Capiert

Senior Members

486

1. Gravity (split)

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).

5. 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. Gravity (split)

Sorry. I don't know how to use your quote buttons (exclusively). I'm new.

9. Gravity (split)

(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. Gravity (split)

If it feels like a push, why isn't it?
11. Gravity (split)

Sorry. I deleted it for you. Is that ok? Or should the clutter remain for the record?
12. Gravity (split)

Can we feel gravity? I doubt it! Only pressure & that's always on a surface, not gravity.
13. Gravity (split)

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. 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. Conservation of momentum and energy

That question is now placed. Please answer: where did the lost e.g. momentum go?
16. Work? vs momentum! (The derivation).

[quote name="albertlee" post="130097" timestamp="1108547800