How is mass divided by volume to measure density ?

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

No.

C is "the speed of light in a vacuum".

And so  C is constant.

c is a variable passing through a medium as mediums are variable and not invariant like a vacuum .

Isn't that true ?

11 minutes ago, Ghideon said:
Quote

Because on the way A-B, why would there ever be a force involved to keep anything moving at constant speed in a straight line?

Quote

Because always ahead of the moving matter is less energy and energy always wants to make a transition from high state to low state .

Quote

Do you have a reason to believe that anything (light or other) needs a "reason" to traverse from A-B at constant speed?

Inertia

Quote

Edited by Complexity

Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Complexity said:

c is a variable passing through a medium as mediums are variable and not invariant like a vacuum .

Isn't that true ?

No. Another example of where you think you know things, but don't realise how little you know.

c is a constant (299,792,458 m/s). It is the speed of light (and anything massless) in a vacuum.

Maxwell's equations tell us how and why a changing electric current (for example) generates electromagnetic waves that propagate at c. (But you reject this: because it involves mathematics and large amounts of evidence).

GR also tells us why anything massless must travel at c. (But you reject this: because it involves mathematics and large amounts of evidence).

Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Strange said:

If you could present your ideas (in the Speculations forum) with mathematics and evidence then people might consider them.

But you have already demonstrated you are unable to do that. So why should anyone take your wild unscientific rambling seriously?

The thread got closed , I did present the math F<E

I'd need help to put in units and a measurement .

Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Complexity said:

Do you wan't me to believe that light traverses from A to B for no reason at all ?

And quantum theory tells us that photons do not actually traverse from A to B in the way that classical objects do.

Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Strange said:

No. Another example of where you think you know things, but don't realise how little you know.

c is a constant (299,792,458 m/s). It is the speed of light (and anything massless) in a vacuum.

Maxwell's equations tell us how and why a changing electric current (for example) generates electromagnetic waves that propagate at c. (But you reject this: because it involves mathematics and large amounts of evidence).

GR also tells us why anything massless must travel at c. (But you reject this: because it involves mathematics and large amounts of evidence).

I don't reject this !

I am talking something different than that , force .

Share on other sites
Just now, Complexity said:

The thread got closed , I did present the math F<E

And yet another example of you thinking that you know more than you do.

That is not mathematics. It is the meaningless combination of three symbols. None of your "mathematics" made any sense for this reason; it was incoherent nonsense. You can't just throw random symbols on the page and say "see, math!"

Just now, Complexity said:

I don't reject this !

I am talking something different than that , force .

By insisting that there must be a force, you are rejecting the existing explanations - without even studying and understanding them.

Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Complexity said:

Because always ahead of the moving matter is less energy and energy always wants to make a transition from high state to low state .

That seems to be completely incompatible with observations. Both for massive objects and photons. How many counterexamples can you find in a minute?

Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Complexity said:

I'd need help to put in units and a measurement .

You would need to spend a few months, maybe a year, learning some basic physics. The sort of stuff that most people learn at school, would be a start. There are a lot of good online resources.

The trouble is that you seem to think you already understand these things when, very obviously, you don't.

Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Complexity said:

I don't reject this !

I am talking something different than that , force .

Again:

Are you discussing the moment a photon is radiated from some point. Or the photon along the path from A to B after it was radiated?

It is tricky to try to write good answers since new questions and claims does not match what basic physics (observations and math) says.
Again: What is your background knowledge? What concepts of math and physics are you familiar with that could act as a common starting point?
It is completely OK to say "none" and then we start from explaining and providing references from there.

Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Strange said:

And yet another example of you thinking that you know more than you do.

That is not mathematics. It is the meaningless combination of three symbols. None of your "mathematics" made any sense for this reason; it was incoherent nonsense. You can't just throw random symbols on the page and say "see, math!"

By insisting that there must be a force, you are rejecting the existing explanations - without even studying and understanding them.

You are correct I do not completely understand ''your'' math on light but neither did you or anybody else until they learnt the math .

However , you say my equation is meaningless without learning what it means .

Let me try to explain , my math  teaches somebody a physical process that removes the need for pages and pages of education learning the physics process . It doesn't give and is not meant to give units and values .  The result my math gives is an understanding of the actual physical process .

I describe the momentum of light is because there is an applied force of attraction , this force being a sate of being <E .

When I described F=<E

That is showing the physical process , a physical reason for all spatial motion .

I am not talking bollox when we know a cold volume attracts heat .

Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Complexity said:

You are correct I do not completely understand ''your'' math on light but neither did you or anybody else until they learnt the math .

Right. So you need to learn, too.

6 minutes ago, Complexity said:

However , you say my equation is meaningless without learning what it means .

It is not an equation (clue: there is no equals sign). All it says is that F is less than E, without saying what F or E are.

7 minutes ago, Complexity said:

I am not talking bollox when we know a cold volume attracts heat .

That is bollox.

Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Complexity said:

Let me try to explain , my math  teaches somebody a physical process that removes the need for pages and pages of education learning the physics process .

No.

Consider the following claim. Do you see that it seems to predict gravity to be negative? Instead of objects falling down on earth they should be ejected into space? Do you understand why?

41 minutes ago, Complexity said:

Because always ahead of the moving matter is less energy and energy always wants to make a transition from high state to low state .

So either your claims are incorrect or very poorly worded. In either case that is not a good alternative to a few pages of physics and/or a good teacher.

Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Strange said:

Right. So you need to learn, too.

It is not an equation (clue: there is no equals sign). All it says is that F is less than E, without saying what F or E are.

That is bollox.

Yes I do need to learn and I am always willing to learn .

c=F<E

Force , energy and the speed of EMR traversing through a vacuum .

If a cold volume doesn't attract energy then how do things reach room temperature ?

My chicken that is defrosting tells me otherwise !

18 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

No.

Consider the following claim. Do you see that it seems to predict gravity to be negative? Instead of objects falling down on earth they should be ejected into space? Do you understand why?

So either your claims are incorrect or very poorly worded. In either case that is not a good alternative to a few pages of physics and/or a good teacher.

Gravity is a negative !

There is a difference within an atmosphere and in space . There is also a difference of how a body influences bodies  over distances .

Obviously things don't fly off the earth because of inertia  and the gravitational force is stronger at ground level  .

I agree a good teacher and a few pages is great also but for a basic introduction into math  and physics my math does explain c . I am  highly confident that the force = less energy positions

Edited by Complexity

Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Complexity said:

c=F<E

Force , energy and the speed of EMR traversing through a vacuum .

That is not a valid equation. And it certainly doesn’t explain the speed of light.

59 minutes ago, Complexity said:

my math does explain c

You have not shown any math.

Using a few mathy-looking symbols as shorthand for a vague idea is not mathematics.

Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Complexity said:

I am  highly confident that the force = less energy positions

The cat sat on the mat and contemplated Newton's third law in the light of your statement and came to the conclusion that the statement is contrary to Newton's third law.

If you cannot understand this you should ask for more detail, not retort with a smarty pants answer or simply fail to answer like you have with my comment on Newton's First law.

Although you were the first person to attempt to claim the high ground by introducing Newton to this discussion.

Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

This nonsense has gone on long enough

Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Complexity said:

Gravity is a negative !

In what sense is gravity negative?

1 hour ago, Complexity said:

Obviously things don't fly off the earth because of inertia  and the gravitational force is stronger at ground level  .

You only know that gravity is stronger at ground level because the math tells you that. It is very unlikely you have measured this yourself.

And, importantly, the math tells us exactly how much stronger it is at ground level than at any given distance form the surface of the Earth (or any other planet or moon). Therefore the math can be tested. And confirmed. Unlike your vague waffle.