Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 56 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I thought all they needed was snikers laugh


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
snikers and hamer ?


( how many energy use body ( guy who keep hammer)


not this what see observer from sun but snikers is more important

energy is absolute not relative

Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Are You trying to tell me that observer from sun can evaluate
above situation ( or pain is relative)

for example respect to star this guy will not feel pain ?

relativity = one big JOKE

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
No newton you are the joke ... and yes everyone is laughing at you smile

I have tried to correct you and showed patience but you seem to have some form of ADHD/ADD and appear to need medication which you probably can't afford so it's not your fault.

Last edited by Orac; 10/03/13 07:13 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209

energy is absolute
time also
dimmension also

methode that use observers can not change facts

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Again you are wrong and have been clearly shown why

Quantum Mechanics says space can not be absolute because it has to be like that or otherwise the atom would collapse.

Unless you can explain all the things Quantum Mechanics does and build a stable atom you have to face the fact you are wrong.

As Quantum Mechanics and relativity do not conflict Einstein is on fairly solid ground and your garbage is exactly that GARBAGE.

Surely it must be getting into your head by now and you just look silly.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Orac You showed me very nice link please see pendulum animation

>>> "BIG MR" Orac showed me this link to learn me physics

let me ask You about pendulum animation

it is clear potencial energy ( "snikers" )

we know that pendulum is moving with Earth

m -------> 30 km/s



please take a pencil and evaluate how many energy ( potencial energy ) will use pendulum for change velocity from 30 km/s to
30 km/s + 1 m/s

and please evaluate how many energy ( potencial ) need the same mass to change velocity form 30 km/s - 1m/s ( pendulum go opposite to Earth motion )


ARE YOU TRYING TO TELL ME THAT ENERY IS RELATIVE ?

ORAC ... always look at the SUN ???
You will feel lower pain ?



Pendulum work ?

please see animation what is it apparent point
and please be so smart and try explain gravitation problem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aberrationlighttimebeaming.gif


please add to above animation Square Law for Waves




You are moving or the source is moving ? ask You self about
doppler ( red/ blue ) AND ...AND how far YOU ARE FROM THE SOURCE ( level of signal is important or not ???)




Ohhh one more picture WHAT IF EXIST ONLY ONE BODY INSIDE THE UNIVERSE ( velocity not exist ??? REALY )





Brightness of picture WEST and EAST are different
camera not measure the same power of the signal
I don't know right now only one
I need repeat my test inside VACUUM

first test
> http://youtu.be/XF_npmQ8kGY

first pictures ( brightness - photoshop 10 histogram) west ( -30km/s ) and East (+30 km/s )
> http://youtu.be/O9k-zidfJZg

Last edited by newton; 10/04/13 01:07 AM.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Of coarse energy is relative IT REQUIRES MOVEMENT OR SOMETHING TO HAPPEN OR POSSIBLY HAPPEN.

I did a thread earlier asking people was energy real ... perhaps you should like to think about that problem ... prove to me energy is real how would you do that?

The whole point of Quantum Mechanics is it defines a vacuum as not an empty void of space but a seemingly empty void bristling with energy.

Watch a bird sit on power lines there is energy in the power lines but it doesn't kill the bird ... why?

The voltage is relative, the energy is relative everything is relative.

If everything was not relative the bird would be dead because you can't contain the forces.


That's the point of the atom it has to withstand the forces of the entire universe if you want absolute.


That is what is so important about the atom you can't make an atom work in an absolute frame and that's why you can't spin the marbles and make a model of it.

The idea of absolute is absolutely dead has been for 100 years and a nutcase like yourself can't will life back into it.

Last edited by Orac; 10/04/13 01:08 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
LOOK ON YOUR TABLE MASS IS NOT MOVING !!!

NO ....NO... This mass is moving respect to SUN
this mass = perpetum mobie
but You need change point of view for REAL WORLD

relative energy :):):):)

SO PERPETUUM EXIST !!! ( ohh respect to other STAR this mass can have more biger Energy ) ??? how many energy we have in the universe = how many point of view we have ?????

NICE PHYSICS very NICE


Train 100 km/h ( respect to apparent earth position )

pendulum m ----> plastycyline

The same pendulum

Train 150 !!! km/h

pendulum m -> plastycyline

POTENCIAL ENERGY WAS EXCHANGE FOR KINETIC ENERGY

HOW MANY ENERGY = 100 km/h + 1 m/s
HOW MANY ENERGY = 150 km/h + 1 m/s

PLEASE EVALUATE WHAT WILL FEEL PLASTYCYLINE ?


Last edited by newton; 10/04/13 01:19 AM.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Read again ... OR POTENTIAL TO MOVE

I know English is not native to you but that bit is important.

See even in classic garbage physics you write

F = M x A

So you develop a force equal to mass times the acceleration

If nothing moves acceleration A = 0

F = M x 0 = 0

The only exception to all that is POTENTIAL ENERGY

In garbage classic physics you sort of have to define POTENTIAL ENERGY as having many forms gravity, chemical, nuclear etc.

You sort of view it as stored energy it's not accurate but it does for explaining it to layman. You need GR and QM to explain it properly and they are simply to complicated for the layman to get their head around.

Last edited by Orac; 10/04/13 01:32 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Lets give you a more interesting problem to think about


Aliens come along and install a dome around earth and image of the sun that radiates light. The how they do it is not important it is just to stop us dying for the next bit.


They then start towing earth thru space .... do we notice anything?

If you were smart you would have worked it out you won't notice anything because earths gravity is relative. Forces from outside like the sun appear to act on the middle point on the earth not us the problem of the atom all over again smile

The aliens are mean and they push earth into a death spiral around a black hole do we notice anything?

Last edited by Orac; 10/04/13 01:37 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
"F = M x A" ???

PROBLEM IS WHAT IS MASS FOR YOU ???

FOR EINSTEIN GRAVITATION MASS = INERTIAL MASS ???

how many air will go to left or right side of rocket ?
( rocket = spaceship far away from gravitation )




child 1...ball --->....Child 2


Child 1...ball --->
..........^
........child2

What is more easy perpendicular push or opposite push
( where finger will feel lower resistance )
Why Aikido Fighters prefer perpendicular direction ???

Last edited by newton; 10/04/13 01:42 AM.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
There are actually two types of mass Newton be very careful here which do you want to talk about.

Again the Mass part in the equation in normal classic garbage you sort of have to approximate.


For Einstein MASS is not inertial mass in any way it is a potential energy created by the 4th dimension of time for Einstein .. SO DEFINITELY NOT INERTIAL MASS FOR EINSTEIN.

I think you are getting mass and weight confused can I get you to please read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_versus_weight

Quote:

In everyday usage, the mass of an object is often referred to as its weight though these are in fact different concepts and quantities. In scientific contexts, mass refers loosely to the amount of "matter" in an object (though "matter" may be difficult to define), whereas weight refers to the force experienced by an object due to gravity.[1] In other words, an object with a mass of 1.0 kilogram will weigh 9.8 newtons (newton is the unit of force, while kilogram is the unit of mass) on Earth (its mass multiplied by the gravitational field strength). Its weight will be less on Mars (where gravity is weaker), more on Saturn, and negligible in space when far from any significant source of gravity, but it will always have the same mass.



YOU ARE TURNING MASS INTO WEIGHT .. A NO NO NEWTON


We are well aware of the problem with MASS (M) is classic physics and no you can't solve it.

The short form of trying to prove energy is real in classic physics also meets the same fate you can't prove energy is real either. One of the interesting things about QM is it does prove that energy is real if it wasn't the whole theory wouldn't work smile

As I said if you stopped trying to insist on an answer because your science is terrible and just ask questions you would learn a lot.

Last edited by Orac; 10/04/13 01:47 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Gravitation = Acceleration

above FIRS EINSTEIN's POSTULATE

show me body that has constant acceleration !!!???

if exist constant acceleration exist infinity energy that is the reason of acceleration ?

we all know that not exist infinity energy !!!
we all know that not exist perpetum !!!
we all know what we schuld do with theory that not cooperate with
real live ....



Last edited by newton; 10/04/13 01:46 AM.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
INERTIA = HUGE QUESTION ???

for me it is kinetic energy ( ABSOLUTE KINETIC ENERGY !!!)

it s the reason why pendulum not chage direction with Earth

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: newton
Gravitation = Acceleration

above FIRS EINSTEIN's POSTULATE



Not sure who told you that garbage here for your reference and so you don't repeat more stupidity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulates_of_special_relativity

Quote:

1. First postulate (principle of relativity)
The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of coordinates in uniform translatory motion. OR: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.

2. Second postulate (invariance of c)
As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. OR: The speed of light in free space has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference.


What you have said is clearly wrong


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Motion it is not " I'm moving respect to sun "

Motion = I was in point 1 now I'm in point 2

what is it point 1 ? it is apparent point !!!

below animation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aberrationlighttimebeaming.gif

Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209

ORAC I spoke about below

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

do You understand problem ?

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
There is no problem, I am having issues with your accuracy.


You said the first postulate ... I gave you the first postulate.


Apparently what you meant was the equivalence principle I am sorry not a mind reader be accurate.

The wiki site does a reasonable job at explaining it all and the tests we have done on it.


Now let me be clear as we can't define gravity by science exactly right now there is room for Einstein to be wrong.

HOWEVER

Your garbage doesn't even pass the basic stupidity test so whether Einstein is right or wrong YOUR garbage is wrong.


Do you understand Newton I am a scientist I really don't care if Einstein is right or wrong or if you were right ... I would be excited if you were right but I can't get your ideas past the stupidity tests that means they are dead in the water.

The whole of science is not built around Einstein and relativity it's actually the other way around relativity is the only theory that doesn't violate some of the more fundamental physics and observations .. you know the atom, nuclear energy, QM and all those rather tricky physics that you can't explain and haven't got a clue on.

Can I suggest you worry less about Einstein and worry about MAROSZ and whether his ideas are feasible and whether his theory holds together because at the moment you look rather silly.

May I be bold as to suggest that for someone who has so little knowledge of physics attempting to rewrite it may be a little beyond you ... just a thought ... try understanding it first.

Last edited by Orac; 10/04/13 03:15 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I have a question for you and I want you to answer it carefully and accurately because I understand most of your argument and see the errors but not all.

I DO NOT WANT OTHER EXAMPLES OR NEW DRAWINGS ANSWER ONLY THE QUESTION.


The bit that is confusing me is you jump between the experiment with brightness of the laser etc and then above you start talking about gravity.


My problem I am struggling with from science is both have a small part to do with Einstein but they really are unrelated.

It is so weird the way you mix them up with almost an anti-Einstein story I was almost thinking you were just a neo-Nazi who hates jews and that's your logic because I can't understand your logic for the life of me.

From a science standpoint we say light has no mass (it has momentum but that's another story) and hence light is unaffected by gravity. You have gravity lensing past suns etc which has it's own reason but by and large light is unaffected by gravity.


From a science point of view gravity it is all a bit of a mess because we don't have a force carrier for it yet so science could not care a less if the whole gravity story was wrong. On the other side that to do with electromagnetism and light the theory is among the most scientifically understood things there is and why getting these two mixed up is very weird.


So I need you to answer in your theory is light affected by gravity because you seem to chop and change between what are two very different things for me?


Stick to answering that question please I already understand most of your theory and where it all goes wrong but what you think with that bit confuses me.

Last edited by Orac; 10/04/13 07:21 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokW
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5