Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

39 Good

About jajrussel

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Mostly, just about everything. Then there are the things I seem to foget on a daily basis. Losing my cell causes a panic because I have forgotten just about every bit of information that I have stored on it.

Recent Profile Visitors

7554 profile views
  1. Okay I am completely out if phase in this conversation. It's not a riddle, but in my defense my contributions didn't do anything to make the conversation any more convoluted then it already was/is. It's actually seems to be starting to make some sense to me so I'm hoping Michel 123456 will continue by explaining why Q is is placed where it is and how that placement implies ancient. I'd ask him to draw me a picture, but... Well, he already did... Of course if anyone knows why Q is placed where it is, and why it implies ancient and wouldn't mind explaining it to me it would probably only make me feel more foolish, but at this point that seems to be the only direction left to me, and I'm strangly okay with it.
  2. Okay my original observation is flawed. The position of c was indicated on the original diagram. You have folded? a rectangle along the diagonal? To show what? Okay maybe I see it? a,c is actually the T axis, and c on the original diagram merely marks the intersect on the diagonal? The reality is that a,c is equal to b,c, but I chose to think the path was a,b, so I mentally associated a, b to a, c.The question is why? Because in the original diagram the placement of c suggest an association with b. Then I suspected a trick then shooting from the hip I devised a mental illusion to explain what I thought the original diagram was suggesting. It only gets worse if I'm still wrong...
  3. Well that was painless. I'm going to have to read everything again just to make sure I understand what you are asking. But from the hip the illustration looks like an illusion, but then you never say that a,c is equal to a,b. However the diagram seems to suggest it. As you roll it posistion b would have to drop below the plain because if it rolls true then a,c would have to be equal to a,b. What you have shown is that posistion b is transitioned out of bounds as you roll the diagram. We would never consider a,c as a legitimate path because initially posistion c is out of bounds. Thus beyond consideration.
  4. Seriously, I'm not sure which is going to take me longer. Figuring out what the apparent riddle is here, or figuring out how to open an.avi file? Let me see first I have to get out the lap top wait for the backlog of updates to finish before I jam the works up by trying to do something else at the same time. Not to mention that I read that there is a major update that MS says is crucial for all MS system users to download and install and conventional wisdom suggests that said crucial download will not be included in the update backlog. Meaning that about the time I think everything is caught up and ready to go, I will go to SFN to play the .avi file, thenI will run into some serious wait time only to be informed when I run out of patience an begin to investigate that a critical update needs to downloaded, Do I want to do it now? To which I will click yes, only to come back an hour or more later to a new notification asking if I want to install the update now? I will sigh and shake my head then click yes, but now I'm afraid to leave, so I will sit there for what seems like forever for a little bar to fill in across the screen, and that is only if I'm lucky cause sometimes there is just a busy indicator without any sign of progress to encourage me... Really? An .avi file? I'm just joking my laptop needs to be caught up anyway. Lol, , oh God an .avi file... Truthfully I've always enjoyed your illustrations...
  5. I like questions about time I also like Swansont's answer We can only move in the positive direction, or I only age in the positive direction, but can I say this with absolute certainty? It depends on perspective. I am not overly fond of getting old, so from that perspective I don't exactly see getting older and a positive direction, but in relation to the Original Post when considering my age the only outcome is that I start at 0 then keep adding plusses as slowly as possible until time for me becomes a matter of 0 plusses added. This is kind of how and why questions about time relate to and belong in relativity as well as in philosophy. It is a matter of perspective I like this answer. Does this answer require a vector? Aren't vectors a matter of perspective. Generally when presented time is to the right and always on the diagonal. So from that perspective time is the diagonal. A wise man kept saying this. I foolishly kept arguing that he was wrong. Not to long ago I watched a video that made me think that if I could prove that time was vectorless I could prove that travel back in time was impossible, but the complexity of the thought is just out if my reach. Perspective changed with each thought. Time is like acceleration it speeds up, it slows down, and for observational purposes it even stops. Someone once insisted that gravity was acceleration, or that one can't tell the difference under certain circumstances, so time is like gravity? I have always tried to think of gravity as a positive, but then I noticed in a video that mathematically it was represented as a negative. I still haven't quite figured out exactly why, but I did notice that if -9.86etc. was entered as a positive the answer to the equation would have been the square root of a negative which kept resulting in an error message from my calculator, so apparently the answer had to be the square root of a positive number, so now I'm wondering if in order to get there should I consider that time always moves in the negative direction. Hmm, okay! What happened? Oh, I see it's a matter of perspective. The direction one observer notes,might be seen as the exact opposite of another observers perspective. Now if I can only convince my calculator... To the OP I'M guessing that the answer will depend on your reason for asking? I haven't read the whole thread yet so maybe you have given your reason for asking? Anyway, I liked the question thank you for asking it. One other thing I remember about the video is that it gave an equation where time was on the right side of the equal sign. So I'm assuming that if I want to ever again ask what is time all I should have to do is flip the equation around where instead of equation=t, it becomes t=equation. Basically it was something like a negative times a negative equals the square root of a positive, so now I'm wondering if I can say time is like the square root of a positive, and is this proof that you can't go back in time? Sorry I drifted off topic, I'm wondering why you asked the question? I should stop drifting and read the entire thread to see if you stated why you asked the question.
  6. Sitting QM to the side, but still within reach for a moment. Isn't an object at rest, say a rock on the ground in the state of having a force applied to it? It has potential which I increase by picking it up, so it is kind of cyclic. I'm assuming that it is it's mass that is it's true potential. By using force I gain access to some of it's potential which I can use to do work? If it is so does it mean that I can define force as a means of accessing an objects potential, as well as a means of doing work? I'm really glad that no one one the other end can hear me, cause Google/Android just interrupted my wifi connection apparently just to show me that there is another way by which I can sign in to my wifi. Actually I think their intent was to force me to go through the motions so that I would be well acquanted with them thereby learning something. I think half the neighborhood heard, I kinda hope Google heard, so that they can appreciate my appreciation. The good thing is that when I got back to the thread what I had started was restored. The thought of losing what I had started was kind of the catalyst, so now finding things restored I am somewhat ashamed.
  7. This was the sobering question. The thing that was bothering me most. It seemed as if it were magic. Where is the KE coming from? It seemed as if it was just being grabbed out of nothing. My mind kept/keeps saying impossible! So I was trying to build a scenario of interaction where energy was exchanged, where one wasn't needed. In the meantime I've watched another video that made me reminded me, duh, I was building the scene all wrong. I'm still afraid I'll mess up the explaining... I was trying to build a scene of interaction when all I needed was momentum. I kept focusing on where does the KE come from. When I should have been focusing on acquisition. Kinda one of those duh moments of realization. The KE comes from the source object. After watching the video I keep wanting to say borrowed, but no I don't think it is borrowed so much as it is accessed through momentum. The object at rest has potential energy. Give the object momentum, and you can access some of that potential energy as KE. So even acquisition is the wrong term, unless it is meant in the sense of acquiring access. I need to go grab the video link cause it will also show to a small degree how I was trying to design the scenario of interaction, which want needed. I remember watching it before and it is likely where my thoughts got their push. The man is brilliant. I am somewhat lacking, so when I tried using the thoughts I sort of crashed them.
  8. Thank you now I need to think...
  9. Well, yes. I'm sure that I'm not the only one who would have been surprised. I have accepted it but still, would like to know why the difference in acceleration is so negligible? And if there is a difference isn't it better to be told that there is a difference no matter how negligible than to be taught that there is no difference that the hammer and the feather fall at exactly the same rate. That seems like sensationalism rather than science. It makes a difference because one truth leads to another. When you simply say that both accelerate at exactly the same rate then what is the point of individual curvatures? Swansont is much faster than I, I need to stop and see what he has written.
  10. ? Space seems lacking so why would anyone attribute curvature to space? What changes about gravity if you attribute the curvatures to interacting fields? Actually I have no problem with calling it curved space so long as I know that space has nothing to do with the effect other than to provide room to maneuver, and possibly the degree to which the effect attains. Otherwise it becomes a little confusing and that is only a problem to me. I read that there is a field for every particle. I think I read it on SFN I can't remember. Collectively that would be a lot of Mass/energy contributing to space. And would seem to say that if something moving through space gains energy the energy gained is not necessarily just kinetic, assuming that other fields are present energy seemingly sucked right out of space/nothing, unless fields contribute. Here I'm assuming that kinetic energy isn't just a result of acceleration.
  11. Each cause spacial curvature to different degrees, and apparently the curvatures do not add together. The hammer and the feather follow the moons curved space at the same rate of acceleration. It seems that the only effect individual curvature has is in how much energy must be used on the hammer or feather to change it's direction?
  12. Curved space dictates the effect on assumed particles or fields that occupy space? Is it simply easier to say that Mass curves space rather than say that the present fields are curved and that observed effects are the result of interactions with those fields and present particles?
  13. I'm not sure why you ask but I would initially say yes, but I assume you suggest plates because plates present a greater surface area set at a specific distance apart. Move the plates apart and that surface area changes. Your question confuses me. It seems to have a purpose. Not mine... Your system seems dependent on the surface area of both plates to complete a specific task. My question only required one object moving through space. The object has Mass, spacetime is curved. Just wondering does space have anything to do with why it keeps moving in a straight line unchanged absent an applied force. Is the object in a sense falling, but because space is massless there is no acceleration? Assuming space is massless, but then here, surface area might apply. The amount of space in contact with the object is negligible. Certainly not enough to accelerate should it one day be determined that space as a whole presents Mass So in a sense is the object simply following the geodesic created by its (the objects) Mass as it interacts with space. Like I said I was just thinking. I figure that if there is a law that explains what happens there should be a reason why it happens, the law doesn't make it happen. So clearly we were thinking differently about interaction. I was wondering where you were going. There should be plenty of things one can possibly do with conductive plates and energy. Increasing the distance between plates should effect the energy moving between the plates. I would imagine to what end would depend on why you design the system. If the transfer is dependent on the surface area of the plate and it's original location in conjunction with the other plate, moving the plate will effect the transfer but I would think the change won't be due to space so much as it has to do with position.( I am interested in knowing if my thinking is correct. With regard to the plates.) I'm fairly certain that my imagining the gravitation effect between an object and space being the geodesic reason why an object continues to move at speed in a straight line unchanged unless acted upon by a force, is probably just imagination gone terribly wrong, but it has been fun thinking about it. And I figure that if people expect me to accept geodesics then I might as well put them to good use. The saying is, no pain no gain. My problem is that thinking doesn't hurt.
  14. When the radius is squared between two masses effecting the force over time? I suppose generally the understanding might be an exchange of some sort that effects both to some degree Maybe I am misreading it? Yes I wasn't paying complete attention These two sentences seemed to be contradicting until I read them again, but I'd already quoted them. Is it the math that makes them different? And note my reply to Strange. There seems to be some accounting in the math, but maybe I'm just looking at it wrong?
  15. jajrussel


    Sorry, I assumed any object of energy would have volume, I also assumed that kinetic energy would present as Mass. Yes at rest a photon has no Mass, but then I am not sure that at rest a photon exists. Actually I'm fairly certain that if an object of zero Mass has to move at c then it can only exists at c, and at c it must have Mass in the form of kinetic energy. I think I remember reading that contraction occurs from the direction the object is moving, and I assumed that that side would be more dense. I also assumed that space would be more dense where it meets the object.. With an increase in velocity the object becomes smaller. Does this not occur from a direction? If you were to measure the objects kinetic energy would that energy be the same throughout the object, or greater at the leading edge. With a photon you would only get one reading? And all of it would be kinetic? But with a solid object?
  • 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.