see how it would occur to anyone that the speed of the second particle
(v') would be that of the two particles' speeds combined. Indeed also,
to attempt to combine them one would have to know that of v'.
2. It would seem that one should measure the speed of v' in the same
way (by the same SMS) as used for that of v.
Any further comments, please?
-----
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:3FE8C835.D28F57AB@mchsi.com...
Peter Kinane wrote:
Although the holiday period draws close, I'm opening a new thread
while the data is active in my mind, and in any case I shall soon have
to disengage for quite some time.
As regards what the problem is below, perhaps I'm missing something,
so ...
Einstein, in his "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, 1905",
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Special Relativity
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rick Sobie" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Problem? |
24 Dec 2003 04:54:24 AM |
|
|
In article <d8097fcc.0312231556.68489cbf@posting.google.com>, says...
Thanks for both replies.
Re, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html ,
which perhaps I have not studied sufficiently:
"For example, if a particle travels at a speed v with respect to a
stationary observer, and another particle travels at a speed with
respect to the first particle, the speed u of particle two seen by the
observer is not as would be the case in Newtonian mechanics []":
1: Not claiming to know much about Newtonian mechanics, but I don't
see how it would occur to anyone that the speed of the second particle
(v') would be that of the two particles' speeds combined. Indeed also,
to attempt to combine them one would have to know that of v'.
2. It would seem that one should measure the speed of v' in the same
way (by the same SMS) as used for that of v.
Any further comments, please?
Essentially, in Newtonian mechanics, you deal with straight lines,
whereas with relativity you deal with geodesics.
So, if you are standing at location a, and are watching two moving
objects, what guarantee do you have that they are travelling in
a straight line?
Are they travelling WRT the not so flat earth?
Are they in fact not travelling in a straight line, but in
a wide orbit, around a, for instance.
A person, riding on a horse drawn carriage, throws a ball
ahead of the horse. What is the Newtonian combined speed
of the ball?
You see even Newton would add the two velocities and say that
WRT the observer the speed of the ball was x.
With your radar gun, if you are a good shot, you could
clock the horse and the ball separately.
But what was he really trying to say, when he said WRT to k and k'?
He was whispering that he had discovered some great thing.
That inertial mass and gravitational mass were one and the
same thing. That f=ma was the same as w=mg
He whispered it, because Newton released f=ma and his theory
of gravitation came years later. After years of thought
and study. So to claim he might just have merely renamed
the thing, might have been considered a form of heresy
in his day.
It is not enough to know things. It is also necessary to
hide what you know, and to try to disguise the knowledge
in such a way as to maintain that knowledge inside certain
circles.
So Einstein never really came out publicly and told everyone
what he really thought. He never reaaly explained SR and GR
to anyone sufficiently for them to grasp it as we do today.
In fact, if you read some of the old texts regarding particle
accellerators and the like, it is really quite scary, because
very few people understood SR and GR. Many of the people
engaged in high energy particle physics for instance knew that
objects with mass, could not go to the speed of light, as the
mass would go to infinity before it ever reached that speed.
But they appeared to not know that it was the accelleration
not the speed that added mass to an object with mass.
If you pointed it out, they would have smacked their foreheads
and said of course, but SR and GR were so confusing they
just couldn't grasp it.
Today, most people understand SR and GR. But the Lorentz
transformations, they still don't quite get.
The fact that things change size going towards the sun or away
from the sun? The fact that things are not the same size inside a
gravity well as opposed to outside a gravity well?
And that is why they still don't really understand what
gravity is. Some do. More and more every day.
But to answer your question. There is no problem.
There is a foot race on right now for quantum gravity and
I am willing to wager that it will be accepted and
Nobel prizes awarded.
I glanced at Sci Am magazine today and I saw that someone else
had written an article on a spin based quantum gravity
but people have to recognize that while they have been
arguing over the last few years many dramatic discoveries
have been made. So unless your theory of gravity can explain
such things as the transparency of metals in the Hutchison
Effect - which was documented by scientists from several
governments and recorded on film etc over a period of several years,
then your theory would be outdated before it even went to print.
I read a paper in one of Jack Sarfatti's threads that was
based on n-particles on a time line. And that is in line with
GR. Then he quoted a similar idea out of Iran using algebra,
and there are others who are close as well.
The answer is actually quite simple. It is just a matter of
finding a way of explaining it, without actually saying
that matter is also expanding. Which is silly. Because
the Lorentz transformations show just that.
But the politics of dancing dictate that terminology and
phraseology are important. You musn't use offending terms
like over unity, or cold fusion, or any sort of term
that might cause people to dismiss you carte blanche.
You have to use friendly terms, and be as discreet as
possible. Some would argue that unless it is confusing
it is unnacceptable. Because if the terminology
is confusing enough, people will not see it affects
other psotulates, and they will not be threatened.
That is why people such as Dr. Kaku, would prefer to use
string theory. To set it apart from the rest of
physics.
So my advice, is to use a modified string theory concept.
As the term 'string theory' is well known as being some
new thing and does not have negative offending baggage
attached to it.
I like the n-particles on a local t based timeline.
It is not so much of a mystery as you might expect.
Most people in advanced physics laboratories around the
world know that electromagnetism and gravity are
related. And they have said so on the record.
So unless your theory shows that relationship, they will
not likely accept it as fact.
GR does not show that, but then GR is known to be dealing with
gravity as the geometry of space-time, and Einstein never found
the connection to electromagnetism, although he searched for
it until his death in 1957. It is considered an unfinished work.
Perhaps when the new theories become public, there might be a
few less crashed spacecraft on Mars etc.
-*-
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Problem? |
24 Dec 2003 09:26:26 AM |
|
|
"Rick Sobie" <rsobie@nospam.net> wrote in message news:AfeGb.803429$6C4.667030@pd7tw1no...
In article <d8097fcc.0312231556.68489cbf@posting.google.com>, says...
Thank you very much for a very elaborate and interesting reply. I've
only got a moment now, but may be able to get back to it in about 8
hours time. So, a few exploratory comments.
I am replacing a section here with a piece which I had prepared before
I saw your reply, Rick. It seems relevant to the "horse" point.
[ "Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:3FE8C835.D28F57AB@mchsi.com...
The "problem" is that you have gone to a lot of effort to make
special relativity a lot more complicated than it is by mistaking
the pedagogical description einstein used to motivate the theory,
for the theory itself.
Re, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html ,
which
perhaps I have not studied sufficiently:
"For example, if a particle travels at a speed v with respect to a
stationary observer, and another particle travels at a speed v' with
respect
to the first particle, the speed u of particle two seen by the
observer is
not v + v' as would be the case in Newtonian mechanics []":
1. If it is implied that the frame of reference changes/jumps from
"the
observer" to v, why is such a change necessary? (That is to say, why
can't
v' be measured by the same means as is v?).
2. If the jump is necessary, then, is v supposed to have a problem in
knowing its own speed? If not, then all it needs is a clock ...?
3. If "the observer" remains the frame of reference throughout, would
one
measure the speed of v' in the same way (directly and by the same SMS)
as
used for that of v. Or, if the speed of v is X m/p/h and that of v' is
v +
20% ==> v' = X + X.2 (i.e. 120%X). (Not X + 120%X). ]
Essentially, in Newtonian mechanics, you deal with straight lines,
whereas with relativity you deal with geodesics.
So, if you are standing at location a, and are watching two moving
objects, what guarantee do you have that they are travelling in
a straight line?
First of all, would just one moving object be as good for our
purposes?
Are they travelling WRT the not so flat earth?
The observer - the framework against which there is action - would
seem to be given. (As I used, pretty much, to say initially
"Man/Person- -Ground"). That is to say that as well as establishing an
inertial field, one has within the field co-ordinates; so one knows
with what the action is in relationship.
Ok, whether this may be somewhat different to the Einstein's model I'm
not sure, but it is the my model - the model I use.
Are they in fact not travelling in a straight line, but in
a wide orbit, around a, for instance.
As above, the observer is given.
A person, riding on a horse drawn carriage, throws a ball
ahead of the horse. What is the Newtonian combined speed
of the ball?
Please see the revised post above.
You see even Newton would add the two velocities and say that
WRT the observer the speed of the ball was x.
With your radar gun, if you are a good shot, you could
clock the horse and the ball separately.
But what was he really trying to say, when he said WRT to k and k'?
He was whispering that he had discovered some great thing.
That inertial mass and gravitational mass were one and the
same thing. That f=ma was the same as w=mg
I'm not quite clear on this, possibily it may connect with the point
"Man/Person- -Ground".
He whispered it, because Newton released f=ma and his theory
of gravitation came years later. After years of thought
and study. So to claim he might just have merely renamed
the thing, might have been considered a form of heresy
in his day.
It is not enough to know things. It is also necessary to
hide what you know, and to try to disguise the knowledge
in such a way as to maintain that knowledge inside certain
circles.
So Einstein never really came out publicly and told everyone
what he really thought. He never reaaly explained SR and GR
to anyone sufficiently for them to grasp it as we do today.
In fact, if you read some of the old texts regarding particle
accellerators and the like, it is really quite scary, because
very few people understood SR and GR. Many of the people
engaged in high energy particle physics for instance knew that
objects with mass, could not go to the speed of light, as the
mass would go to infinity before it ever reached that speed.
But they appeared to not know that it was the accelleration
not the speed that added mass to an object with mass.
I wonder if this is relevant to our interest in 'spin gravity'?
If you pointed it out, they would have smacked their foreheads
and said of course, but SR and GR were so confusing they
just couldn't grasp it.
Today, most people understand SR and GR. But the Lorentz
transformations, they still don't quite get.
The fact that things change size going towards the sun or away
from the sun? The fact that things are not the same size inside a
gravity well as opposed to outside a gravity well?
Are they smaller when nearer the sun - my model would expect so, if
there is size change?
And that is why they still don't really understand what
gravity is. Some do. More and more every day.
But to answer your question. There is no problem.
There is a foot race on right now for quantum gravity and
I am willing to wager that it will be accepted and
Nobel prizes awarded.
I glanced at Sci Am magazine today and I saw that someone else
had written an article on a spin based quantum gravity
but people have to recognize that while they have been
arguing over the last few years many dramatic discoveries
have been made. So unless your theory of gravity can explain
such things as the transparency of metals in the Hutchison
Effect - which was documented by scientists from several
governments and recorded on film etc over a period of several years,
then your theory would be outdated before it even went to print.
I must look up what "the transparency of metals in the Hutchison
Effect" is all about.
I read a paper in one of Jack Sarfatti's threads that was
based on n-particles on a time line. And that is in line with
GR. Then he quoted a similar idea out of Iran using algebra,
and there are others who are close as well.
The answer is actually quite simple. It is just a matter of
finding a way of explaining it, without actually saying
that matter is also expanding. Which is silly. Because
the Lorentz transformations show just that.
But the politics of dancing dictate that terminology and
phraseology are important. You musn't use offending terms
like over unity, or cold fusion, or any sort of term
that might cause people to dismiss you carte blanche.
You have to use friendly terms, and be as discreet as
possible. Some would argue that unless it is confusing
it is unnacceptable. Because if the terminology
is confusing enough, people will not see it affects
other psotulates, and they will not be threatened.
That is why people such as Dr. Kaku, would prefer to use
string theory. To set it apart from the rest of
physics.
So my advice, is to use a modified string theory concept.
As the term 'string theory' is well known as being some
new thing and does not have negative offending baggage
attached to it.
I like the n-particles on a local t based timeline.
It is not so much of a mystery as you might expect.
Most people in advanced physics laboratories around the
world know that electromagnetism and gravity are
related. And they have said so on the record.
So unless your theory shows that relationship, they will
not likely accept it as fact.
I'm pretty sure it does.
GR does not show that, but then GR is known to be dealing with
gravity as the geometry of space-time, and Einstein never found
the connection to electromagnetism, although he searched for
it until his death in 1957. It is considered an unfinished work.
Perhaps when the new theories become public, there might be a
few less crashed spacecraft on Mars etc.
-*-
Again, much appreciated,
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics- -Philosophy |
23 Dec 2003 05:59:40 PM |
|
|
Thanks for both replies.
Re, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html ,
which perhaps I have not studied sufficiently:
"For example, if a particle travels at a speed v with respect to a
stationary observer, and another particle travels at a speed with
respect to the first particle, the speed u of particle two seen by the
observer is not as would be the case in Newtonian mechanics []":
1: Not claiming to know much about Newtonian mechanics, but I don't
see how it would occur to anyone that the speed of the second particle
(v') would be that of the two particles' speeds combined. Indeed also,
to attempt to combine them one would have to know that of v'.
2. It would seem that one should measure the speed of v' in the same
way (by the same SMS) as used for that of v.
Any further comments, please?
-----
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:3FE8C835.D28F57AB@mchsi.com...
Peter Kinane wrote:
Although the holiday period draws close, I'm opening a new thread
while the data is active in my mind, and in any case I shall soon have
to disengage for quite some time.
As regards what the problem is below, perhaps I'm missing something,
so ...
Einstein, in his "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, 1905",
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Special Relativity
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics- -Philosophy |
23 Dec 2003 07:42:15 PM |
|
|
Revised:
Thanks for both replies.
Re, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html ,
which perhaps I have not studied sufficiently:
"For example, if a particle travels at a speed v with respect to a
stationary observer, and another particle travels at a speed v' with
respect to the first particle, the speed u of particle two seen by the
observer is not v + v' as would be the case in Newtonian mechanics
[]":
1: What is speed u?
2. Not claiming to know much about Newtonian mechanics, but I don't
see how it would occur to anyone that the speed of the second particle
(v') would be that of the two particles' speeds added. Indeed also,
to attempt such addition one would have to know that of v'. Is there a
problem about measuring v' in the same way as v?
3: Presuming there is a reason why one could not measure the speed of
v' in the same way (directly and by the same SMS) as used for that of
v: If the speed of v is X m/p/h and that of v' is v + 20% ==> v' = X
+ X.2 (i.e. 120%X).
4. Are there _supposedly_ two reference frames involved: that of the
observer and that of v, and does the reference frame then revert back
to ("seen by") the observer?
Is there still a problem?
-----
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:3FE8C835.D28F57AB@mchsi.com...
Peter Kinane wrote:
Although the holiday period draws close, I'm opening a new thread
while the data is active in my mind, and in any case I shall soon have
to disengage for quite some time.
As regards what the problem is below, perhaps I'm missing something,
so ...
Einstein, in his "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, 1905",
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Special Relativity
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics- -Philosophy |
23 Dec 2003 07:45:40 PM |
|
|
Thanks for both replies.
Re, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html ,
which perhaps I have not studied sufficiently:
"For example, if a particle travels at a speed v with respect to a
stationary observer, and another particle travels at a speed v' with
respect to the first particle, the speed u of particle two seen by the
observer is not v + v' as would be the case in Newtonian mechanics
[]":
1: What is speed u?
2. Not claiming to know much about Newtonian mechanics, but I don't
see how it would occur to anyone that the speed of the second particle
(v') would be that of the two particles' speeds added. Indeed also,
to attempt such addition one would have to know that of v'. Is there a
problem about measuring v' in the same way as v?
3: Presuming there is a reason why one could not measure the speed of
v' in the same way (directly and by the same SMS) as used for that of
v: If the speed of v is X m/p/h and that of v' is v + 20% ==> v' = X
+ X.2 (i.e. 120%X).
4. Are there _supposedly_ two reference frames involved: that of the
observer and that of v, and does the reference frame then revert back
to ("seen by") the observer?
Is there still a problem?
-----
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:3FE8C835.D28F57AB@mchsi.com...
Peter Kinane wrote:
Although the holiday period draws close, I'm opening a new thread
while the data is active in my mind, and in any case I shall soon have
to disengage for quite some time.
As regards what the problem is below, perhaps I'm missing something,
so ...
Einstein, in his "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, 1905",
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Special Relativity
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics- -Philosophy |
23 Dec 2003 06:45:13 PM |
|
|
Thanks for both replies.
Re, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html ,
which perhaps I have not studied sufficiently:
"For example, if a particle travels at a speed v with respect to a
stationary observer, and another particle travels at a speed with
respect to the first particle, the speed u of particle two seen by the
observer is not as would be the case in Newtonian mechanics []":
1: Presuming there is a reason why one could not measure the speed of
v' in the same way (directly and by the same SMS) as used for that of
v. So, if the speed of v is X m/p/h and that of v' is v + 20% ==> v'
= X + X.2 (i.e. 120%X).
Is there still a problem?
-----
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:3FE8C835.D28F57AB@mchsi.com...
Peter Kinane wrote:
Al | | | | | | |
