Duration

I pity you.

But the fat lady hasn't even stood up yet. The event isn't over yet. Are you one of those psychic ladies?

Merged post follows:

Card reader, perhaps?

Unless your ideas make more accurate predictable results then, you've got NOTHING, nothing at all just the ramblings of a crazy man... That's how science works, you need evidence, that means predictions that are shown to be true, and NO evidence to the contrary, there is none for relativity and lots for your ideas as discussed many many times before.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

I hope you get better soon. And the meds don't melt your brain any more.

Nothing?

Someone has already grabbed the idea and ran with it, you can take that to the bank!

I honestly have faith in there not being a human as stubbornly dense as he seems to be and maybe just maybe he'll learn something and realise just how amazing reality is and how the world outside his head is far more complicated, beautiful and fascinating than anything he could possibly imagine.

Actually Klaynos, it's all getting really clear about now for me. How about you?

They're coming to take me away, ha ha!

Deja vu.

 

Why do you bother, Klaynos? He'll just ignore your answer as if that makes it wrong then claim you don't have any answers.

 

It all happened before and it will happen again.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

Stop abusing members' names. Swansont *disagreed* with you, as any person with their right minds would, specifically one who actually *knows* his physics.

 

This is really pathetic, Duration.

Swansont said it appeals to the 2nd law.

They're coming to take me away ha ha!

Should I get the quote?

I'm sorry to tell you that this misconception that you have is just that, a misconception. There is MASSIVE amounts of evidence for relativity, the fact that the internet works globally is such evidence without accurate atomic clocks that have SR and GR corrections fast long distance communication would not be possible. So unless you think there is a massive conspiracy then the only possibility is that relativity works. If you can't see that, then science certainly isn't the place for you, maybe writing poor childrens books about kittens would be more suited.

I'm not saying it isn't practical, I'm saying it is inaccurate, and is causing science to go the wrong way! They need to follow my idea, as it is in compliance with the 2nd law, isn't it Swansont?

The distance between the centre and the two people would be measured differently by the two other space ships. This is a result of the laws of physics being the same everywhere in the universe in inertial rest frames....

That's their problem, it doesn't change the torque!

As I said, Einsteins world is illusions!

The torque is either the result of the rotation of the "rotating thing", or its cause. In either case the rate of rotation is proportional to the torque applied (or vice versa). Therefore the measurements taken by the other two spaceships should read identically because they are measuring the same thing. Yet they do not.

 

Your misuse of simple formulae doesn't solve the problem. Guess what does?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

How is that supposed to apply to anything we have been discussing? What are you trying to demonstrate with that comment?

I'm demonstrating that there is force*distance, on both sides, but not a zero net force between them, so there is no RPM.

That is the distance I was talking about.... It is measured to be a different length by a perfectly accurate measuring device by each of the space ships.

The distance is a rod, there is no motion.

Take a totter for example. Two people sitting on the totter, both equally off the ground, both the same distance from the fulcrum, and both the same mass, totally balanced, because the net force is zero. There is no motion.

The torque is equal to the force times the distance!

You clearly stated that Torque = Force x Distance = dp/dt x distance....

 

There is clearly momentum, time and distance in there.

 

None of which are Lorentz invariants. They will ALL be measured differently by the different space ships and result in a different Torque being measured.

 

Shockingly difficult to get your head around and counter intuitive I know. But it's what happens, makes life REALLY annoying.... but the universe doesn't have to act how we think it should....

The distance is the radius from the axis, not the distance traveled.

You can apply 100 lb-ft of torque and no work is done, or you can apply 100 lb-ft of torque doing work.

OK, well if we measure the force, which we can find from the angular acceleration (from the angular frequency), and the length of the rotating thing both the space ships will measure different values for the length and the force and a different Torque value.

 

None of them are lorentz invariants.

 

I would strongly recommend you go find a first year undergraduate physics text and read it, then learn alot of maths and read it again. Else you simply don't have the tools at your disposal to understand what is going on here.

The torque is at the axis, which has no dimension.

...and before you start looking into it further, let me save you some time.

if f=ma, if a=0, f=0.

...and yes, when you are cruising at a steady MPH in your car, not accelerating, (not increasing or decreasing MPH) the engine is doing work, maintaining the constant RPM, not accelerating.

Oh, baby, you already have sweetiepie.

 

TXZMZ-XvvzI

Thanks, that was hysterical. :D:D:D:D:D

Showing a desire to learn. I like this.

 

We have three space ships.

 

Space ship one contains a rotating thing.

 

Space ship two is travelling at velocity A relative to space ship one and contains a perfect stop watch, and measures the RPM of the rotating thing to be 10RPM.

 

Space ship three is travelling at velocity B relative to space ship one and contains an identical perfect stop watch, this ship measures the RPM to be 12RPM.

 

Both measurements are correct. The physics behind this has been experimentally proven billions of times a day.

 

You just reading this post the physics has been tested once per large network node, so probably around 5 times as I'm in the UK and the server is not, per bit of information each character is at least 8 bits, for just this post that around 40000 times.

I said a simple example of torque, Klaynos. Where do you talk about torque in that post? You only talk RPM.

Torque is force*distance.

This is probably the most bizarre thread I've ever encountered here. (Admittedly, I've not been here long. But I've seen wife-beatings, nipple-twists, and perhaps the most tenacious troll on the internet)

Do I get a certificate for that?

Unlike vampires, my special powers don't transfer.

Too bad.

I've been in this discussion with you for about 100 times already and like a malformed baby you refuse to learn not to touch the socket.

 

I think it's time I just let you electrocute yourself.

There is no electric flow until the circuit is complete, and then you measure volts and amps, multiply them, and you get watts, which a unit of measure of power, which is work/time. Work being force*distance, and time being the duration, of course.

Bite me!

Did you read the paper? Don't comment on other people posting garbage when all you have ever posted is crap.

Perpetual motion, eh?

That depends on how you define "core". It's not the absolute middle.

 

That's also irrelevant. I didn't calculate the distance of the Earth from some arbitrary point you may call "core". I went by your statement (that the Earth was once inside the sun) and calculated the distance of the Earth from the sun.

 

Teh conclusion is that the Earth was never inside the Sun.

 

Today the average distance between the Sun and the Earth is 1AU (about 149,598,000 kilometers).

4.5 Billion years ago, when the Earth formed, the Earth was at a distance of [math]149,598,000-4.5=149,597,995.5 \text{kilometers}[/math] from the Sun.

 

 

This, under no definition whatsoever other than in your weird little mind, is "inside the sun".

Read the other thread so I don't have to do it again.

A rough calculation shows that Earth would have to be receding from the Sun at a rate of 33 meters per year to have come from the Sun in the 4.5 billion years it has been around. That's only, oh, five or six orders of magnitude off from the actual number.

So science wasn't even close before, eh?

Let's reiterate:

 

 

 

When the Earth was formed it was 4.5 kilometers closer to the Sun than it is today.

 

That is by FAR not even close to its diameter -- how is this "inside" the sun?

You need a better birth certificate with your new found knowledge, calculate it, DH knows how.

Duration, you're either blind or you insist on being an idiot.

 

Look at what I wrote. 4.5 billion years ago the Earth was 4.5 kilometers CLOSER TO THE SUN.

 

That means that the Earth is indeed moving slowly away from the sun, yay for you, but it never was INSIDE THE SUN.

Is the sun the core of the solar system?

Take it where? What does that prove? Did you even read the article?

Use the information and disseminate it, and talk about it, and write about it, and speak about it, until your science buddies understand we came from the sun.

Thank You Mooeypoo, for having the intestinal fortitude (read balls) to come forth with the truth.

Like I said before, take it and run. I have no desire to pursue it further. I want obscurity.

It is extremely difficult to answer that question because there are so many other celestial bodies that affect Earth's orbit.

If it was easy to measure someone would have noticed it before now.

We have witnessed planet formation in other solar systems; we have a pretty good idea that it's something like the accretion-disc model. Unless you can point to someplace where your thing-a-ma-jig is happening, it's not a model, nor a theory. It's barely even a conjecture. It's a random imaginative guess, and that, good sir, is not science -- it's stupid.

Again, still no answer as to if we are further from the sun now than we used to be in the past.

Save you garbage, buddy, and answer the question.

FAIL. Right here. RIGHT HERE. You use a theory to explain a set of data, not the other way around.

 

I don't know why you guys bother with him... This thread is so ridiculous I'm suffering from Poe's Law between this guy being a troll or just that bleeding thick.

Whatever. :rolleyes:

Call it what you want, I want to know if the Earth is going in or out of the Sun?

Merged post follows:

I like how Swansont noticed my idea was in compliance with the 2nd law, and I haven't seen him since.