Jump to content

Capiert

Senior Members
  • Posts

    486
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Capiert

  1. Yes your website does not allow me to update, correct modify & improve my past posts, as my texting & programing get familiar (to me) & improve. Perhaps arrangements can be made, for the benefit of the readers? Typos (& errors) are a disgrace, I know. I only want to be understood. I see the universe constructed differently from you.Inertial, is resistance to motion (an oversimplified explaination). I see it as straight line motion, (Newton's 1st law) but for 3 axii, xyz, there are (really) 6 directions (of motion), i.e. forth, & back included. Physicists ignore that, as trivial (mundane etc). But "minus -" is angle 180 degree (rotation). Plus +, has 2 meanings, 1 for addition, & the 2nd for angle (rotation). You multiply polarity to add angles. i=(-)^0.5, =90 degrees. i*i=90 + 90 degrees, =180 degrees, =i^2, =(-) (polarity, angle) =-1 (factor) i^3=270 degrees i^4=360 degrees =(-)*(-) (that's minus multiplied by minus, angles), =(-)^2 (that's minus squared). You use 2 sticks (horizontal "-" (minus) & vertical, as cross(ed) symbol) for plus "+", for "positive" (=360 degree) angle. But that "positive" is really "minus squared" if you want to reverse it (=the math) in order to thoroughly track (=follow) it (throughout the universe). A dimension, is bidirectional, but Newtonion (=inertial) is only single direction. Changing direction (=angle) needs energy (input) (which is also momentum (related)) mom=E/va. So, 6 directions can describe, the 3 axii (too). Each is related by 90 degrees but those are also each very specific rotation angles (which you are familiar to as curl cross_products). There is a very specific angle structure, it is not random so (that) any angle can (NOT) do. It must be the right 1. Thus the math must be tracked for those (exact) angle (directions), which I believe you use tensors for producing=creating that (angle(s) direction(s)) & polar lengthes info. So, it is possible to follow (=track) (length) measurements (& their direction=orientation, in space) of anything (like houses, & buildings) as the earth rotates during the day. Why all the hassel? Because of the electromagnetic right hand rule for motors & generators is fixed (=non_swappable) for energy in vs energy (coming) out from your (electrical) machines. (e.g. Matter). The universe has a very definite "structure" which many physicists have wrongly rejected as the ether. They believe there is nothing there, (as vacuum), but to me it looks like substance. It (=vacuum) has no molecules (atom) because most have been removed, but it does seem somewhat like fluid water under certain conditions that I perceive. That is only my impression. I would not be a classic physicist (no calc), without (it=ether). Although, we rotate with the earth, I suspect there is an absolute axis (in the universe) on which everything is calibrated (to) or "scaled". (An important word if you ignore physicists', definition, scalar.) & if that exists (as a structure) then it will have (different) properties (as a Barrier (change), surface). With Pythagorus's law we know how much the conversions (of length) are, between the 3D's axii as x,y,z. The (math) integrations of a quarter circle (part of a circumference) produces a fraction of Pi. So Pi is a (very) very special number for multi_dimension structure. It's sort of the glue(ing number) between them for area, &/or volume. It (=Pi) doesn't seem so simple or empty to me, as only a (strange, non integer) number. It seems to be working (dynamically, corresponding=communicating between the dimensions actively) but what we get (mathematically, as 3.14..) is only a (truncated simplified) final result. It's (=Pi is) always shapining up (varrying, within tolerances), constantly changing slightly like anything thermal. It's still convenient, that we can have (it=Pi as) such a simple approximation as only 1 symbol, &/or wierd number. There is a lot in it, & it is the key to the dimensions (structure, construction of the universe).
  2. I don't see them as misconceptions, I see them as my evaluation of him. This website also evaluates us whether they are correct or not, in an effort to get closer to dealing with the person. You can not forbid me from the impressions I become, & expect me to accept that. I thought it is a free country, away from communism & brainwashing propaganda. I want to think for myself & come to my own conclusion (=be the judge of it myself). Not everything that is said is true, but also not everything that is said, the opposite. Yes he did.You've obviusly missed the post from 2016 05 10 19:14 (17:14 PM) That would mean you have the misconceptions. Perfect? Hmm, with that math? I have my doubts.Sorry. What type of curvature do you mean? Also perfect? and it is That's a good question.Believe it or not belief is not knowing, (it is an emotional state with nothing to do with the facts (=logic)) it's assuming, based on "thin" air. We mix the facts (with emotion, as we please). A sensible person would react to different ideas, because they know the weaknesses of what they possess. But a self sufficient person would ignore with disinterest because it does not improve their situation. Only when that is at stake is there interest in what they are suppose to do. (Improvement.) Otherwise NO motivation, & that's a barrier for others. You don't get complaints for no reason. There is a reason! If you want to know, you go to the original texts & read them like Einstein said (=recommended), instead of professing what everybody does NOT know! NOT anymore considering the proliferation of wrong material!But I can close an eye. What benefit are you talking about?Now I consider the students deserve that instead! (Maybe the wrong ones are perhaps, in the wrong place from disinterest & lack of attention. They have not been schooled well enough.) Where is it not supported? Where & what is non_sense, may I ask please?I can not force you to read (e.g. Einstein), if you don't want to. It's not my job to read for you. I can (try to) point you in the right direction, but (if you believe, without knowining, then nobody can help you because your emotions have taken over, not allowing you to, thus producing your foolish ration, & then it's your choice (per whim) which way you go. We all make mistakes, we'll all failable, & egoists! I know how foolish students are! They become professors, thinking they know everything they've studied! Not all though. We're here for a good time not a long time. I'm sorry I can not decipher that small typo. What is thisut? Please clarify. Are you sure?
  3. Yes, I have observed that, but Einstein did! Yes, that is the momentum effect, from the speed.(Mass is (significantly) constant). Ewert's book (1996) said the concept of relativistic mass happens at all speeds, NOT just near the speed of light. He equated it to momentum. Drop a 1kg stone on your foot from 10 cm above, then compare that with (from) 1 m (then from 10 m also if needed, to feel the pain). The stone had enough momentum (some prefer saying energy) to damage at the faster speed. Mass & speed are interchangeable (=swappable) mathematically, but we know: ONLY the mass is constant, NOT the speed. That same momentum concept works the same way, ALL the way up to near light speed c. Why should the effect make an abrupt change (at some certain speed) & swap mass for speed, but still continue to speed up? That would make no sense! [The problem is, you, (like too many) believe everything your professors say, even if it is not true. Or am I being too rude? Einstein & Lorentz thought it was very important that we knew how relativity was developed so we could decide for ourselves what was true, (& what not; NOT somebody else) for when they were no longer there. See "the relativity principle" (book).] Yes, but Einstein kicked out SR. He did not want it any more, at all!He was very happy & proud of GR, the sole masterpiece, that was valid. It was intended for high school graduates (not higher, but .. the opposite happened. It's too wordy, & it bores people). For years I questioned if relativity is (really) true, (years after I had accepted it but then rejected it). Because Einstein often said things we could not prove, to avoid criticism. We cannot build light speed spacecraft to any of it. But now I can say, I (surely) accept it, (truely convinced); but not the way everybody thinks. For me it looks very obvious. SR is constant speed, GR is constant (=linear) acceleration. Both are momentum. Fine, naturally there are smaller details, & that gravity is a push, not a pull; & time delays, instead of dialation (for simultaineous synchronization). But I don't need much more. Everyone else does. My greatest doubt was because of the Frizgerald_Lorentz contraction. (FItzgerald found it before Lorentz, stating it on half a page in nature magazine (mid 1800s)). What puzzled me, was SR was based purely on math, & 2 assumptions. (Please Note: The (average) light_speed c is a constant (that varries), but that is not what everyone believes. Unfortunately, Everyone has been brainwashed to believe it's constant &/or only 1_way, although experimentally we cannot measure that speed in only 1 direction.) Einstein had many opponents, but his popularity won even though he was not always right & made mistakes.* Gerocke 1926 gave ~5 examples of different c speeds for different years, even noticeable in different old volumes (= book, years) of the CRC Handbook of Physics & Chemistry. So we know, c is not constant, (even nasa measures the speed of light to the moon daily, sometimes) & the best we can measure, is only an average. Well if it's only an average, what gets done in 1 direction, gets undone during the return direction (speed up vs slow down). How can you measure an ether speed when differences cancel out? Einstein also said he wouldn't use the ether, because he didn't need it (for his calculations). Many (wrongly) believe he threw it away, but that's not true. In Lyden 1922 he said we need it, & the ether was like a sea of frozen photons. (Please remember, solids' atoms will still wiggle at room temperature because of heat. But they are roughly in the same place.). The 2 assumptions were: constant speed c, & the Fitzgerald_Lorentz contraction, He then fudged everything to keep c constant. Meters shrunk (got smaller), & time dialated (got larger). Now: Imagine 2 rockets travelling away from each other at light speed. Each capitan looks at the other & shouts: "Hey! Your clock is going slower than mine; but mine is ok (it's running normal)!" Each denies (the other's accusation). Why? (Optical delusion?) Anyway, Lorentz worked on relativity, & had 19 of the 20 terms of GR finished in1904, 1 year before Einstein ever began SR. Lorentz flew over "time" too quickly as uninteresting, & Einstein devoted a good chunk of theory, to time. But the way I see it, is we're only talking about time "delays", (of synchonization (he called simultaneous)) thru the (large) distance of space, instead of dilation It's really not complicated, (& suppose to be) more like an echo delay calculation. He was actually talking about obvious things but didn't have it all clear in his head. At least that's my opinion that makes more sense (to me), considering Einstein chucked (=threw) out his own (SR) theory. (=We finally have a continuum, from start to finish.) Yes, way too many thoughts come at the same time, so it's difficult for me to keep track of everything getting it all into slow (hacker infested) computers on time, before I forget. It's a problem, & you are not prepared for a brief comment of many different things. I just fly thru as many as I can. It takes me almost half a day just to get that far for only 1 post. It's a race against time. I also have health issues (causing problems), that is difficult to control (& it's an experiment too). Yes. Quite obvious. I prefer algebra, & xyz. 1 set(up) (well used) is better than none (or poorly used); 2 sets or more would be redundant for my needs (maybe), just to try to comprehend nature. Unless you have some tips (quick)? *1 of his 1905 papers also wrongly comments electromagnetism, (e.g. the motor's rotor vs stator principle), that it is only a 1 direction effect although it is bidirectional. E.g. We can either have the magnetic field static or moving, instead of only static. So he used the most unacceptable (=unbelieveable) arguement of his time (that were state of the art, but wrong) to get attention & popularity. Maybe, it was a surprise attack? A distraction, to get his main ideas thru.
  4. Capiert

    COW

    Thanks for the comments. Very appreciated I'm going to look into it. But at first glance, I see that you are using calculus, as your basis, & I am sorry to have to tell you it's corrupt. Please read Miles Mathis's analysis also for the Lagrangian. Btw The FEM finite element method & calculus both give different answers. Industry has dumped calculus in favor of the FEM, & for good reasons, I will too in favour of algebra. Industry & top consulting companies do NOT recommend calculus if you want stability without the fear of collapse. For building anything large & complex such as bridges or skyscrapers, large rockets, aircraft carriers, spacestations, microwave antenna designs, ..whatever. A few are ok, sometimes. But the risk is too large when life is at stake, or large production & financing. Calculus produces very different answers & has been proven to been unreliable because of that. I'm not interested in rolling dice with Noether's 1915 theorems, (so_called) proof methods, either. That's not an acceptable basis. It's unreliable. Sorry. If I get a chance to pin point her errors exactly, I will, but that's a needle in a haystack, & I can't promise anything. It seems futile for anything in that calculus direction. No reliability. Thus a waste of time. The cause for that, is calculus is only an approximation tool. If you need an exact, accurate answer, all the time, then calculus will NOT do! Newton knew it had errors, & did NOT want to release (=publish) it for over 20 years. It wasn't until Liebnitz came up with something similar & published, that the students of both began to question who found the method first supposing Newton had been robbed of the ideas by the other, & visa versa. That false presumption (from the (loyal) students (with anger & resentment) from both sides) finally led to the (bitter) conflict between both professors. On their own both professors had no need to argue. Science is an independent, reproduction (or replication) of similar methods. An interesting article exists in scientific american's biography of Newton. Miles Mathis('s articles) can point out for you, some of the weaker points of calculus analysis. Perhaps with some improvement proposals. Cheers! Please explain. Work is truely not an energy, it is a type of momentum, as the definition states. Please take note carefully. work=m*h/t is the mass m moved to a distance d(=h height), within (=per) a (specific) time t [in seconds]. That is the definition of work (done). No other is allowed. (All others lie, deceiving their accomplishments). That is the calculation, Tesla used, for the Niagara falls, to get momentum out (as moving electrons, called current I), electricity; & the same (electrical) momentum (electricity) was used to pump (the same amount of) water (mass) back up the height, in (=per) time, to (test &) calculate the efficiency. I.e. How true(thful)=accurate the calculations were (to reality). I'll assume you did not know all that? Are there any other supposed bugs?
  5. Capiert

    COW

    Nice of you to ask COW=Conservation of work Abstract summary Basic thesis: there is a (very stupid, primative rudimenty) math error in the (standard) work formula (till now) indicating work is not energy (Work#Energy) when compared to the stated definition of work (in words). It's so fundamental that it's significance might be missed. The formula does not agree with the worded definition. That has serious consequences for energy calibration in physics, producing very peculiar problems. It is definitely a math error. The error was discovered with algebra, & should be obvious (implied). A solution (compromise) is proposed. It's a peculiar kind of momentum using only the initial_momentum & half of the momentum_difference. (A few tricks & tips are given to help memorize the formulas.) The correct formula should look something like this. Work=m*h/t, m=mass, h=height, t=time (That is very fundamental! The most important thing. Most logical=obvious.) Did you get it? Where's the problem? The standard work formula does not look so simple. Energy does NOT look like that, at all! That's the problem! It needs the following to bend it right: Work=W/v, W=WE=Work's_Energy (please observe it's possesive 's , to distinguish it from work), v=speed_difference Work=moma=m*va, va=average speed Work=mom0+mom/2, mom0=initial_momentum, mom=momentum_difference=impulse. Work's_Energy (is not work!, it's energy instead! There is a difference!) W=WE=F*d Speed_difference v=v1-v0 Initial speed v0 Final speed v1 Please see the trashcan for more details. It's been put there because of ignorance. (Would somebody please help me recover it, & iron out the bugs? If any? I'm new. Nobody else seems to have noticed it before nor taken this issue seriously what it's all about. The error is so basic, that it's difficult to believe. I do not know how to correct it better than that.) I consider this theme very important, (high priority), & suspect it will help solve the dark energy issue. It is a very fundamental error affecting energy calibrations. Power as well. If you can grasp the above then you've got most of it. Signed GENERAL I. N. Formation. Cheers!
  6. Sorry. I don't know how to use your quote buttons (exclusively). I'm new.
  7. 1.I do not use Einstein's space*time, it's a non_reversible stew (=mix) which will not return unique answers back (without a decoding key value). 2 values in, 1 value out, without 1 of the original values the other original value can NOT be found from the output. Einstein liked it because it gave such large values; but quotients are much more analytical. It is rejected (by me). Sorry. 2. Our "local" inertial frame is curving around in a circle; but since we're moving thru space (the universe is another inertial frame, wrt it=that universe) then we are moving in a spiral. I see an inertial frame as a dimension (direction). Straight line motion. You believe energy can not be created nor destroyed, but that is happening all the time, (you call it conversion) when we bounce, but it (=motion, speed) is being destroyed (=cancelled) in 1 direction; & being (newly) created (like beaming if you may wish) in another direction. That is how I see it. When 2 waves meet with opposite phase, they cancel, & nothing is left. No more energy (is) there. Nothing! It's not reversible. If you need waves, then you must "creste" them (from scratch)! Basta. If you are moving in a curve, you must use (at least) 2 (straightline motion) dimensions. Newtonian physics functions only in a straight line; a curve is a mix(ture). Thus needs 2 coordinates, or more =3. Put all 3 coordinates together, & you can describe any motion inertially. Say it so: 3 inertial coordinates, are our 3 dimensions; or should I say 6 inertial directions.(?) (It's very important that things move it straight lines. That's (almost) half of Newton's 1st law.) 3. Yes but considering only the earth('s surface) where I am, you will call that 1 inertial system although I see 3 (x,y,z dimensions); acceptably calling it a frame sytem. Inertial for me is only in 1 direction (Euclide), straight line. Newton meant resistance to move but you have to see where that comes from. Collisions & recoils, backfires, bounce. It has to do with how the dimensions separate, or distinguish themselves from each other. It's fascinating. (e.g. gravity is only vertical.) 4. Each dimension is not related to the other, x,y,z are not connected vastly (separate, by angle!), they are like 3 different (=unique) people. They do not know what the other does. & yet they are somehow strangely connected. Something holds them together, the universe. Otherwise they would never have met (together). & a conversion from 1 dimension to the other would not have taken place. (= would not be possible). There difference(s) is the barrier. (It's not infinite!) It takes force (per se collision presure) to overcome that barrier, making a conversion posible, at all. (It's difficult, but not (infinitely) impossible.) They are 3 completely different dimensions! That might sound mad, (WE are mad) like I'm talking about multi dimensions above 3, (Erratum are=is.) but please recognize what's there already, staring you in the face. You'll never get to anything higher, if you don't recognize what you already have. They are all built the same way (so to speak, directions different; but where they meet (? wow!). Interesting things are happening there. Don't ask me what, I don't know (enough), nor any body that does. Semantics: either something is "for" & assists (=helps); or it is "against" & does not help, or it interferes working against, as counter productive. "Unique" is 1 of a kind, it will never be found anywhere else, (ever again). We have only these 3 dimensions (graspable). They are the only 1's we can deal with. 5. (I think) any straight line (between 2 points) can be broken down into its x,y,z coordinates using pythagorus's law r^2=x^2 + y^2 + z^2. I asume you know that but doubted I did, or something else. It's still good to ask questions, because you are going to (wrongly) assume I know somethings I don't; & but for others although I do, not. Misunderstandings happen all the time. I have to struggle that my PCs get in them what I want to say. Sometimes they have a mind for themselves. Pythagorus' law seems to connect the 3 dimensions together. Any received transfer is proportioned to the other 2 dimensions' losses. I think that's obvious. I just say things different from what you are used to. That's what we see, but there is a catch to it. That's our local reference frame; but if there is an absolute reference frame (e.g. the universe's) then it has nothing to do with our randomness, earth reference frame; there might be hints to finding the true coordinates. If so however, I suspect they will only be found with (specific) speeds, & other peculiarities. Resonances are a good place to start searching in. ~ quantum speeds, so to say. We generally only observe coordinate mixtures, not a single absolute axis. The effects might be as astounding as a laser, if or when we find it. (There are many ways to skin a cat.) The flow is the connection between 2 dimensions (or more) & how much it changes. Pythagorus's formula (probably from the babylonians) gives us a good idea of what happens when changing a dimension's value. Just take a pencil in your hand, & rotate it slowly. A lot is happening to each molecule (considering we are only a sub inertial reference frame). It's mind boggling. 6. What do you think I am here for. I can't do everything on my own, but can't stand it when others get stuck too when it looks so obvious to me. The risk of foreign ideas is to loose my own god given talents perspectives & ideas. Am I an egoist? yes! who isn't? It's a question of degree, =amount. How much? it varies whether I'm under attack. No risk no fun. At least that's what they say. I'm no different from most people. Physics is very strict, because the physicists have a lot of problems to solve. I didn't believe it at 1st, but falling into quite a few booby traps, I got convinced. It's no bed of roses, or should I say, it is, ouch! My original goal has been to make physics quicker & easier, but it has costed me my life & done the opposite. Oh yes! That looks like the same special relativity that Einstein kicked out the window as trash in his book (1920 ch22). I don't know why your profs don't keep you up to date. Sorry. Relatativistic mass is suppose to be momentum. Speed is the variable, not mass. There is no conservation of speed, only conservation of mass. Still, thank you for digging it up for me, it's always convenient to have it handy as note, summary, so compact & concise. The full truth to the kinetic energy is you are missing the initial speed squared (term), which can be significant for speeds near or at light speed c. The kinetic energy formula (pronounced "key") KE=m*v*va, m=mass v=speed difference, va=average speed, is already relativistic. Sorry. The E= m*(c^2) formula, is someone elses work, (it originally did not come from Einstein but instead from a man in Tirol, before Einstein. Einstein found=guessed a series that also fit it because he did not derive it, we have no evidence of a derivation, & it) can be derived when the initial speed v0=c is allowed to be light speed c using simple algebra & the complete g (linear acceleration, freefall) formula including missing 3rd term of 3. Any high school graduate with maths can do it because only addition, subtraction, multiplication & division are needed. It's unfortunate Swanson was too eager to sent it to the trashcan.
  8. Good place to start. What is it lacking? Is that because we are turning around in a circle? In other words that we are not going in a straight line? I think if we are traveling in a curve we have more than just 1 true inertial frame we have at least 2 if not 3 true (inertial) frames which can be co_ordinated together (synchronized), because all 3 dimensions seem unique (against each other). Where they each begin & end seems undecernable though. Due to Pythagorus('s right angle squared rule) they seem to flow into each other. You must understand, I do not come from your complicated perspective. However, to backdown from your question: gravitation is inertial, that means obeying Newton's 3 laws (& quite possibly more). I suspect the word true meany pure. So is gravitation purely inertial? I'd say mostly, let's say >95% in most cases. There are magnetic effects, & electrostatic effects. But what I want to discuss is the inertial character of gravity. (Sorry for the personification, there.) We live in this universe. It is inertial. I've even read Miles Mathis unified field theory, & it's also inertial. Everything (mechanical, or physical) fits into that scheme inertial. I don't know any other place than this universe, particularly the earth. & I do not know any place (in the universe) where Newton's laws do NOT hold. If you Physicists are afraid to use his laws for some other case then I don't know who can help you? (A psychiatrist, or loved 1?) Although we have 3 dimensions x,y,z, please notice the alphabet ends there (on purpose), I suppect the universe is different from how we perceive it, but I can not tell you how. As far as I am concerned everything (=mass) is inertial (=moveable) or at least mostly. But please tell me the difference. What is not inertial, & why. I suppose inertial means moveable, encompassing (=including) speed & acceleration. Anything (=masss) that can be moved (=is moveable). If we look at Newton's intent, inertia (might have) meant mass m=F/a. But I haven't studied the principia to find out exactly what he meant, & if that is true. Because there is another way to express force with a quotient, as reciprocal mass. I don't know if inertia is that, because Ewert (1996) got upset that inertia & gravitational mass were not the same really confounding (=ruining) Newton's original treat(i)s ideas. The problem stems from the (new spastic) definition for weight where the gravitation (acceleration) constant g was used (hung onto the mass) as a multiplier instead of divisor. 2 possibilities existed, & you guessed it, (naturally) they chose the wrong (worst) 1 to make force. It was the easiest way for them (perhaps for the future too) but the worst way for our (past) history. Pounds are pounds in mass & weight. But kilograms are only mass (they could have incorporated g into that kilogram definition, altogether, so weight & mass could be interchangeable, as something like Wt=Fo*g=m where the (new) force is Fo=m/g mass per acceleration, instead of multiplied, (that would have made a neat new_ton as small as it is, fitting the expression tons of fun, but didn't) & (instead they selected) Newtons (to be the g factor, instead of divisor for the mass, &) are used for weight. But atomic weight for chemists is mass. What a (popular) mess. The chemists added onto mass the word "weight" just to be sure they would be understood. & the bathroom scale still "weighs" mass. Go to a government office for a passport, or doctor to to get weighed & they've always give it in kg, not Newtons. & nobody will admit the error, that started back with the SI (~1967?). Back then they were happy just to have made the 1st move (away from the chaos of different number systems), into metric. But USA didn't didn't join in. My advice to them (USA) is go binary, all the way, with a few modifications, like 1" 2" 4" .. the binary_foot 16" but 8" would do (& be more understandable, for children, instead of giants, like the Anunnaki).
  9. (edited follows) but I would say that "we don't feel gravity, only pressure on a surface". More appropriate would be pressure in [not on] a 'volume' (because only pressure is against surfaces, in the sense of molecules colliding (=repelling, bouncing off) against (other) molecules, (which are all vibrating anyway due to (their) temperature; otherwise that doesn't makes sense (for me, (at all))). Pressure throughout a volume, is random motion (=collisions) (no longer gravitational) & decreases with height. E.g. My blood pressure is higher (=larger) in my feet, than it is in my head. What I'm then feeling is (fluid) pressure P=F/A (that accumulates layer by layer from top down(wards)) but onto my nerve sensor's (area), & it's Boyle's law of (fluid pressure) compensation (equilibrium, osmosis so to say ruffly). That's no longer gravity for me, that's its side effects. Something else. Facit: That's not gravitational acceleration (any longer), it has been converted to fluid pressure('s acceleration), where the molecules are banging (=bouncing) around with each other. Each has been accelerated to (ruffly) an average momentum mom=m*v. But the details are a little more complicated (than that). That's just the ruff ideas. Example: If I set my foot on the floor it bulges at the bottom. If I continue to put my (full) weight on it (=my foot) it bulges (even) more. Now if that floor (board) (was & still) is attached to a hydralic lift (under it, like at a car station, for a car) & I switch it on to raise, then while it raises my foot (near around the sole) bulges a tiny bit more depending on the lift's acceleration. If I lower the lift hydraulically (with less pressure), my foot sole region's bulge reduces. That's all fluid mechanics. We can leave out gravity, except when the lift is not moving (up nor down). Gravity as a basis for what we feel is superfluous (it is not decisive for our feeling), instead acceleration is. We feel whether gravity is there or not, & we can not distinguish whether it is gravity, or NOT! (& get this, I bet (=believe) gravity is so. But who can prove it?) Acceleration affects that (back) pressure, & that depends on the forward direction. Don't you find it unusual that Einstein brought our attention to the fact that an elevator can simulate (additional) gravity (gravitational acceleration) (& perhaps its (not real) cancelation, narrow mindedly seen, in a falling elevator, as weightless)? Not even a magnetic nor electric field is felt when we near it (in a house) (unless (we touch the power cables, or) its mighty strong). Why then is gravity so (refined) chic, it goes thru everything without scattering (distortion)? (& it can't be absorbed, nor saved. Instead, we have to lift things (to height h) to save potential energy PE=m*g*h.) Because (significantly) gravitation is (only) acceleration! I.e. for the most part. Nothing else will do that! In a positive G maneuver, in an agile aircraft, your blood is forced away from your head (e.g. left behind, away from the travel direction), resulting in black-outs, unless compensated for by a G-suit or a reclining seat (to buck the excess pressure, from your body's back(side of direction travel)). You don't just feel the Gs (=g*n) pushing you down (=backwards, due to the inertial drag of trying to accelerate the molecules by the transfering (from fluid mechanic's) molecular collisions (pressure) onto them.. (So where did the source of that (cockpit) pressure come from?: From the thrusters, onto the plane('s fussilage), into the seat. That's all solid state, (elastic collision) atomic bonds (transfer). But it's still a push. (Even if parts of the fussilage, transfer it at some parts, into a pull. The Net is a push!)) every individual part of you feels that (pressure or) force (per area, naturally acceleration of molecules, from the fluid pressure). We don't have a gravity simulator, we only have the opposite. E.g. Weightlessness in orbit. Otherwise we wouldn't need airbags when (severely) braking, in a car. & then we would not get the bruises nor internal rips, that bleed; all because of surface contact (area), PRESSURE. E.g. How much pressure, depends on how small the area is, for the same amount of "acceleration" force, expressed as molecules colliding (decelerating, while the opposite (target) molecule accelerates). Force is simply a finess way to describe (a kind (k=m) of) "acceleration", with a mass (m=(actually, lack_of=anti_)efficiency) coefficient. It could also be written F=(k)*a to get the idea across. Inertial (gravity) is an interesting theme for me. I'm interested in the arguements against (it). (If any?) I only need a list (maybe a few brief comments for the exotic 1's). At worst, in priority e.g. biggest problem 1st. -- Einstein gave us a bridge, the gravitational equivalence, (but) it's our job to use it, & cross it, if we want. Nobody has to if they don't want to, or are afraid. That's the future (in my opinion). Plus, anyone can return (back, (into the past('s concept))), if they want. Einstein also said, there is no preferred reference system, they are all valid. I notice Physicists, avoid inertial gravitation (like the plague) as suppose to be wrong, but I don't know why? I suppose we should be diplomatic, each (person) left to their own decision (if, when, where, & why). It's a public bridge. Come & go, when & where you want, as you please.
  10. If it feels like a push, why isn't it?
  11. Sorry. I deleted it for you. Is that ok? Or should the clutter remain for the record?
  12. Can we feel gravity? I doubt it! Only pressure & that's always on a surface, not gravity.
  13. I think what everyone forgets is gravity is an acceleration g=-(Pi^2) m/(s^2). Acceleration is the only observable, the rest is a math construct with mass constants to taper & balance the equations. Einstein never said it in his equivalence, but if you ask me, the pressure under my feet (or seat) sure feels like a push. Newton also mentioned the centrifugal "acceleration" made the orbits a balance (linear motion tangentially, so to speak). (Escape "speed" is only possible tangentially=horizontal, against the vertical "acceleration".) Let's face, in an expanding universe, why aren't the matter waves expanding too? That's big news for some. (It's also low a pressure, vaccum out there. What do we know about osmosis (high to low pressure transport), & how pressure (or the lack of it) affects matter? Even if that doesn't apply, is everything static, or what?) Gravity can't be shielded. I've got nothing against an inertial concept (I'm not so old fashion or outdated, that) the tides can't rock & swap over, with the earth's rotation (direction change) twice a day. I sure don't need action at a distance for gravity. Light falls, sound doesn't. Fall in a falling elevator, & you won't notice anything (=weightless) till the collision.
  14. Capiert

    COW

    Work abstract Coe & com seem unreliable, (algebraically) they can NOT be confirmed; & a (new) cow seems to be the culprit (for explaining the milky way's problems). Mon 2016 05 08 06:51 PS Wi 12.1 C clouds & mist clearing Conservation of energy coe is often taken for granted but some math (algebra) derivations from momentum to kinetic energy (via binomial squaring) have not allowed confirmation. Results were such that simple (energy) addition was impossible sometimes, due to explicid complexer solutions, indicating the more basic momentum mechanics might be prefered as fundamental. To my amazement, momentum (conservation com) could "not always" be confirmed either, in preferance for simple energy addition. Facit: momentum failed to add (correctly) sometimes, while energy succeded; & visa versa for different (peculiar) circumstances. Unprepared, that neither (energy nor momentum) were always entirely reliable (100% of the time, for all examples), speeds were analyzed & corrected, but even that brought no guarantee. It occured to me then, that a severe (subtle) fundamental error existed (or must exist), & that made neither (E nor mom) acceptable for a 100% conservation law (title). Analyzing the physics framework further on such trival (math) peculiarities, led me to conclude that the basic definitions (stated) (e.g. for work, power & force..?) were not being followed (strictly) mathematically & could leed to such a disaster (collapse of physic's, momentum & particularly energy, concerning the (unknown=) dark energy (problem, dilemma) vs the 25% real ratio when compared to quadratic binomial results.) Convinced (to some extent), (& that my time was better used dealing with finding a solution directly (first), because the problem details could be found again later, it was) that the solution required a better basis for mechanics than the (unreliable) com & coe; (unstatisfied, as unsatisfactory) a compromise was made for the cow.-Muhh! Here is that (new) framework (derivation) solution, & perhaps (if allowed) with insight as to why the other 2 failed. Here are NOT examples, of the failures mentioned above. Are you interested? Dedication: May the goods be invoked for memory purposes only (games if you will), & (your) deficit of greek culture (hints of vocabulary), among others. Otherwise it doesn't look like you'll have a clue. -SheerLuck Homes. (Unlock my heart('s core). See my ideas, not my words. I won't always say it right. What's left is also an alternative. & visa versa.) P.S. Maybe we can write this as science fiction, a least you won't be disappointed, then.
  15. That question is now placed. Please answer: where did the lost e.g. momentum go?
  16. [quote name="albertlee" post="130097" timestamp="1108547800
  17. Hi Albert You have stepped into 1 of the biggest holes in Physics due to the missing term (2*v0/t) in the (free_fall acceleration) gravity equation g=(2*v0/t)+2*h/(t^2) derived from the fallen height's (h=h1-h0), final (height) position h1=h0 + V0*t + (1/2)*g*(t^2). (That's simply linear acceleration results/observations. Nothing complicated.) (I use different syntax, (to reduce errors), please let your initial speed u=v0 & your final speed v=v1, instead so I can use symbol v as my: ) Speed difference v=v1-v0 Average speed va=(v0+v1)/2 Speed sum v2=v1+v0. It's interesting that energy is defined purely mathematically from linear acceleration, KEPE or PEKE (pronounced "keep" & "peek") PE=KE m*g*h=m*v*va, /m Dividing by the mass, leaves only the motion (of a virtual point, so to say) g*h=v*va. The height (difference) is h=v*va/g, & the gravitational (linear) acceleration is g=v*va/h. That (motion) needs no mass; (but) we multiply (the equation) by mass to get mom(entum) m*v=m*g*h/va & (kinetic) energy (pronounced "key") KE=m*v*va. So momentum mom=E/va is our good=god she is female, mother nature, the energy E, per average_speed va. (It's very important which speed to use, otherwise the equations will error.) (Although few will agree at first:) Work is not energy! (Textbooks are wrong!) Work & energy are NOT the same. Everyone knows: energy & momentum are not the same. But.. By definition, work=m*h/t is simply moving a mass m to a specific (height) distance h in a specific amount of time t. That is the calculation Tesla used for Niagra falls, to calculate the efficiency of fallen water vs pumped back up again. That is a momentum formula(!) that (=which) textbooks' formulas have not complied to, in other words they (=the textbooks) have got it (=the work formula, all) wrong! They don't have the right fomula. They may have formulas right for energy, but not for work. Work's_energy (pronounced "we", please notice it's possesive " 's ") WE=F*d is force F multiplied by distance d. (If we let distance d=h height fallen, then we call that (energy, instead) potential energy PE (pronounced "pee") before it has fallen.) However Work=m*va is average_momentum moma=m*va because the average speed va=h/t is the travelled distace d(=h height fallen) per time t. (Obeying the work concept, stated.) So, to correct the textbooks formula (work's_energy, WE=) W=F*d, Work=W/v Work (on the left side) is momentum; & (work's_)energy (divided by speed difference v=v1-v0) is on the right side (in 1 equation). (That might have been the 1st time, you've ever seen that, correction.) It looks similar to mom=E/va m*v=KE/va m*v=(m*v*va)/va. Energy (as problem, paradox) is the reason why Einstein did relativity, at all. KE uses non_linear speeds, with exponent ^2, then divides that by half. ((I don't know about you, but) that's (just) not logical (=linear), for our brains to think with, compared to distance d); while momentum mom=m*v, =F*t uses only linear speeds, logical (=very reasonable, =linear) wrt time t. (E.g. Thinking straight, clear minded, not given a curve, nor round about. No corruption, no distortion away from straight. Say it the way you want, all those cliches mean about=aprox the same thing. Think straight!) That's all because energy is calculated wrt distance; instead of wrt time (our (absolute) god, chronus). Many physicists "say" time is NOT an absolute, but (deep inside their heads) they use it so (as a bird's eye view of the universe, from above). Einstein's relativistic_mass is (suppose to be) momentum (mom=m*v). Speed (v) is the variable, not mass (m). COM=Conservation of mass. Energy is an inferior (intermediate) calculation (it's not the complete story, for (our brains) tracking anything, like work); instead momentum is superior. I don't know why Newton's original concepts: mom=F*t (1st law, tendancy, applied force F, duration time t; conservation of motion (momentum); unless acted upon) F=m*a (2nd law, the change "works"; using) 0=F2+F1 (3rd law, an equal (repelling=) opposing pressure P=F2/A, A=Area, F=F1) were abandoned, in favour of energy. Maybe because the (energy) numbers were bigger (inflated, with less affect) (than the momentum number values) so they could bill more money? By NOT doing those calculations, as above stated, physics has gone astray, & misguided for centurys. All because a simple term was ignored & forgotten, the initial speed v0. Consider the importance, if that initial_speed v0 were relativity's light_speed c. Then you could calculate (=derive) the E=m*(c^2) formula, which came from an italian (in Tirol) before Einstein. (Einstein probably guessed which (alternating polarity) math series, for the total energy, & identified what should be rest mass energy, because he never showed a derivation, only a conclusion.) Cheers P.S. Electricity (so_called power) is really force squared or (momentum work's) power_squared, because (by definition) "power is the rate of doing work" (not energy), (the textbook formulas are wrong again, not complying) & the spring loaded (D'Arsenval) meters are showing force. Many electrical symbols are missing their squared syntax. E.g. should be P(^2)=(I^2)*R, because each current I (Fmax) & voltage V (Fmin) are displaying (spring_loaded) force. So F^2=I*V, =P(^2). Rooted power(^2) (P(^2)=I*V)^0.5 is some sort of average mean (real mechanical), force=mom/t. Notes: fallen height is (h=h1-h0), not the other way around. 0=initial 1=final. But I think you know what I mean. It's obvious. Polarity plays an important part, even for g=-9.8=-(Pi^2) [m/(s^2)]. Get it wrong for g, & you'll get "quarks" (wrong 1/3rd & 2/3rds relations). I.e. "Something went wrong with the milk". -Farmer. Barns are uses for nuclear cross_sections, "as big as a barn's door" =to make it obvious. Please notice: Energy E=Work*va is work multiplied by average speed va. Textbooks wrongly say a similar structured formula (& it's a (real) nasty!); but (kinetic) energy E#F*v is NOT force F multiplied by speed_difference v for reasons above. Work is not force; but instead average_momentum moma (pronounced "momma" like "mama"). So again the textbooks are wrong! Said differently, how can you tell people, it's futile to expect linear behaviour from energy wrt distance? KE shows speeds will be squared, & halved (instead)! As if 1 of those, was not bad enough, (non_linear) contorsion with the 2nd peculiarity also happens.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.