michel123456

The current explanation for the nature of the elements uses the outermost one or two electrons and also contains 'exceptions'.

 

A graph of one section of the proposed balanced field structure shows that the inner field electrons determine the class of the elements, while the outer field electrons determine the variation within each class - using all the electrons and requiring no exceptions.

IMO if the current model admits exception, it is a very bad model that need improvement.

And if your theory needs no exception, good for you. I think you should make a bigger case of this point.

In my understanding, talking about hypotheses in general, only and only one exception should be enough to ruin an entire theory.

Time measures the effect of energy. I have forgotten who is or is not at rest, and exactly where they are in respect to each other, but so long as they reside where there is energy the effect can be measured with apparent differences should any of them choose to do so.

I do like your style michel123456, so please do lead on, and I will try to keep up. Even if it does mean that I have to figure out where you have put everyone, and why you have put them there.

All are at rest.

Figure yourself in the workshop of Galileo Galilei 500 years ago. You are not alone. Galileo is there, Isaac is there too, and Albert. You are discussing the spheres of different masses Galileo has prepared for his experiment on an inclined plane.

You are discussing the spheres at rest, before they go into motion.

The last diagram I presented has five dimensions. Time is the one, Space has 3 dimensions (reduced to one on the diagram). That makes four. The 5th dimension is given by Mass. (is Mass a dimension, I don't know, maybe it is completely wrong and abusive, be careful with what I say). Here below the diagram again (bis repetita placent):

It is dedicated to Mooyepoo who wanted to know where MT came from (see thread http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=46963)

You can measure displacement on any axis. Why limit yourself to only spatial displacement and only in your own frame of reference?

Are you saying that displacement is not null? If I had presented only the second diagram (the plane one), you surely had assured that displacement is null, as it is assumed in any physics book.

"Later" or "earlier" depending on the orientation.

Hm, yes. But is the word "earlier" defined in a physical way? For me the words "earlier" & "later" are words of the common language. Those words that do not help in understanding what is physically happening. When I say "earlier", it is like time (what is that?) were "flowing" upon my existence. When I say "traveling in time", it is like I (I suppose I know what it is) was traveling not is space anymore, but in time; a situation more familiar that makes you confident in expressing the assumation that displacement is not null anymore.

Let's answer it as if it were meant seriously, Michael.

Arisone may have something serious in mind, like "is the whole universe a black hole?"

Exactly what I was thinking about. Usually, the answer is inside the question.

Is that a tricky question?

exhilarating

Merged post follows:

Anyone is feeling a force due to translation in Time, we call Gravity.

Wrong. It is a crap.

Gravity is due to mass, not to time.

Michel is linking Gravity to Time in a misleading way.

Time is one thing, Gravity another. The one is duration, the other is a force.

Michel is a step away of saying that Time & Gravity are the one and same thing. I hope he will not dare making such an absurd assumption.

The Einstein's equivalence principle is not enough to equalize acceleration in space with "traveling in time". Gravity is defenitely an attractive force due to mass. Traveling. No, at rest. Traveling into time. Okay.

There is a fundamental difference between Time and Gravity. Time is a one-way concept. Time flows in only one direction, unlike Gravity which is both attractive & repulsive. Hum, not really. Only attractive actually.

Anyway. If Time was the same thing with Gravity we would encounter paradoxal situations, in which for example an object that has no mass would experience no time. And that is completely contrary to observation. except for photons, of course. Hm.

Well, how could he talk in the first place and introduce the concept of force in a diagram that has only Time & Space? Where is mass in this diagram?

(words from the right side of my brain)

Let's introduce mass. Here we are:

There MUST be some mistake somewhere, as Swanson said. I figure it is not in the mathematics, it is in the logic.

I am not really sure of what is going on, I didn't go into all your calculations, but it seems weird to me to obtain a triangle & straight lines after having "mapped all coords from the moving frame into the stationary frame"

I can't help further.

That means Equifax is still running in the background. You can check by typing Alt-Ctrl-Delete and check in the list of applications if the program is running. If it is in the list, you will have to remove the program completely (add & remove programs) or exclude the program from the sartup list.

I only use LT and a specific point in the space of the stationary frame.

In addition, I use this same -point in a moving frame. The results are interesting.

 

 

 

Thanks, no rush.

Please ask any question on the setup to shorten your time.

 

But, I really do not believe I made any mistakes.

 

In general, I use the point

 

x = λvt/ (1 + λ)

 

You will note, using LT, t'=t for all t and x' = -x. This is the key.

 

By using the correct setup, I can then map from the moving frame into the stationary frame.

 

By doing this, with t=t', I can then compare light travel on a contracted length from the moving frame vs light travel on a stationary length using the same rest distance all in the coordinates of the stationary frame.

 

Since t'=t for the light travel and the light path lengths are different, then there is no choice but to conclude light speed is measured at different values.

 

However, this assumes light is always emitted c regardless of any motion.

 

But, this is experimentally verified by Tests of Light Speed from Moving Sources

Look there.

And also when you pose :"By the Pythagorean theorem," in your pdf. That is maybe the contradiction with t'=t. With the Pythagorean theorem you use Newtonian mechanics. IMO.

Who says that the above is humor?

Who said I was a scientist?

Is that relevant?

http://www.spaceinfo.com.au/ionosphere20090112.html

I think he means filamentous like a spiders web...think of lots of dusty spiders webs. Found some great computer simulations here of the Universe in all its cobwebby glory! :

 

http://cosmicweb.uchicago.edu/filaments.html

 

The other simulations at the smaller scale look nice too.

Thank you for the link. The little video is very impressive

http://cosmicweb.uchicago.edu/images/mov/bnr_half4.mpg

....and completely counter intuitive (except for the Chef-Coq mentionned above, who would see it as a missed receipe for vinaigrette) Like the expansion of a gas backwards. Organization from chaos. Negative entropy?

If you introduce time, you have a net displacement on the time axis only (in your reference frame).

Right. But you are a victim of vocabulary too. "displacement on the time axis"????

Displacement is null. Meaning "displacement in space", which the regular meaning of the word "displacement"

How to call "displacement in time"? 500 years of physics since Galileo, and no word for it?

Very interesting debate (except the civilities), please don't stop. I feel miserable because I belong to anothe time zone & cannot interact immediately because...sleeping.

A.

Martin, what is cob-webby ?

B.

I have the feeling neither you, me, the others, know what we are talking about. It should be preferable IMO to make some clear definitions-statements about the basic instances discussed.

Space: what is that?

1.Some propose it as "Pure Emptyness". Is "Pure Emptyness" have been observed anywhere? Is "P.E." something gigantic, or something very very small, as the "space" between elementary particles. Is P.E. the same thing some scientists call "the void" (ses below)?

2. Some propose it as the "receptacle of everything", which is a definition IMO that is coming from some kitchen rather than a laboratory, because in this case "space" looks like a casserole.BTW such expressions are used for Time as well. From the same Chef Coq is presume.

3. Some propose the "fabric of space", as if space itself was made from something. it is the point of String Theory if I am not abused:the Void. And the word 'fabric of space" is often used in trying to explain deformation of space due to gravitation in Einstein's Theories. I believe these are misleading expressions used by scientists trying to explain mathematical deformations of field lines. Lies For Children IMO.

4. Some propose space as the Universe itself. As if Matter Radiation & Space were one and the same thing, splitted in 3 different concepts. i really don't have a strong feeling about it, still wondering.

5. Some propose space as part of a Space-Time continuum (the Standard Model), where space & time are 2 entities made of the same "stuff" (?) and having interchanging capabilities. In this case, a discussion about "infinity of space" alone, without time, is completely out of sense.

6. maybe you can put a 6th or 7th definition, I ran out of ideas.

So, what are you talking about?

Right. Bernard is subjected to earth's gravitation. But Aaron feels gravity from its own body, even if he was in empty space. under no external gravitational field, his whisky will turn into a sphere.

Amelia is feeling a force due to accelerated motion, we call Gravity

How is that possible? And why don't you shoot me for having said such a monstruosity?

Merged post follows:

I hope I let enough time to interact.

The assumption "Amelia is feeling a force due to accelerated motion, we call Gravity" is terribly wrong. I wonder how it could pass through without being shutted down.

Because it was posed from the first beginning that Alfonso was standing at rest. The motion we are talking about is not motion, it is "motion through time". We have been the victims of vocabulary.

I should have stated that "Andre is feeling a force due to translation in time, we call Gravity, and this force is the same with the force due to accelerated motion".

In order to make things more clear, you can discard the second part of the sentence and put simply that:

_Anyone is feeling a force due to translation in Time, we call Gravity.

Michel.

the distance doesn't involve time. so it is AB,BC,CD,DA

The distance would just be the sum of AB, BC, CD, DA. Your second diagram really does not seem to provide any more insight into the difference between distance and displacement. At least not to me.

Right.

The only insight it provides concerns the fact that when you teach pupils that displacement is null, the intuitive reaction is to say "how is that possible, you just told me the object moved, so something must have happened". That "something" that happened is the translation through time. Even standing at rest, point A went to point A''''. And the object that travelled through points ABCD in reality has been translated automatically in time too.

Here, again, there is lack of vocabulary. Translation in time is not motion, although my diagram may be confusing. Because I could not find any word for expressing "motion in time", I used to speak about "totion". Maybe it should be better to use "chronotion", but both look quite peculiar. So i'll stay at "translation in time".(I do not use "flowing" because it has inherent signification related to motion).

Let's say now that B' is a star. The ray of light emitted from this star to point A (the observator) is represented by the red path, because light travels (the word "travel" includes both space & time, because nothing can travel a distance with zero time).

here is a simple diagram, one could use to explain the difference between distance and displacement.

Four points ABCD forming a square. And something moving along the path AB, BC, CD, DA. After the round, distance of travel is the sum of distances, displacement is null.

Elementary. But because we are talking about motion, or displacement, and because we know that we need time to travel, let's introduce Time. We are obtaining something like this:

That may look a little bit more complicated, but it is only a developpement of the previous diagram. Now we see clearly the difference between distance & displacement.

Is that clear to you?

Really, where is the distance? is that the sum of AB, BC, CD, DA, or the sum of AB', B'C'', C''D''',D'''A'''' (the red path)?

We could split the question (returning to first question of this thread).

Are we animals?

I think the answer is yes.

What makes us different from other animals? I am afraid nothing. that is not a bad thing, if you look at it twice. That makes us closer to nature. I suppose that the fact tha we are animals was not well received by ancient people (neither by modern people), so they invented culture, language, religion, civilization. Even today, return to nature is equal to seperation from civilization.

Ah, something else. Language does not serve only for communication. The main purpose of language is identification of people inside a community. In many cases, language is a barrier to communication. There are plenty of examples. You may find inside communities barriers made from special language. The one who don't know the language will remain out. (as in this forum for example). on the other hand, import a russian dog in L.A., and he will communicate without problem with his new friends.

We are in speculations, aren't we?

Well

what separates human kind from the rest of the animals

I figure it is a little spark in our brain.

Basically we are beasts. Independetly of our technology level, we are still acting as beasts. As countries & as individuals, in a less measure I hope.

As for this little spark in our brain, if it vanishes, Humanity bye-bye.

pykawit wrote

Our universe has INFINITE possibilities. So all things can happen!

I disagree. I think that "infinite possibilities" is not coherent with the laws of physics. We have been showed by Mother Nature that things have to obey (??how is that possible???) laws.

I would prefer to define the Universe as the sum of non-contradictory possibilities.

But we are missing the point. "Space" is different from "the Universe". Or isn't it?

pykawit wrote

Our universe has INFINITE possibilities. So all things can happen!

I disagree. I think that "infinite possibilities" is not coherent with the laws of physics. We have been showed by Mother Nature that things have to obey (??how is that possible???) laws.

I would prefer to define the Universe as the sum of non-contradictory possibilities.

But we are missing the point. "Space" is different from "the Universe". Or isn't it?

So, Ashley is sitting at rest on her chair, feeling no force.

Everyone agree. Alek, Alfred, Anastasia, All agree.

Except little Albert who says:"Well, actually, my friend Isaac is feeling a force". An apple just bumped upon his head.(Isaac's head, not Albert's)

Silence in the classroom.

Nonsense says the professor, there are in fact 4 forces anyone is subject to, just standing still upon his chair. These are the 4 interactions, which are 1 the Electromagnetic, 2 the Weak force, 3 the Strong force, and 4 Gravity. The force Isaac felt upon his head is Gravity and is an interaction of little particles called gravitons, it has nothing to do with motion.

Little Albert raise his hand. "Actually, gravity is quite the same with the force due to accelerated motion, he says."

Silence in the classroom.

Nonsense says the professor.

Amelia is feeling a force due to accelerated motion, we call Gravity. She sits at rest on her chair, doing nothing, sliding gently into Time.

NIKON from right to left.

Not Albert, Anastasia.

She is standing as observed by herself.

Merged post follows:

Anastasia stands still on her chair waiting for time to pass. She needs no force to do that. She is sliding gently in Time without noticing anything. Exactly the same way, she could be sliding gently into space, without spending any energy, without noticing anything. Actually, for many another observers in other FOR, she is moving gently through space.

Merged post follows:

The word "gently" means "uniform linear motion".

Merged post follows:

Because if it was not uniform linear motion, but accelerated motion for example, she would observe something: a force. She would know that she is not standing still.

Merged post follows:

In other words, if Albert felt a force upon him when sitting on his chair, he could assume that he is certainly moving. Either in space, either in time, either in both Space & Time.

Correct?

Oops, slept away. talking about velocities. I would like to remain on standing still Anna.