quickquestion

 

OK you need to learn very basic maths. You also need to learn to use notation in the way the rest of the world does

 

1. multiplication - it doesn't matter if you multiply the m by 1/2 or multiply the m by v^2 and then by 1/2; they are both exactly the same. This is basic junior school maths

2. sqr(v) does not normally mean v² and it is very close to be confused with sqrt(v) which stands for the square-root

 

When you are getting confused DO THE ACTUAL MATHS - don't guess!

2. I thought sqr(v) is the same as v². What else could it mean?

one. So if 1 is true, then the PE is false because of what I said earlier.

4*9.8*9.8!=2*9.8*9.8

And yeah I am sleepy. So I made a mistake in #26. So we can agree on point 1.

But i still think PE is wrong because.

4*9.8*9.8!=2*9.8*9.8

Your theory is wrong.

But this is a blatant contradiction. You just said my theory is 100% right.

 

 

It is not clear where you get the numbers for the KE equation, but they are clearly wrong.

Official KE equation is 1/2mv2

I wrote 0.5*m*sqr(v)

imatfaal's equations seem to imply that both m and sqr(v) should be multiplied by 0.5.

this is the descrepancy.

1/2m

looks to me like

.5m.

But apparently it means that it applies to the whole thing, not just m.

 

Nobody needs GIF here. It's science forum. Scientists want to see calculations and equations which can be tested against experimental data..

The motions in the GIF, will be following the equations of motions according to Einstein. It will help you to visualize why I don't believe in Einstein.

Most people get through their whole lives having never beaten the crap out of someone.

According to your theory, they should all start becoming murderous idiots whenever the full moon comes out or they drink alcohol.

My theory implied no such thing. My intent was to imply that the moon only caused a subtle subliminal effect.

Maybe such is true, but we're still figuring out how to describe sapience more detailed then "Human."

If you don't like this process, then wait until we've figured out a way to describe sapience without it being so human centered.

Then we can classify the animals and decide which ones are sapient or not.

 

Humans are animals.

So what?

Animals aren't all the same.

We're trying to figure out the ones with qualities that may show that they're more aware then the rest.

Intelligence, is not really a correct means of determining awareness.

Bored people, are often bored because they don't wish to participate in intellectually stimulating activities.

But boredom, is a very intense form of awareness.

Same with pain.

Feeling pain, I am very aware.

But the amount of pain someone feels has very little correlation with their intelligence level.

Ok, so what about this though. Let's make it even simpler and give a situation with zero air resistance.

On earth an object will take 1 second to fall 9.8 meters.

PE equation is mgh.

Lets say mass is 4 kg, gravity is 9.8 m/s and height is 9.8 m.

So it will tell me

PE: 4*9.8*.9.8

KE=.5*m*sqr(v)

KE=2*9.8*9.8

These do not match.

So what am I doing wrong?

Or is the equation itself, wrong?

Since bullet experiments in water proved KE is correct equation, then I say PE is the wrong equation.

Sure, but the most common forms of female genital mutilation involve either the partial or complete removal of the clitoral glans along with the clitoral hood, and some practices involve sewing the labia majora together on top of what is essentially the complete destruction of the external genitalia. Thus it may not be fair or accurate to say

Well why not ban both. Let's say FGM is worse than Circumcision. Ban both.

You are still not applying SR in its entirety.

If the electron is watching a piece of cardboard 5 light min away which has a clock which is synced to the Earth clock in the Earth frame, then when the when the Electron passe Earth when the Earth clock reads 8:00am, both the electron and the Earth will read a time of 7:55am on the cardboard clock. If the cardboard moves when it clock reads 8:05 am, the Earth will see it move when its own clock reads 8:10 and see the electron arrive just a split-second later and miss the cardboard.

I am going to stop you right there.

First error is you said the Electron passes earth at earth clock's 8:00 AM. But in my example I said it would pass at 8:06.

I don't even know how you are getting this backwards-time travel of 7:55 from.

I'm going to cook up a visual GIF example of what I'm saying, and it's going to be nice.

Currently I have to deal with a lot of annoying and enraging social entities outside of these forums. It is making my anger levels astronomical. My extreme anger is slowing down my ability to make these GIFs. But I am going to try to make these Gif examples.

What is you velocity of the ball just prior to impact? (I noted I forgot to square seconds above.) should be 9.8 m/sec^2 Your velocity should be higher than 54 metres/sec after falling 450 metres

Google tells me terminal velocity is 54 m/s and height to reach terminal velocity is 450 m.

One error for sure is the velocity after 450 metres. time to fall is 9.579 seconds velocity should be 93.95 m/s.

 

[latex] t=\sqrt{\frac{2h}{g}}[/latex]

[latex]v=\sqrt{2gh}[/latex]

I dont know how you got 93.95. That is nearly double. I did not know air resistance could reduce the velocity by double like that.

You did an actual experiment? What kind of atomic clock(s) did you use?

A thought experiment using logic and reason.

Sadly I don't have the tech to measure electron collisions.

 

 

But you must have a reason you think they are all wrong. You must have some evidence or theoretical justification.

 

Surely?

 

Or are you just saying they are wrong because you think it makes you look clever, even though you make it clear with every post that you don't have a clue.

 

 

No you didn't. You made up a bit of gibberish, claimed it was relativity and that therefore the theory must be wrong. All this proves is your profound ignorance.

Strange Ive decided it will be easier for both of us if you debate me on this issue in the other topic. I have posted some relevant response to you in the other topic just now.

 

 

Does it? Citation needed.

 

 

Not if the clock is travelling at the same speed as you. It is not just to do with being "outside".

 

 

Well, nearly. But remember that the person next to that clock would not notice any difference. For them, time runs normally and they see your clock running slow.

 

 

They move at c, not slightly less. But the idea that time stops for photons is irrelevant because (a) photons do not have a valid frame of reference (try it and you will divide by zero) and (b) we measure their propagation time in our frame of reference, not theirs.

 

 

It certainly is. Whether you like it or not, it has to be used in many applications (the most obvious being GPS). And if you discard relativity, then you need to replace all of quantum field theory. Quite a big undertaking for someone with almost no knowledge of physics.

 

 

You will have to be more specific. I can't see any Nobel Prizes in the 70s related to relativity: https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/

 

 

Again, basing "thought experiments" on a complete lack of understanding of the theory, is not really useful. (Except in demonstrating how little you know.)

Yes yes and yes to your first arguments. To save time I just wrote it quickly. Yes if a spaceship was next to you with the same speed, the clock would be going the same.

And no light does not always travel at C. Space is not a complete vacuum.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html

But lets make this and change the context of the argument. Lets say an electron moves at 99.99999% c. Now replace mars with a piece of cardboard. Now can you see the paradox. For the electron the cardboard will never move. So the electron will be in two different dimensions.

If the electron is fired at 8:00 AM, and if the electron had a telescope, it would see the clock of the cardboard pretty much stuck at its 8:00 AM state throughout its whole journey.

but the humans will see it actually take 5 minutes to reach the cardboard because C is a finite value.

and if in human space the cardboard is moved at 8:05 AM,

But the human observer will just see the electron pass the moved the cardboard and reach earth at 8:06 AM

but to the electron's POV, it will collide the cardboard before it ever moves.

and thus a paradox.

Also I'm aware scientists put a lot of work into GPS.

But there could be an alternate explanation.

What we know is that it correctly predicts aging.

Perhaps the aging of atoms age less.

But time itself does not change.

Just the frequency rate of atomic interactions and collective entities.

And I will get back to you on this pulsar thing because I dont have my books with me right now.

 

 

While interesting, that is not about "telepathic conscious influence".

perhaps I should rephrase it as "emotional telepathy."

There is a long-standing myth that the Hopi language has no concept of time originating with Whorf (of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis fame) that still gets taught in some entry level classes in high school and occasionally even college despite not actually being true. I assume this is what is being referenced.

Think it was some African tribes, so not Hopi or Amondawa. Zulu if I remember correctly.

Which is why the three things I asked for included A: The ability to think logically.

Ravens have that ability.

Also, since we can't seem to be able to agree whether it should be intelligent, sentient, etc, we should come up with some way to class animals based on their mental and social abilities. I'm gonna try to come up with a class system. Give me some slack, it's basically so we can have some guidelines. We can change it if need be.

 

Like humans would be a class 5. Not because I think humans are perfect and beat everything, but we have A: The ability to think logically. B: The ability to create language. C: The ability to feel emotion. D: The ability to question our own orgins. E: A lot of other things. Either way, here goes.

 

Animal Conscientiam Classes

 

Class 1 Animal: Little to no logical ability, no ability to communicate, operates mainly on instinct.

 

Class 2 Animal: Small to little logical ability, little to no ability to communicate, Sometimes reasons against instinct.

 

Class 3 Animal: Moderate logical ability, small ability to communicate, Can reason against instinct, little to no emotions.

 

Class 4 Animal: Large to Moderate logical ability, moderate ability to communicate, doesn't rely on instinct, has emotions.

 

Class 5 Animal: Large logical ability, Ability to communicate with a complex language, doesn't rely on instinct, has emotions.

 

 

Now to clear some things up.

 

A complex language can include sign language, but it has to have nouns, adjetives, verbs, etc. Even ancient languages, simple as they were compared to today, would easily be considered a complex language. A moderate ability to communicate can include Apes, which some have been taught some sign language. While not overly complex, it's a fairly decent ability to communicate. Dogs, I would say have small ability to communicate. They whine when they want something, bark to signal somethings up, they have play bows, etc. Fish I would say have little to no ability to communicate. Maybe I'm wrong, correct me here. And for no ability to communicate, I'd say worms or germs. Stuff like that.

 

As for the instinct part. I didn't say humans have no instincts. I said we can reason against them, and we do on a fairly common basis. The strongest instincts obviously, like fear, is a different matter. Other animals, like snakes, rely on instinct much more.

 

I'd also say, any animal capable of using a complex language, would be considered a class 5.

 

Tell me what you think about this. Remember, it's not a scientific thing. It's just something I figured would be useful. We can figure out specifics later.

Languages have varying complexity.

Some primitive tribal languages lack abstract concepts such as words that describe Time that is not in the present. (no future/past kind of verbiage.)

if dogs had a language, it would be caveman language. Dog eat...eat good. Squirrel. Chase squirrel. Chase...good. Bark = Open the door because you left me outside.

For this reason, dogs never evolved much talking other than barking. Emotions would serve the same purpose as their simple language. Emotions are a simple, yet somewhat complex language. Somewhat complex because they have so many subtle nuances. Like smells or music.

Time is a navigational piece. Like fast forward through a movie.

If solipsism is not real, it means you fast forward through your life, forget it, then enter someone's body, and go back to the state of matter of 10 years ago, but from a different perspective.

Essentially, time is just changing perspectives. Through time we can see 3d space.

Absolute time does not exist. But coherent states of matter do. Two people can see the same car. Thus they know the car exists.

And you were told that an earthquake does not exhibit fluid like behaviour.

When solid ground wibbles and wobbles, I consider it to be fluid-like. But furthermore I think aether also fills the shape of its container.

Let's actually look at this scenario under the rules of SR.

Grandma watches Astronaut fly to Mars. At 0.99c, (assuming Mars is at its closest to Earth) By her clock it will take ~4.343 min for him to reach Mars. So let's say that immediately after watching the take off, she returns home, and oddly enough it takes her ~4.343 min to do so. Thus, when she returns home, the astronaut is just arriving at Mars. (though if grandma was to point a powerful telescope at Mars, she would not see him arrive at Mars until another ~4.3 min have passed.

Now, assuming our astronaut turned around immediately after reaching Mars, he will return to Earth ~8.687 min after he left according to Grandma, or just ~2.61 sec after Grandma would have seen him arriving at Mar's (on his return trip he was chasing close behind the light carrying the image of his arrival.

If Grandma had been watching him during the whole trip, she would have seen the following.

As he traveled to Mars, she would see him Doppler shifted at a rate of ~0.071, for 8.643 min and thus see him age ~36.76 sec. Then for ~0.043 min she would see him Doppler shifted at a rate of ~14.1 and thus age an another 36.76 sec. So she will see him age ~73.53 sec during the ~8.687 min the trip took for her.

 

Now the astronaut would see this: Traveling to Mar's takes ~36.76 sec by his clock. If he is watching grandma this whole time, he will see her Doppler shifted at 0.071 and thus see ~2.61 seconds pass for her. Thus upon reaching Mars he will see her as just starting the walk home. Upon reaching Mars's he turns around and heads home. It takes another ~36.76 sec to get back to Earth during which time he sees grandma Doppler shift at a rate of ~14.1 and thus advance in time by ~8.64 min. This plus the 2.6 sec he saw her age during the outbound trip totals the same 8.687 min that grandma measured the trip as taking.

Both astronaut and grandma agree that she had been at her house for something over 4 min by her clock when the astronaut returns. No "dual realities" involved.

 

If you want to analyze this from just the perspective of what grandma and the astronaut would determine is happening without relying on visual Doppler shift, you can do that to and get the same answers.

When you do this you have to take all three relativistic effects into account,

Time dilation

length contraction

relativity of simultaneity.

 

In other words, you need to apply the entirety of the theory to the scenario and not just part of it.

 

Time dilation is just one aspect of the theory and needs to be applied in conjunction with the others to properly analyze this scenario.

There are annoying babies constantly whining in the background, so I am just going to assume you are right for the time being, until I actually take the time to review your calculations in a more pleasant environment.

In which case, how do you explain the "passing through mars" paradox I stated earlier (It was in this thread I believe, but if you can't find it let me know.)

Then you may be doing something wrong in your calculations. Your Ke should return your orginal PE value. (here is a hint)

 

as it falls, its total energy (the sum of the KE and the PE) remains constant and equal to its initial PE.

 

Take the scenario above with the formulas you posted and show your calcs so we can find what your missing

Pe=mgh

bowling ball of mass 5 kg, height of 450 meters, gravity of 9.8 m/s.

Ke=0.5*m*sqr(v)

velocity after 450 meters is 54 m/s.

ke=7250 j.

pe=22050 j.

So its a bit suprising, I thought ke would be more than pe, but still they do not match.

So everyone else is wrong about what words mean and only you have the insight to understand their real definitions. Ok.

This is another fallacy.

Seems fallacies are like the default.

I never said everyone else is wrong.

Nor did I imply that all words have wrong meanings.

Actually, many if not most would agree with my definition of Fascism.

No it isn't. Ok lets take an example a weight sits on a table. Calculate the potential energy of a 1 kg mass sitting 10 feet off the floor with g=9.8 m/s.

 

That weight can obviously perform work after all if you remove the table the weight will fall. Potential energy of course will convert to kinetic energy once the weight starts moving

And this is where the fictitious part comes in.

It says PE=height*gravity.

But KE=.5*m*sqr(v).

On impact it will return KE.

The KE will give a much higher value than the PE allots.

And the PE will not yield the same results as the KE equation.

 

You originally asserted that your ether is a fluid and when I tried to find what sort of fluid you thought it to be a gas.

Do you know any fluids that are not matter?

I corrected myself later on and said what I meant by fluid, was that it has fluid-like behavoir, like an earthquake.

 

No. I responded to a specific mischaracterized generalization of China as "Fascist China". I supported myself with accepted definitions, and showed where your definitions were lacking.

 

I also told you that you can be vague and imprecise if you want to. I don't expect you to be persuaded by reason, since it's clear you don't use reason to reach any of your conclusions. You make emotional and sweeping generalizations that I think are detrimental to anyone who wants to learn anything, and they tend to clamp off your availability for reason.

 

Do I want you to abandon your interpretation of fascism? I think you need to add depth to much of your worldview, and abandoning your subjective, emotional rhetoric about humanity in general would be a net benefit for you.

 

But look at me, being reasonable with you . Go ahead, go back to your ranting.

My definition of fascism has depth. I dont just go to a dictionary made by the resident authority. I say, how is fascism as I see it.

The amount of reasoning I use is very high. The amount of reasoning society has is very low. If I complain about the world, I am met with accusations of being a teenager, mentally ill, etc. It's all very predictable.

that works too depends on the book in this go with your textbook. I take it yhis is homework?

No.

My praxis is that I deeply suspect that PE equation is borderline fictitious.

 

So is teenage angst, in fact, someone wrote a book about it.

So are you admitting you are displaying tendencies of teenage angst.

Does it?

Potential energy is the energy possessed by a body by virtue of its position relative to others, stresses within itself, electric charge, and other factors.

 

So in order to calculate PE you have to determine its position from the center of gravity in the case of graviational potential energy.

The science book i read said that the main thing you have to factor in is the distance from floor level. Not its Cog.