Jump to content

Bill McC

Senior Members
  • Posts

    56
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Bill McC

  • Birthday 06/05/1962

Profile Information

  • Location
    East Meadow, NY
  • Interests
    Universal Science
  • College Major/Degree
    I had a scholarship to C.W. Post at 13, but I did not agree with their curriculum
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Physics
  • Biography
    I tend to state my honest opinion no matter what. I love my family.
  • Occupation
    Fire Alarm Technician, TIG welder, Cadd Drawing

Recent Profile Visitors

357 profile views

Bill McC's Achievements

Meson

Meson (3/13)

-22

Reputation

  1. On the contrary, I have found that those that march around proclaiming almighty science and the need to defend it against those that question it, have no science. They have a little formula that helps someone doing their homework or helps someone calculate some difficult to achieve result. But they do not have science. Science needs no protection, and if it has fallen, it has fallen because the people are not interested. If they are not interested, there is no science. When people are not interested in science/reality, they are suicidal and extremely dangerous individuals by actual observation. Someone with reality/science is rather calm and confident and can communicate civilly for years about a subject. While those claiming to have the only science, the holy grail of science, are quite poor at science and cannot explain their science. Others claim science proves nothing really, except that what it states today is the gospel, and they will not allow any other currently not supported "science" into view. Nor can they discuss or defend against sane challenges. So my thought is when you are ready for real science, I hope it is still there for you. There is not much left; that is why we haven't been to the moon in over half a century, even though we have unlimited funding for any good project in the U.S., As does any other country.
  2. That sentence fragment marked in red is only a recitation; you did it without understanding electricity. I have worked with many experts in the electrical field, and although it is disheartening to realize that modern science took money from the government to achieve grant results that were predefined, it is what took place. Electricity today is a hot mess. There is almost no going back as you are here claiming at least an eighth-grade education, I am sure, and cannot see the total failure of institutions, especially when it comes to electricity. My eighth-grade remark does not mean that you did not spend many more years in a counterintelligence center/university. It means any eighth-grader could figure it out if they were interested in doing so. But don’t worry, most eighth-graders today will never understand electricity, so perhaps you are safe.
  3. You probably would have had to ring the church bell during a lightning storm without him. He discussed the subtle particle of electricity that could permeate matter three hundred years ago. The man was on top of reality. Teslas fault was not giving Benjamin Franklin credit, perhaps he did not know what he had done. I attack the Leaning Tower of Pisa’s foundation constantly as well, whenever I see a similar foundation built or being built.
  4. Many of your points are valid. However, many are standard Royal Society armchair recitals of current beliefs which are the same as ancient beliefs. I noted that you did not mention Benjamin Franklin, the other side of the coin, the man who started science on earth. A man whose inventions were better in many ways than even Tesla's inventions due to a basic understanding of the universe. The Royal society laughed at old Benjamin Franklin for thirty minutes, as his letter about static electricity and lightning being the same was read by a friend who knew of Benjamin Franklin's working lightning rods. They claimed he was spouting off. They challenged him to fly a kite in an electrical storm, and he did it easily, as can any Universal scientist today. But when the Myth Busters attempted it almost three hundred years later, they claimed that Benjamin Franklin could not have done so, and universities agreed. That would be sad if it were not criminal. Benjamin Franklin realized that only electricity stops electricity. No insulator can protect you without first charging in a ramping voltage. It took decades before Benjamin Franklin received the Copley award from the Royal Society, its highest award. Universities have since reversed their decision about single-particle electricity and have gone back to Du Fay's two-particle theory of electricity; Du Fay's theory had children going to bell towers to ward off lightning. Knowledge is no longer what universities are about. Today ARC (Anode, Rectified, Cathode) has been skewed by University's announced decision to change Benjamin Franklins exact markings to total lunacy. So before you write off people, you need to look at the government that owned science totally after World War Two. And what they have gotten you to believe that is easily debunked if you wish to face it. Most do not. It is too late for your document to protect science.
  5. I get if you substitute mass for weight and measure an object at room temperature at sea level, and divide the weight of the object by its volume you get density. But that seems a bit far from using that formula for its inertial value as “physics" often claims it is. I am saying you need other inputs and values and standards to turn it into a volume if you only have inertia. You could convert inertia of a known substance to weight on earth and then divide by its volume to determine density but again not really a simple Density = mass/volume, in my opinion. But the formula would work for weight over volume equals density. So if it is implied in “physics” that mass means the weight of the substance the object is made of at sea level then sure you can use that formula. But it seems to me that mass is being used arbitrarily and incorrectly.
  6. If water did not deviate from a straight or curved graph line of volume to temperature, the water at the poles would freeze solid to the bottom of the ocean. If water did not upon cooling below 38-40 degrees Fahrenheit, become less dense and float on the 38-40 degree water, to break all expansion to temperature rules of all other liquids currently known, the cold water would sink to the bottom of the ocean and freeze the ocean solid. It would not thaw during the summer, and ice caps would reach New York. Water is quite the substance. That is why we must keep the oceans free of pollutants that would destroy the water's remarkable ability to do this.
  7. I am not confused at all, I know that you need a volume to compare to a volume to get density. The mass in the formula Density = mass/volume would only compare the number of atoms in that object over the current volume which with will yield nothing. Until you figure out the matching volume of the substance on earth at sea level at room temperature that that resists inertia equally to the object having the formula applied. From that volume of substance at sea level at room temperature you can determine by dividing by the current volume of the object where ever it is, what the density of the object is currently. So I am not the one claiming mass is equal to volume in “Physics” I am claiming in order for your formula to work mass must mean volume or is implying it means volume. Or else it is not a legit mathematical formula. I am saying you are implying that mass is volume with that formula. Which is fine if you go by the definition of mass that means volume. But you angrily tell me mass is resistance to inertia witch is not a volume in itself. You have to go outside the box, outside of the formula to relate inertia to a volume that you can compare and determine present density I am not repeating and I have gotten not one ounce of information that makes my conclusion void or invalid. I have gotten references to World War Two, but no sound mathematical information to make me move on.
  8. You posted Density = mass/volume. If mass is the particle count the actual number of atoms of some substance in an object, comparing that to its current volume that has the same particle count would be futile. So if it is explainable have at it. You keep quoting what seems like a rather incorrect formula in anyones sphere of understanding. I am suggesting that it could work if you modify it and it should be easily understood.
  9. I am saying that if you have an object and you want to know what its density is at the present moment by measuring its mass its inertia, you need to know what volume of that substance on earth will create an equal inertia at sea level, then you can compare that volume over the objects current volume and determine its density. That formula of Density equals mass/volume is missing some steps or assumes a value that mass alone even to physicists does not mean. Because the formula only works for density if you are comparing the substance the object is made of and its earthly volume at sea lever at room temperature, compared to the objects current volume which will give you its current density. So perhaps the formula should be Density = standard volume of known substance at standard density determined by mass, over volume. If it were written Density = standard volume of known substance at standard density determined by mass,/volume, it might get confused.
  10. I understand the twisted jest of it, but the formula only compares one volume to another if it is to work. It has to, or it is not math and science. Inertia identifies the volume of a known substance in an object as it would be on earth and relates it to that volume as it would be on earth at sea level at room temperature. At that point, we can make a comparison of the volume of the object as it would be on earth to its current volume to determine current density. You are not comparing inertia to volume. You are not even comparing weight on earth to the volume; you are comparing volume to volume to obtain density. You have to. That formula "Density equals mass/volume" is disgusting, in my opinion, and does not fit any mathematical format of which I am aware. Unless you are saying that inertia means volume, then that formula flies. If you tell me that the convention is to call mass (volume on earth), I am ok with that, at least as far as math goes, but linguistically it would just be another physics butcher job of English. If there is something wrong with what I am saying I would love to know. Knowledge is understanding something.
  11. There are problems with wear at joints for mechanical arms in space, because lubricants don’t like a vacuum and heat. And the lack of air between the surfaces of metal create a very strange effect most are not aware of on earth where they only get to see metal to metal with a thousandth of an inch of air between the metal, which causes it to glide on the other on that cushion of air. In space that air is pretty thin and mostly hydrogen which offers little lift and separation the two pieces of metal they almost bond to one another in space. I was suggesting that bearings for such arms could be made using magnetic bearings. That does not seem really far out to me.
  12. If you are going to use your formula you would have to use specific gravity or density which creates the same results for density, for similar elements and substances. That would be the value you would use to create the baseline inertia value. You could reverse engineer using that information to come up with the theoretical volume of a known substance that displayed a certain inertia to form a volume based on specific gravity or density on earth. So if a meteorite slammed into earth you could extrapolate how much inertia it previously had before impact and and use volume measurements obtained through whatever means, of the asteroid, and then figure out what most of the meteorite was made of, and then determine how much heat, cold, rays, vibration played in the actual density of the meteorite. But that is way out there and I would not give a quarter for the result. If it was me and I knew what the object was approximately made of and its approximate volume I would state that, I would describe its surroundings, ambient radiations and temperature and velocity relevant to some object, that would be all I would need for anything I wanted to know about it. When you throw in inertia you are on shaky ground. Especially if you were educated with Pre World War science. Particle count would make more sense than the word mass. And there is debate about the size of atoms at room temperature now anyway. In relating to mass, yes, mass, according to “Physics,” is only the inertia created by an object of specific Volume and Density at sea level and tested for resistance to inertia. Those tests are tests of specific gravity, which is a test of Density. When we find that substance elsewhere, it may be in a different volume, different Density. Still, we can extrapolate based upon a comparison of inertia how much of the substance there is, based on the inertia tests done on the sample at sea level. So if you wanted to use a formula, it would be the Density of a known object being examined equals Volume of the mass at sea level with equal inertia over current Volume. The object cannot be unknown, or else we could not tell what inertia the substance would have back on earth to compare the inertia to at the present location. The formula would be Density equals Volume of a known substance in the known state back on earth at sea level matching inertia of object measured over the Volume of the current object. And again, those results would not get my quarter. It all seems out of order to me. I would probably know the temperature of the object before I started the crazy variable-filled comparison to see what temperature it is doing to its volume. All of this is physics whacked method of relaying simplicities not mine.
  13. You are the one that said "Density = mass/volume." That is not a legit formula. I am explaining why. It is the same thing as saying, "Density = specific gravity/volume." It does not make sense mathematically. If you can extrapolate on your presented formula and understanding I would love that. Density of a substance measured on earth at sea level equals the mass exhibited by that substance anywhere in the universe. Specific gravity measured on earth at sea level equals the mass exhibited by that substance anywhere in the universe.
  14. No, I was pretty clear about that. I claimed that the "physics" definition for the word mass is specific-gravity and contains all the above-mentioned information. Specific gravity sets the inertia value for that substance. Once set, those criteria are the "mass" according to "physics," not me. As you move out away from earth, you take only inertia value with you; as you heat it or cool it or expose it to rays or vibration, the Density will change. Gravity, if any, exists will affect it differently, so all that is left is the inertia it will create no matter how large or small it becomes due to expansion or contraction. So although specific gravity is Density according to "physics," and you can figure out how much a volume of the substance will weigh on earth at sea level, it leaves out any effects of heat, light, UV, X-rays, vibration, or cooling. So Density does not equal mass/volume; that equation is not even possible in "physics." Yet, haha. According to physics, Density is specific gravity, so mass is the ill-thought-out word for specific gravity, according to physics. And that sounds like something important and new perhaps, maybe something to learn? It is only the inertia a certain amount of a substance with a specific gravity on earth at sea level will create there and anywhere in the universe. It has nothing to do with density other than on earth at sea level at room temperature while not being exposed to rays, heat, UV, X-rays, vibration or extreme gravity.
×
×
  • 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.