Knowledge of science

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by adhams, Dec 20, 2014.

  1. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    I see one punctuation mark in that post. Try rewriting it with more.

    Also, saying "Albert" appears to be intentional disrespect. Am I interpreting that correctly?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    First of all, "mc" has units of momentum while "mc²" has units of energy. Second of all, energy is not a natural quantity, so one needs a grasp of physical theory before one can make statements about energy, not the other way around. Thirdly, Newton is silent on the energy of a body and all one can talk about is the change in energy. Fourthly, in 1905 Einstein related the energy content of a body at rest with the energy defined in the 1865 theory of electromagnetism, and concluded that for a body at rest, E = mc², but this is not all Special Relativity has to say about the energy of a particle.

    For a free body in special relativity:
    \(E^2 = \left( m c^2 \right)^2 + \left( \vec{p} c \right)^2 \\ E \vec{v} = \vec{p} c^2\)

    Thus kinetic energy of a freely-moving (inertial) massive body in motion is the excess energy over that same body at rest is:
    \(\textrm{KE} \; = \; \left( \sqrt{1 + \frac{ \vec{p}^2 }{m^2 c^2} } - 1 \right) m c^2 = \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{ \vec{v}^2}{c^2} }} - 1 \right) mc^2 = \left( 1 \; + \; \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{2 \Gamma\left(n + \frac{3}{2} \right) \vec{v}^{2n}}{\Gamma\left( \frac{1}{2} \right) \Gamma\left(n + 2 \right) c^{2n}} \right) \times \frac{m v^2}{2} \)
    \( = \left( 1 \; + \; \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{(2n + 1 )!! \; \vec{v}^{2n}}{2^n \; (n +1)! c^{2n}} \right) \times \frac{m v^2}{2} \)
    \( = \left( 1 \; + \; \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \prod_{k=1}^n \frac{ (2k + 1) \vec{v}^2}{(2k + 2) c^2 } \right) \times \frac{m v^2}{2}\)
    \(= \left( 1 \; + \; \frac{3}{4} \times \frac{\vec{v}^2}{c^2} + \; \frac{3}{4} \times \frac{5}{6} \times \frac{\vec{v}^4}{c^4} + \; \frac{3}{4} \times \frac{5}{6} \times \frac{7}{8} \times \frac{\vec{v}^6}{c^6} + \dots \right) \times \frac{m v^2}{2} \)
    So when \( \left| \vec{v} \right| << c \) it follows that \(\textrm{KE} \approx \frac{1}{2} m \vec{v}^2\) according to Einstein.

    It wasn't until 1859 that experiments could precisely measure high-speed phenomena in a way than conflicted with Newtonian concepts of motion and time, so eventually someone other than Einstein would have noticed the same conflict.
     
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2014
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    There are several places on the internet where you can find different mathematical derivations (calculations using algebra, calculus, etc.) of e=mc^2. A few of them, particularly the ones that make no attempt to justify assigning the photon an actual mass, are technically incorrect, and I've found more than one of those.

    The original derivation Einstein analyzed was based on one of his thought experiments involving the movement of the center of mass of a long spaceship in which a single photon of light was emitted from one end and re-absorbed at the other. He needed to convince an audience of classical physicists steeped in the physics of Isaac Newton, and so he couldn't use any of the shorter derivations that are possible when the special relativity theory itself is a given.

    You can't just say: "I think the theory is this" and expect physicists to believe you. You'll need math.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. adhams Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    331
    Guys I think I know the reason for time dilation ,gravity probe b and others it's because of matter absorbing space when it lacks space it moves to get more
    And if u do vice versa like making something move faster and relative to earth clocks it has more capacity to absorb more space And when u know
    That matter exists based on the nothingness or space u know that a moving particle lacks more space to exist since it has a higher capacity than earthly clocks it has less time reading
    What do u think of this?
     
    danshawen likes this.
  8. adhams Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    331
    The theory also says that if u move a small piece of uranium 238 quickly it would need more space leading it to explosion and hence u have its energy
    This can be done by moving it through water at high speeds while shooting neutrinos at it
    Worth a try right?
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2014
  9. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    You have failed to carry your burden of proof establishing that you have a precise, communicable frameworks for reliably determining the behavior of a wide category of phenomena, and therefore don't have a scientific theory. Neither have you argued from credible evidence that your framework is more precise than General Relativity, so you have failed to establish that you haven't been wasting everyone's time. And as you asked for and had those terms defined for you, you had every opportunity to practice basic intellectual honesty in online discussion and actually practice discerning which of your thoughts rise to the level of scientific hypotheses. Instead, you talk about phenomena whose behavior you cannot precisely describe and propose that other people exist solely to validate your every unfounded conjecture.

    It is a matter of debate whether FOAD or ESAD is the more appropriate response to your posting, but be assured of your pariah status.
     
  10. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    I have a colleague I'm still very fond of despite the fact that he doesn't really have a solid theory of emerging space. But his intuition, particularly with respect to relativity, is usually dead on. If you've been reading some of the relativity stuff rpenner, myself and others have been tossing about, you might have caught on to the idea that energy, instead of undergoing time dilation and length contraction at relativistic speeds instead undergo Doppler (velocity related) shifts in frequency, the idea you have proposed actually makes sense. You're going to have to work on some of the terminology though. Energy is conserved, whether bound or unbound, but space and/or time do not as yet have any such conservation laws, and as far as we know, are not things that can be "absorbed". But hold that thought. But I don't mind at all if you wish to think or even comment about it. The subject fascinates me, and I'm pretty certain it does rpenner as well.
     
  11. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    "neutrons", not "neutrinos". Neutrinos are about the hottest topic in physics today, but they are much smaller and also much different than neutrons, which consist of one up and two down quarks, and the color charge exchanging gluons that hold it together.
     
  12. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    I think, no, it is not "worth a try". You really need to stop this because the deeper you fall into your delusion, the stronger it will take hold and the more difficult it will become to extricate yourself from it. Stop now, pick up a science book and start learning - before it is too late.
     
  13. adhams Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    331
    Danshawen can u explain what u don't like thank u thank u lol
     
  14. adhams Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    331
    In fact this simple concept of matter absorbing space describes what happened at the beginning matter and skies were adhering to each other where the matter were one big ball and around it and in the matter was the skies then coz the matter found that there is space at the edge of the skies it went to it by exploding symmetrically if u already know about spheres and know that as u go further by one length unit the relative volume decreases as u go another radius length when radius is 1 the volume=1 pi when r=2 v=8pi when r=3 v=27pi now 8pi/1pi is bigger than 27pi/8pi so there is a decrease in the relative volume that's why the sky has too many stars but not as many at the edge as seen here http://www.google.com.eg/imgres?img...xOaVPWMBsyxaZTjgLgB&tbm=isch&ved=0CFUQMygtMC0
    After the matter went away looking for space and as smaller it was the faster since small pieces of mass had high detection for space variance in density while large mass felt no big variance in space and would go at ease or more slowly to where there is more space or at the edge of the universe now here is the second postulate is that when a matter moves it gathers more space per second and the first postulate is that matter absorb space now as the masses moved to the edge it simply made the universe larger but with the same original density of space meaning that the small volume of starter space has the same density as nowadays except for the loss of space of course where there is a bigger volume
    Now every thing decays as in stars since the less space density there exists and more volume there is and considering that moving particles absorb more space we find that matter divides it self and scatters to allocate less space per smaller mass and since there is simply more volume for matter to be in and since the speed of matter means that every smaller mass can take care of it self separately and can absorb as much as it absorbed from before when it was a big ball and then end is when the space decreases and the matter find that it cannot absorb at its speed from the edge where space is finally consumed it which is the stage the universe is in now it finds itself in the need to stop (where there is the same space as elsewhere ) which is the third postulate
    In the end they will find no space and would vanish
     
  15. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Volume of a sphere is (4/3).pi.r^3.
    If r=1 then volume is 1.33...pi.
    So that's wrong.

    Try 10.66.. pi.
    Not doing very well are you?

    Wanna take a guess on whether or not you got this wrong too?

    As for the rest: word salad.
     
  16. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    What I liked about your idea is that like some of my own, it acknowledges that there is a possibility that something else is happening with space that is not part of the ideas of space-time of Einstein, Minkowski or Hilbert. I believe the reason space behaves in such an odd manner (contraction, time dilation) in relativity is that there is ultimately only time and energy. Space literally IS time, related only by c, and a superposition of 1 dimension (time) of energy propagating in every possible direction. Space as we know it isn't built by a superposition of timeless Euclidean spaces with the time dimension grafted onto them like it was a mathematical afterthought. Time generates space, for the cases of both bound (matter) and unbound energy. But I can't yet demonstrate the idea very convincingly with math, other than the part I'm most certain of: space = c * time. It will need some additional work to demonstrate the effect of the arrow of time on space for both energy and matter. Like yours, it's a work in progress with connecting chunks missing. This idea was something I started to realize when the Higgs mechanism received credit for providing inertial mass, and that means slowing particles so that they travel slower than c. Thought experiments demonstrated that any bound energy (like light bouncing between two plane mirrors) could also possess inertia even though it moves at c. Inertia is two things: being at rest, and resisting changes to that state, or else being in motion, and resisting slowing down. The only difference is whether the energy is bound or not.
     
    AlexG likes this.
  17. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Again: Punctuation. Look into it.
     
  18. adhams Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    331
    The thing is the pi negates the other pi and so is for the 4/3
     
  19. adhams Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    331
    It's so complicated what u said lol
    Any how I do believe that space as being absorbed gives existence one more time to matter and that is the progress of time now speed is due to the existence of a space variation in its density due to existence of matter beside matter leading to repulsion force between the 2 matter now the question is why do the matter attract another and some repel? Well it depends on the relative size of the 2 matter if they have the same size they would repel if at any chance they are slightly different they would attract since they are attracting space in between them unequally and the space would be withdrawn to the biggest mass while when they are equal in mass they attract the space between them equally
    Leading to them fighting on the same space where this space stays between them and isn't attracted to any of the mass and when it's depleted they attract from the other sides and repel each other that is why same charges (same mass size) repel while opposite
    Charges(different masses) attract
    Now why doesn't different masses attract each other till they merge?
    Coz as they approach each other the space in between them becomes depleted and the two masses find other space from the other side and when they are just about to repel the space in between them becomes replenished and they are ready to attract again and at some point in space they find equilibrium and are then fixed
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2014
  20. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Looks more like verbal diarrhea to me.
     
  21. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Nonsense.
     
  22. zgmc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    831
    What?
     
  23. adhams Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    331
    What did u mean with that?
    The division simply should be 8/1 since 4/3* 8*pi/4/3*1*pi is 8/1
     

Share This Page