GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY

John Kennaugh wrote in
.uk:

Also, when a sphere rotates, the equator of the sphere experiences
different forces than the poles.
This 'just might' have something to do with the observed shapes of the
galaxies.

If you hypothesis were correct, what distribution of matter in the
universe would we expect to see?
Is that what we see?

It is very complex. Because of the size it takes considerable time for
what is happening at the extremities to effect what happens closer in
and vice versa. One problem is that there is little independent evidence
of expansion other than red shift except close to us.

Nice idea but inconsistent with observations.

Justify your statement.

Imagine yourself near the center of a universe sized group of GROUPS of
galaxies.

What kind of angular motion could a universe be expected to undergo?

1) it could circulate around a central point.
2) it could rotate around a central axis.
3) it could rotate around multiple points or axis
3a) the angular momenta could average out to close to zero
[THIS SEEMS TO BE OUR CURRENT SITUATION. In other words, no sign of a
net
rotation] 3b) there could be a net average circulation around a central
point 3c) there could be a net average rotation around a central axis.
1 and 3b would look similar
2 and 3c would look similar

If everything circulates around a central point, you have an unstable
situation. Multiple collisions would take place until, until everything
would be rotating around a central axis.

If everything rotates around a central axis, objects 'clump together' in
the equatorial plane of rotation because objects OUTSIDE the plane have
insufficient velocity to remain 'north or south of the equatorial orbital
plane'.

The 'universally observed' distance vs red shift would show marked
characteristics of different symmetries around 1) the axis of rotation of
the universe and 2) the equatorial plane of the universe.

The CMBR would ALSO show a similar pattern of asymmetry.

As far as I know, we do not see what would be expected under such
conditions.

As far as I know, no 'north pole and south pole' of the universe have been
located.

--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 23:13:53 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news : On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:34:58 GMT, "Androcles"

: wrote:

: "Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
:
: : Hear we go... ego all the ****ing way.
: :
: : well I'd rather myself than a drunken old pommie engineer....
: :
: : is that each photon carries its own little bit of 'stuff' along with
: : : it.
: :
: : Oh yeah, magnetic and electric fields are stuff now.
: :
: : Right!!! You've got it......gravity too....
: :
: : Q) Is it all the same stuff?
:
:
: All are force, yes.
:
: We detect fields by the forces they exert.
: That doesn't mean 'fields' ARE 'forces'.

You are getting as good as Blind Poe and Phuckwit Duck
at saying what things are not. You must be a closet relativist.

We detect mass by the force it exerts.

I would put it around the other way.
We detect mass by the amount it accelerates when acted on by a force.

That doesn't mean 'mass' IS 'matter'.
Maybe it means mass is a field, which we also detect by the
force it exerts.

Well, only a relativist would believe that something is achieved by defining
MASS as Force/a and Force as Mass.a and acceleration as Force/Mass.

:
: If you run your car into a brick wall, the 'car' is not the bloody force
that
: knocks all the bricks out.

You are getting as good as Blind Poe and Phuckwit Duck
at saying what things are not. You must be a closet relativist.

But ok, the bloody force doesn't the bricks out... what does knock the
bricks out, then?

The FORCE knocks the bricks out. The force is derived from the car's sudden
change in momentum.

C'mon, I'm ****in' serious. How do I tell a bloody force from a mass?

Force is not bloody MASS.
Force has dimensions MLT-2.
Mass is just M.

:
: Fields are analysed in terms of the forces they exert.
: Are you claiming that the fields themselves are set up by he fairies?
:
Matter is analysed in terms of the force it exerts.

It is analysed in two common ways, 1) by its inertia (or resistance to a force)
and 2) by its acceleration when a force is applied to it.

Being a difficult person, you will undoubtedly ask what is being measured when
a mass is hung on a spring balance? Is it the gravitational force on the mass
or is it the mass itself?

As another example, when a mass is twirled around on a string what does the
spring tension indicate?

Are you claiming that matter itself is set up by he fairies or she fairies?

.......there must be both or there wouldn't be any...



: Do what you ****in' like, but you can't tell me what matter is
: and I have put forward the idea that matter is made of fields.
: Force is a lot easier to understand that stuff.
:
:
: Force is an effect of a field. Acceleration is an effect of a force.

That's a vast improvement on saying what things are not. Well done.

Mass is an effect of a field.

That's a strange statement. Mass can exist without force.

Acceleration (of mass) is an effect of
a force.

Another strange statement.
Force can exist without matter.

But what is being accelerated and what is it accelerated relative to?
For example, a rocket is accelerated relative to its exhaust gases,
so there is some "stuff", a real reference that the acceleration is
relative to. I want to know what the "stuff" is. Maybe it's a field.

Maybe all matter is some kind of manifestation of fields..
Maybe all fields are some kind of manifestation of matter.

You like going around in circles, so I thought that worth mentioning.

What happens to the magnetic field of a magnet when I accelerate
the magnet? Does it push back? That's inertia if it does.

Push back on what?

What happens to the gravitational field of the Moon when it is
accelerated Earthwards? Does it push back, resisting acceleration?
That's inertia. When you try to move a mass in the centre of
its g-field, it resists until the g-field gets moving with it.
Same with a magnet.

maybe, maybe not....

But... when I separate two masses by placing a force between
them, m1v1 = m2v2. In the frame of reference of one mass
the other moves with momentum m1(v1+v2).

Momentum is indeed frame dependent.

: : don't

: "Why should we assume the universe isn't rotating?"
:
: http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/gu...s/coriolis.mov
:
: In a rotating universe
: 1) the ball would curve (empirical evidence)
:
: At 1 degree per 65000 years you would hardly notice it.

Is that how old you think the universe is?

that's a rotation rate, dopey....not the age of the bloody universe.

: 2) what would it be rotating relative to? (philosophical argument)
:
: Rotation is absolute.

A rotating universe is a finite bounded universe. What's outside it
that doesn't rotate?

I believe it is 'turbulent' rather than rotating as a whole....although vast
regions might well be rotating steadily.

.....and don't even consider what lays outside the universe...you know it's all
held up by elephants.

: That is why YOU should NOT assume the universe is rotating.
: "We" do not because I do not and there is nothing you can say that
: will change my mind. You don't have a mind, for if you did you'd
: have figured that out.
:
: It was John's idea. I cannot see anything wrong with it....except that I
: consider the 'universe' to be more like a vast turbulent low pressure gas
that
: features many swirls rotating in many directions.
:
Doesn't matter really, you can't prove it or make use of it.
Anyone can idly speculate when there is no possible way to
prove or disprove the conjecture. Some things are simply
unknowable.

correct....




Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:34:08 +0000, John Kennaugh
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:28:55 +0000, John Kennaugh
wrote:

One of the big unanswered questions is, "what makes a field?"...or more
precisely..."what makes space in which a field exists different from space
devoid of fields?"

I would start with the simplest explanation first. That is that all
force acts 'at a distance' this is fundamental and needs no explanation
any more than you can ask what mass *is*. In that case a field becomes
metaphysical not physical, it is a 'field of influence'.

Q - what makes space in which a field exists different from space
devoid of fields?"

A - the presence of charge.

Not necessarily...what about gravity and magnetism?

Even so, the charge occupies very little space whilst its 'field' spreads out
far and wide...and presumably exists in that whole volume with or without the
presence of any other known substance. Other volumes of space may contain zero
or very weak 'fields'. I'm suggesting there must be a physical reason for the
difference between those volumes...and that this is an area in which physics
has made absolutely NO progress.

So far, physics has not made any progress in answering this question.
Like all scientists of the day, Einstein was aware that fields must be
associated with some kind of 'stuff', for want of a better word.

Maxwell's theory is based upon the idea of continuous physical fields -
stresses in the aether - and the idea that such fields could have an
independent existence from their source of fluence i.e. the stress in
the aether could propagate at c.

Basically Maxwell's theory is dead. Firstly it was falsified by the MMX
then by the fact that light isn't waves, and fields aren't continuous
and finally because physics decided there is no aether. This leaves
Maxwell's equations as solutions to an unknown problem, useful to
engineers because they work in the circumstances that engineers use them
in but no use to physicists to build upon. It doesn't stop them of
course - SR is built on Maxwell.

.....except that relativists don't understand that speeds must always be
specified relative to something.

It is only Maxwell's theory that needs physical fields. Einstein always
considered Maxwell sacred and therefore assumed a field is physical. He
was exploring alternatives to stress in the aether and concluded the
only alternative 'physical stuff' wasn't a better alternative to
sticking with the aether. The ballistic theory doesn't need physical
fields.

Not in the classical absolute sense...but as far as I can fathom, an individual
photon must carry some kind of medium in which its own fields exist.
I have this idea that if a field exists, then the space it occupies is not
'empty'.

My idea is that each photon carries its own little bit of 'stuff' along with
it. Since photons are everywhere, the whole universe is virtually filled with
it to varying degrees. This does in no way resemble the classical absolute
aether concept since each portion is moving in a particular direction and there
are vast density variations. I suppose it could be likened to a typical gas,
with the whole photon capsule constituting something like a thermally moving
molecule. I have previously put forward the idea that fields could be made of
'matter of a second mass dimension'.


I think you will find it is. My understanding is that there is a
parameter called coherent length. Imagine an interferometer - the MMX
apparatus will do. Now suppose you lengthen one arm. The fringes move
obviously but at some point you stop getting interference patterns
because the light which sets out later has no fixed phase relationship
with that which sets out earlier. They even quote a coherence length for
lasers so even laser light is not completely coherent although the very
best are as near as damn-it. Coherence length is related to temporal
coherence - how long it remains coherent. Spatial coherence relates to
how far apart light from two parts of a source can be before you lose
interference fringes.
Anyway that is my understanding and if so my question is a valid one.

Yes, what you say is probably correct for interferometers or anything that
involves fringes...but I was thinking in terms of broader aspects of
interference, including gratings, thin films etc. In fact there are plenty of
examples of interference involving only sunlight. But that's another
matter.....

To get back to your question, it is fair to say that in experiments where
single photons are used, the idea of coherence is not relevant anyway for
obvious reasons. My theory explains why interference patterns produced by
single monochromatic photons passing through double slits are the same as those
of a whole beam. It doesn't matter if the beam is coherent or not.



I don't think you need to worry about that.
A single photon has a finite cross section. Some of it passes through
each slit
and presumably disperses a little. The amount of reinforcement and hence
diffracted angle depends on the relationship between the (phase?)
properties of
the 'two bits' as they meet.

Maybe.

It's a theory anyway.... that appears to explain what is still a mystery.

Two questions arise. Is there a relationship between photon oscillation
frequency and the fact that it initially travels at c wrt its
source?....and....is the oscillation perfectly lossless or does it
slowly lose
energy with time? (which would explain the galactic redshift).

If it wasn't lossless what would become of the energy lost?

Part of the CMBR

Ok. So a light photon would be giving off low frequency, low energy
radio photons. It might work. Continuously or whenever it contacts a
charged particle? Extinction is based on the estimate that there are
sufficient charged particles in space for a photon to interact with one
every 3 light years (or something like that). If each such interaction
was not totally loss free that would produce red shift even if the
oscillator itself was loss free. I read somewhere that red shift is
quantized.

There is a problem though. The radiated EM would have to be emiited in
approximately the same direction as the original photon or the latter would be
sent off course and all distant images would be blurred.

In modern physics you don't say 'There is a problem'. You state that
".. the theory predicts that the low energy photons will travel in the
same direction as the original photon" - just as Big bang theory
"predicts" the existence of dark energy and dark matter. )

Not quite John.
The correct approach is to consider the implications of the hypothesis then
compare its possible outcomes with experimental evidence.
In this case we know that light is scattered very little while traveling for
billions of years...so we have to accommodate this fact in the theory. If
photon were to occasionally emit low energy radiation IN RANDOM DIRECTIONS,
those photons would undoubedy become too scattered to provide clear images of
distant galaxies.
Conclusion: ".. the theory predicts that the low energy photons IF THEY EXIST
AT ALL, MUST travel in the same direction as the original photon".

This has given ME a thought....maybe the red shift is caused by an internal
arrangement of the harmonics of the intrinsic wave itself. ....but I wont go
into that till I think more about it..


A thought occurred to me as follows.
Suppose we are somewhere near the centre of the universe.
The radius of the universe is 14billion light year so I am told
i.e radius = 1.4 ^10 light years
= 1.23^14 light seconds
= 3.68^22 m
Circumference = 2.3^23 m
1 degree of arc = 6.4^20 m

If the universe was as a whole rotating at a rate of 1 degree every
68,500 years the periferal speed would be 0.99c redshifting anything at
that distance down to radio frequency.

...a transverse doppler shift...maybe...I haven't really thought much about
transverse doppler in BaTh.

Same mathematically as SR.

S -v
/|
/ |
/ |
/ |
/ |
/ |
/ |
/ |
P--------O


In order for light from source S to reach O it must set off in the
direction SP. You have a velocity triangle where the actual velocity in
the direction SO is sqr(c^2 - v^2) by pythag.

For a stationary source c = foL
For a moving source sqr(c^2 - v^2) = fL

f/fo = sqr(1-v^2/c^2)

But in the case of an orbiting clock, the number of 'ticks' emitted PER ORBIT
must equal the number RECIEVED on the ground PER ORBIT.
How do you explain that?

Why should we assume the universe isn't rotating? Rotation is the norm
for just about everything within it. If the universe as a whole isn't
rotating about its centre of gravity it is the only thing which isn't.

That's a very reasonable theory. However would it mean that redshift is exactly
proportional to distance (something that has never been proved anyway)? I don't
think so because the angular rotation rate would probably fall of with
distance.

I'm just saying it is another factor. It could throw all the sums out
even if the universe is expanding. OTOH if the universe was rotating and
contracting then the more it contracts the faster it spins, the greater
the red shift and the faster it will appear to be expanding. I think
I'll post this as a separate post.

Think about what I just asked before you do.



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
: On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 23:13:53 GMT, "Androcles"

: wrote:
:
:
: "Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
: news : : On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:34:58 GMT, "Androcles"
:
: : wrote:
:
: : "Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
: :
: : : Hear we go... ego all the ****ing way.
: : :
: : : well I'd rather myself than a drunken old pommie engineer....
: : :
: : : is that each photon carries its own little bit of 'stuff' along
with
: : : : it.
: : :
: : : Oh yeah, magnetic and electric fields are stuff now.
: : :
: : : Right!!! You've got it......gravity too....
: : :
: : : Q) Is it all the same stuff?
: :
: :
: : All are force, yes.
: :
: : We detect fields by the forces they exert.
: : That doesn't mean 'fields' ARE 'forces'.
:
: You are getting as good as Blind Poe and Phuckwit Duck
: at saying what things are not. You must be a closet relativist.
:
: We detect mass by the force it exerts.
:
: I would put it around the other way.

Yeah, well, you are upside down anyway. Not surprising
you'd be back to front as well.

: We detect mass by the amount it accelerates when acted on by a force.

Bull****, I never measure acceleration with my bathroom scale.
You are round the ****in' twist, Wilson, acceleration doesn't
have a damned thing to do with it.

:
: That doesn't mean 'mass' IS 'matter'.
: Maybe it means mass is a field, which we also detect by the
: force it exerts.
:
: Well, only a relativist would believe that something is achieved by
defining
: MASS as Force/a and Force as Mass.a and acceleration as Force/Mass.

Ok, so you are a relativist. That still has ****-all to do with mass being
measured by a force or any acceleration you are mumbling about.
I don't accelerate when standing still on a bathroom scale. Nor
do I ride a bicycle around the tub. Why do you bring up this
irrelevant ****?


: : If you run your car into a brick wall, the 'car' is not the bloody
force
: that
: : knocks all the bricks out.
:
: You are getting as good as Blind Poe and Phuckwit Duck
: at saying what things are not. You must be a closet relativist.
:
: But ok, the bloody force doesn't the bricks out... what does knock the
: bricks out, then?
:
: The FORCE knocks the bricks out.

Well I'm ****ed, how about that.

The force is derived from the car's sudden
: change in momentum.

" the 'car' is not the bloody force that knocks all the bricks out." -
Wilson.



: C'mon, I'm ****in' serious. How do I tell a bloody force from a mass?
:
: Force is not bloody MASS.

Christ, you are a ****ing idiot.
An orange is not a bloody apple.
A bathtub is not a bloody breakfast.
An idiot is a Wilson that can say what things are not.
Money is not a dollar but a dollar is money. Learn the difference.

How do I tell a bloody force from a mass, Wilson?


: Force has dimensions MLT-2.
: Mass is just M.

Momentum has dimensions MLT-1. Big ****in' deal.


: :
: : Fields are analysed in terms of the forces they exert.
: : Are you claiming that the fields themselves are set up by he fairies?
: :
: Matter is analysed in terms of the force it exerts.
:
: It is analysed in two common ways, 1) by its inertia (or resistance to a
force)

Inertia is reluctance to accelerate, not resistance to a force.
Call yourself a physicist? Sheesh!


: and 2) by its acceleration when a force is applied to it.


: Being a difficult person, you will undoubtedly ask what is being measured
when
: a mass is hung on a spring balance? Is it the gravitational force on the
mass
: or is it the mass itself?

The Earth weighs 160 lbs in my gravitational field. No force exists
without two bodies of matter to share it.

: As another example, when a mass is twirled around on a string what does
the
: spring tension indicate?

A force between two bodies of matter. The more matter, the more force.
Being a difficult phyicist, you will undoubtedly not bother to ask what
matter is as a scientist should. Maybe its flubber.


:
: Are you claiming that matter itself is set up by he fairies or she
fairies?
:
: ......there must be both or there wouldn't be any...
:
:
:
: : Do what you ****in' like, but you can't tell me what matter is
: : and I have put forward the idea that matter is made of fields.
: : Force is a lot easier to understand that stuff.
: :
: :
: : Force is an effect of a field. Acceleration is an effect of a force.
:
: That's a vast improvement on saying what things are not. Well done.
:
: Mass is an effect of a field.
:
: That's a strange statement. Mass can exist without force.

Prove there is no force between an electron and the nucleus
of an atom then. Prove, a priori, electrons have mass.

Being a difficult person, you will undoubtedly ask what is being measured
when
an oil drop is suspended by an electrostatic field? Is it the electrostatic
force on the oil drop or is it the oil drop itself?



: Acceleration (of mass) is an effect of
: a force.
:
: Another strange statement.
: Force can exist without matter.

Bull****. No force exists without two bodies of matter to share it.


:
: But what is being accelerated and what is it accelerated relative to?
: For example, a rocket is accelerated relative to its exhaust gases,
: so there is some "stuff", a real reference that the acceleration is
: relative to. I want to know what the "stuff" is. Maybe it's a field.
:
: Maybe all matter is some kind of manifestation of fields..

There ya go... got there at last.

: Maybe all fields are some kind of manifestation of matter.

Science has done that one, we still don't know what matter is.
:
: You like going around in circles, so I thought that worth mentioning.

I go around the same circle as you, but in the opposite direction.
Newton was puzzled by action at a distance but accepted matter
as "stuff", and you've gotten no further than he did. It's time to
turn the problem on its head and accept action at a distance while
being puzzled what matter is.


:
: What happens to the magnetic field of a magnet when I accelerate
: the magnet? Does it push back? That's inertia if it does.
:
: Push back on what?

The magnet. That's what happens in a generator and why you
need a ****in' great big steam turbine to turn it.

:
: What happens to the gravitational field of the Moon when it is
: accelerated Earthwards? Does it push back, resisting acceleration?
: That's inertia. When you try to move a mass in the centre of
: its g-field, it resists until the g-field gets moving with it.
: Same with a magnet.
:
: maybe, maybe not....

You and you ****ing maybe, could be, might be...
Try cranking one of these by hand and see if it pushes back.
http://tinyurl.com/2bhcr8




:
: But... when I separate two masses by placing a force between
: them, m1v1 = m2v2. In the frame of reference of one mass
: the other moves with momentum m1(v1+v2).
:
: Momentum is indeed frame dependent.
:
: : : don't
:
: : "Why should we assume the universe isn't rotating?"
: :
: : http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/gu...s/coriolis.mov
: :
: : In a rotating universe
: : 1) the ball would curve (empirical evidence)
: :
: : At 1 degree per 65000 years you would hardly notice it.
:
: Is that how old you think the universe is?
:
: that's a rotation rate, dopey....not the age of the bloody universe.

****in' hell...

2piR radians/360 degrees per 65000 years.
R = ... how many million light years?

You are ****in' crazy.




:
: : 2) what would it be rotating relative to? (philosophical argument)
: :
: : Rotation is absolute.
:
: A rotating universe is a finite bounded universe. What's outside it
: that doesn't rotate?
:
: I believe it is 'turbulent' rather than rotating as a whole....although
vast
: regions might well be rotating steadily.

yawn


:
: ....and don't even consider what lays outside the universe...you know it's
all
: held up by elephants.

Only four, standing on the back of a turtle. After that its turtles
all the way down.

:
: : That is why YOU should NOT assume the universe is rotating.
: : "We" do not because I do not and there is nothing you can say that
: : will change my mind. You don't have a mind, for if you did you'd
: : have figured that out.
: :
: : It was John's idea. I cannot see anything wrong with it....except that
I
: : consider the 'universe' to be more like a vast turbulent low pressure
gas
: that
: : features many swirls rotating in many directions.
: :
: Doesn't matter really, you can't prove it or make use of it.
: Anyone can idly speculate when there is no possible way to
: prove or disprove the conjecture. Some things are simply
: unknowable.
:
: correct....
:
:
:
:
: Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
:
: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote in
news
If you run your car into a brick wall, the 'car' is not the bloody force
that knocks all the bricks out.

Of course not, it is the force that make your face bloody.




--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:20:02 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .

:
: We detect mass by the force it exerts.
:
: I would put it around the other way.

Yeah, well, you are upside down anyway. Not surprising
you'd be back to front as well.

: We detect mass by the amount it accelerates when acted on by a force.

Bull****, I never measure acceleration with my bathroom scale.
You are round the ****in' twist, Wilson, acceleration doesn't
have a damned thing to do with it.

:
: That doesn't mean 'mass' IS 'matter'.
: Maybe it means mass is a field, which we also detect by the
: force it exerts.
:
: Well, only a relativist would believe that something is achieved by
defining
: MASS as Force/a and Force as Mass.a and acceleration as Force/Mass.

Ok, so you are a relativist. That still has ****-all to do with mass being
measured by a force or any acceleration you are mumbling about.
I don't accelerate when standing still on a bathroom scale. Nor
do I ride a bicycle around the tub. Why do you bring up this
irrelevant ****?

I'll reiterate
There are those who define Force as 'Mass x Acceleration'.
There are those who define Acceleration as 'Force/Mass'.
It appears that there are also some - mainly pommie engineers - who want to
define Mass as 'Force/Acceleration'.

When Newton produced his simple equation a = F/m, he had no idea that a bunch
of future smartarses would twist is around and use it as meaningless circular
definitions of the three quantities involved.

: : If you run your car into a brick wall, the 'car' is not the bloody
force
: that
: : knocks all the bricks out.
:
: You are getting as good as Blind Poe and Phuckwit Duck
: at saying what things are not. You must be a closet relativist.
:
: But ok, the bloody force doesn't the bricks out... what does knock the
: bricks out, then?
:
: The FORCE knocks the bricks out.

Well I'm ****ed, how about that.

The force is derived from the car's sudden
: change in momentum.

" the 'car' is not the bloody force that knocks all the bricks out." -
Wilson.

The 'car' is the car.
If the car knocked the bricks out, then the car would do nothing else than
continually knock bricks out.

Maybe you own a Ford 'brick-knocker'.

: C'mon, I'm ****in' serious. How do I tell a bloody force from a mass?
:
: Force is not bloody MASS.

Christ, you are a ****ing idiot.
An orange is not a bloody apple.
A bathtub is not a bloody breakfast.
An idiot is a Wilson that can say what things are not.
Money is not a dollar but a dollar is money. Learn the difference.

How do I tell a bloody force from a mass, Wilson?

Same way you tell an apple from 'slowly'.

: Force has dimensions MLT-2.
: Mass is just M.

Momentum has dimensions MLT-1. Big ****in' deal.

Engineers aren't taught these finer points...

: : Fields are analysed in terms of the forces they exert.
: : Are you claiming that the fields themselves are set up by he fairies?
: :
: Matter is analysed in terms of the force it exerts.
:
: It is analysed in two common ways, 1) by its inertia (or resistance to a
force)

Inertia is reluctance to accelerate, not resistance to a force.

What's the ****ing difference?

Call yourself a physicist? Sheesh!


: and 2) by its acceleration when a force is applied to it.


: Being a difficult person, you will undoubtedly ask what is being measured
when
: a mass is hung on a spring balance? Is it the gravitational force on the
mass
: or is it the mass itself?

The Earth weighs 160 lbs in my gravitational field. No force exists
without two bodies of matter to share it.

---"Newton....."

The question we are asking is "can a field exist without a force?"

or: if a bar magnet is isolated in space, do the 'lines of force' exist in the
absence of any iron.

: As another example, when a mass is twirled around on a string what does
the
: spring tension indicate?

A force between two bodies of matter. The more matter, the more force.
Being a difficult phyicist, you will undoubtedly not bother to ask what
matter is as a scientist should. Maybe its flubber.

Just concern yourself with what happens between unit masses...


: : Force is an effect of a field. Acceleration is an effect of a force.
:
: That's a vast improvement on saying what things are not. Well done.
:
: Mass is an effect of a field.
:
: That's a strange statement. Mass can exist without force.

Prove there is no force between an electron and the nucleus
of an atom then. Prove, a priori, electrons have mass.

What about an electron that is completely isolated in space in zero field?
Does it have mass?

Being a difficult person, you will undoubtedly ask what is being measured
when
an oil drop is suspended by an electrostatic field? Is it the electrostatic
force on the oil drop or is it the oil drop itself?

Stop copying everything I say.

: Acceleration (of mass) is an effect of
: a force.
:
: Another strange statement.
: Force can exist without matter.

Bull****. No force exists without two bodies of matter to share it.

How do you know? If you try to prove me wrong, you will have to introduce a
lump of matter.

: But what is being accelerated and what is it accelerated relative to?
: For example, a rocket is accelerated relative to its exhaust gases,
: so there is some "stuff", a real reference that the acceleration is
: relative to. I want to know what the "stuff" is. Maybe it's a field.
:
: Maybe all matter is some kind of manifestation of fields..

There ya go... got there at last.

I said that years ago....you probably copied the idea from me.

: Maybe all fields are some kind of manifestation of matter.

Science has done that one, we still don't know what matter is.
:
: You like going around in circles, so I thought that worth mentioning.

I go around the same circle as you, but in the opposite direction.
Newton was puzzled by action at a distance but accepted matter
as "stuff", and you've gotten no further than he did. It's time to
turn the problem on its head and accept action at a distance while
being puzzled what matter is.

An engineer might blindly accept action at a distance without appreciating the
need to investigate further. A relativist similarly needs to look no further
because he already has all the answers to all the questions raised by the
universe.

: What happens to the magnetic field of a magnet when I accelerate
: the magnet? Does it push back? That's inertia if it does.
:
: Push back on what?

The magnet. That's what happens in a generator and why you
need a ****in' great big steam turbine to turn it.

Bull****....what kind of a ****ing engineer were YOU?
Generators don't spin magnets. They spin wires THROUGH magnetic fields.
Some motors spin magnetic fields around.

: What happens to the gravitational field of the Moon when it is
: accelerated Earthwards? Does it push back, resisting acceleration?
: That's inertia. When you try to move a mass in the centre of
: its g-field, it resists until the g-field gets moving with it.
: Same with a magnet.
:
: maybe, maybe not....

You and you ****ing maybe, could be, might be...
Try cranking one of these by hand and see if it pushes back.
http://tinyurl.com/2bhcr8




:
: But... when I separate two masses by placing a force between
: them, m1v1 = m2v2. In the frame of reference of one mass
: the other moves with momentum m1(v1+v2).
:
: Momentum is indeed frame dependent.
:
: : : don't
:
: : "Why should we assume the universe isn't rotating?"
: :
: : http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/gu...s/coriolis.mov
: :
: : In a rotating universe
: : 1) the ball would curve (empirical evidence)
: :
: : At 1 degree per 65000 years you would hardly notice it.
:
: Is that how old you think the universe is?
:
: that's a rotation rate, dopey....not the age of the bloody universe.

****in' hell...

2piR radians/360 degrees per 65000 years.
R = ... how many million light years?

You are ****in' crazy.

You were talking about the curved path of the ball remember.
I was merely pointing out that the curvature would be impossible to detect.



:
: A rotating universe is a finite bounded universe. What's outside it
: that doesn't rotate?
:
: I believe it is 'turbulent' rather than rotating as a whole....although
vast
: regions might well be rotating steadily.

yawn

go to ****ing sleep then.....


ven consider what lays outside the universe...

you know it's all held up by elephants.

Only four, standing on the back of a turtle. After that its turtles
all the way down.




Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:20:02 GMT, "Androcles"

: wrote:
:
:
: "Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
: .. .
:
: :
: : We detect mass by the force it exerts.
: :
: : I would put it around the other way.
:
: Yeah, well, you are upside down anyway. Not surprising
: you'd be back to front as well.
:
: : We detect mass by the amount it accelerates when acted on by a force.
:
: Bull****, I never measure acceleration with my bathroom scale.
: You are round the ****in' twist, Wilson, acceleration doesn't
: have a damned thing to do with it.
:
: :
: : That doesn't mean 'mass' IS 'matter'.
: : Maybe it means mass is a field, which we also detect by the
: : force it exerts.
: :
: : Well, only a relativist would believe that something is achieved by
: defining
: : MASS as Force/a and Force as Mass.a and acceleration as Force/Mass.
:
: Ok, so you are a relativist. That still has ****-all to do with mass
being
: measured by a force or any acceleration you are mumbling about.
: I don't accelerate when standing still on a bathroom scale. Nor
: do I ride a bicycle around the tub. Why do you bring up this
: irrelevant ****?
:
: I'll reiterate
: There are those who define Force as 'Mass x Acceleration'.
: There are those who define Acceleration as 'Force/Mass'.

There are those who define Volts as 'Current / Resistance'.
There are those who define Resistance as 'Volts/Current'.

Have you done reiterating your irrelevant ****?


: It appears that there are also some - mainly pommie engineers - who want
to
: define Mass as 'Force/Acceleration'.


I made no mention of d^2x/dt^2, that's all in YOUR imagination.
Obviously you are too stupid to discuss this with.
plonk

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 03:31:04 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .

: :
: : I would put it around the other way.
:
: Yeah, well, you are upside down anyway. Not surprising
: you'd be back to front as well.
:
: : We detect mass by the amount it accelerates when acted on by a force.
:
: Bull****, I never measure acceleration with my bathroom scale.
: You are round the ****in' twist, Wilson, acceleration doesn't
: have a damned thing to do with it.
:
: :
: : That doesn't mean 'mass' IS 'matter'.
: : Maybe it means mass is a field, which we also detect by the
: : force it exerts.
: :
: : Well, only a relativist would believe that something is achieved by
: defining
: : MASS as Force/a and Force as Mass.a and acceleration as Force/Mass.
:
: Ok, so you are a relativist. That still has ****-all to do with mass
being
: measured by a force or any acceleration you are mumbling about.
: I don't accelerate when standing still on a bathroom scale. Nor
: do I ride a bicycle around the tub. Why do you bring up this
: irrelevant ****?
:
: I'll reiterate
: There are those who define Force as 'Mass x Acceleration'.
: There are those who define Acceleration as 'Force/Mass'.

There are those who define Volts as 'Current / Resistance'.
There are those who define Resistance as 'Volts/Current'.

Have you done reiterating your irrelevant ****?


: It appears that there are also some - mainly pommie engineers - who want
to
: define Mass as 'Force/Acceleration'.


I made no mention of d^2x/dt^2, that's all in YOUR imagination.
Obviously you are too stupid to discuss this with.
plonk

Plonk yerself, dopey.

When Newton devised the relationship d^2x/dt^2 = F/m he didn't mean it to be
used as a three way definition of the variables used.

Only deluded relativists and other smartarses use equations to define physical
quantities.






Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
: On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 03:31:04 GMT, "Androcles"

: wrote:
:
:
: "Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
: .. .
:
: : :
: : : I would put it around the other way.
: :
: : Yeah, well, you are upside down anyway. Not surprising
: : you'd be back to front as well.
: :
: : : We detect mass by the amount it accelerates when acted on by a
force.
: :
: : Bull****, I never measure acceleration with my bathroom scale.
: : You are round the ****in' twist, Wilson, acceleration doesn't
: : have a damned thing to do with it.
: :
: : :
: : : That doesn't mean 'mass' IS 'matter'.
: : : Maybe it means mass is a field, which we also detect by the
: : : force it exerts.
: : :
: : : Well, only a relativist would believe that something is achieved by
: : defining
: : : MASS as Force/a and Force as Mass.a and acceleration as Force/Mass.
: :
: : Ok, so you are a relativist. That still has ****-all to do with mass
: being
: : measured by a force or any acceleration you are mumbling about.
: : I don't accelerate when standing still on a bathroom scale. Nor
: : do I ride a bicycle around the tub. Why do you bring up this
: : irrelevant ****?
: :
: : I'll reiterate
: : There are those who define Force as 'Mass x Acceleration'.
: : There are those who define Acceleration as 'Force/Mass'.
:
: There are those who define Volts as 'Current / Resistance'.
: There are those who define Resistance as 'Volts/Current'.
:
: Have you done reiterating your irrelevant ****?
:
:
: : It appears that there are also some - mainly pommie engineers - who
want
: to
: : define Mass as 'Force/Acceleration'.
:
:
: I made no mention of d^2x/dt^2, that's all in YOUR imagination.
: Obviously you are too stupid to discuss this with.
: plonk
:
: Plonk yerself, dopey.
:
: When Newton devised the relationship d^2x/dt^2 = F/m he didn't mean it to
be
: used as a three way definition of the variables used.


Hey idiot!
I'm trying to discuss mass, that means I'm sitting in chair.
I know the force is there, I can feel it on my arse.
I am not ****ING ACCELERATING, ****HEAD!
You obviously TOO ****ING STOOOOPID to understand
that.

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 06:50:46 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
: On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 03:31:04 GMT, "Androcles"

: wrote:
:
:
: "Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
: .. .
:
: : :
: : : I would put it around the other way.
: :
: : Yeah, well, you are upside down anyway. Not surprising
: : you'd be back to front as well.
: :
: : : We detect mass by the amount it accelerates when acted on by a
force.
: :
: : Bull****, I never measure acceleration with my bathroom scale.
: : You are round the ****in' twist, Wilson, acceleration doesn't
: : have a damned thing to do with it.
: :
: : :
: : : That doesn't mean 'mass' IS 'matter'.
: : : Maybe it means mass is a field, which we also detect by the
: : : force it exerts.
: : :
: : : Well, only a relativist would believe that something is achieved by
: : defining
: : : MASS as Force/a and Force as Mass.a and acceleration as Force/Mass.
: :
: : Ok, so you are a relativist. That still has ****-all to do with mass
: being
: : measured by a force or any acceleration you are mumbling about.
: : I don't accelerate when standing still on a bathroom scale. Nor
: : do I ride a bicycle around the tub. Why do you bring up this
: : irrelevant ****?
: :
: : I'll reiterate
: : There are those who define Force as 'Mass x Acceleration'.
: : There are those who define Acceleration as 'Force/Mass'.
:
: There are those who define Volts as 'Current / Resistance'.
: There are those who define Resistance as 'Volts/Current'.
:
: Have you done reiterating your irrelevant ****?
:
:
: : It appears that there are also some - mainly pommie engineers - who
want
: to
: : define Mass as 'Force/Acceleration'.
:
:
: I made no mention of d^2x/dt^2, that's all in YOUR imagination.
: Obviously you are too stupid to discuss this with.
: plonk
:
: Plonk yerself, dopey.
:
: When Newton devised the relationship d^2x/dt^2 = F/m he didn't mean it to
be
: used as a three way definition of the variables used.


Hey idiot!
I'm trying to discuss mass, that means I'm sitting in chair.
I know the force is there, I can feel it on my arse.
I am not ****ING ACCELERATING, ****HEAD!
You obviously TOO ****ING STOOOOPID to understand
that.

Of course you aren't.
There are two equal and opposite forces meeting at you bum.
One is pulling your whole body downwards due to gravity, the other is pushing
you upwards due to a slight additional compression of all the molecules between
you are the centre of the Earth.
Both forces exist without any acceleration. The second force would not exist
without the presence of your mass. The gravitational FIELD still exists whether
or not your mass is present.

The reason you feel a pushing sensation is that your biological strain gauges
are stressed with a gradient increasing downwards from the top of your head.


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm