Mass, Energy and Relativity.

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by LaidBack, May 5, 2007.

  1. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    I think your point is demonstrated by this thread, Singularity. Laidback receives "crackpot" abuse and sneers, then stands up for himself until he realises he's been dumped into pseudoscience by a moderator who clearly endorses all this. Then he leaves in disgust. Then a moderator steps in - on the side of the abusers. I'm sorry Stryder, but this forum is in a sorry state.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,203
    He put "retired" under "occupation" in his profile.
    Here, I've found you a kindred spirit as well as a goal to work toward: http://net-prophet.net/nobul/nobul.htm.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    How touching. I just pointed out an inconsistency in his first line, one that a high school student could habe seen.

    Should I explain why hes wrong?
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    If this is so, then one should actually learn physics first, instead of going around pretending they know how to explain things. It took humans 600 years to understand the natural world to the level we currently understand it. If you want to bypass all of that knowledge, your ideas will be 600 years old.
     
  8. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    Post deleted. Life's too short.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2007
  9. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    Well, I know I'm old and my schooling predates the Internet, but the information required is in books, not on a discussion forum. I spent time in lecture theatres and laboratories learning my Physics, not dreaming up pet theories.

    Oh, blame the Internet and it's denizens for Physics departments closing! Not the root cause at all, sorry. Physics isn't popular because it's hard. There are wrong answers. Education these days is too much about choice and opinion, and not enough about cold hard facts. Science lessons are drowned amongst 'Leisure and Tourism' classes and such at school these days. 'Science' is also a combined class afaik, no distinct lessons in Physics, Biology or Chemistry for the first couple of years of secondary education. This is why Physics Degrees aren't popular; we are not preparing our children for them adequately.
     
  10. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    No, the information is on the Internet too. Or should be. And when people show an interest and look for it, they should be met with encouragement and guidance instead of sneers and abuse. The Internet is an inspiration, an encyclopaedia at your fingertips, a gold mine of information and ideas. I don't blame the Internet for Physics Departments closing. I blame, I will blame, people. People who are lost in abstraction and parallel worlds and time travel, who don't understand basic concepts and who can't explain them, who won't relate to people who can't talk highbrow. Physics isn't popular because it's hard, it's because people make it hard, because of intellectual arrogance. And don't want it to be easy. Do you know my first userid at Physics Forums was? Popular. Banned Forever, Reason: Crackpot.
     
  11. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,398
    Pretending to be interested in physics and pretending to understand physics is just that; pretending.

    Demanding that pretend physics should supersede actual physics does not demonstrate a 'desire to work it out' especially when correction and encouragement are flatly ignored.
     
  12. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,398
    You've shown no interest in physics, but instead have come here emphatically stating that all physics is wrong and your version of pretend physics; ie. gibberish, is correct. Sneers and abuse is therefore forthcoming.

    That describes you.

    You were a crackpot there and you are a crackpot here. You most likely won't get banned here just for that, though. So, don't worry, be happy.
     
  13. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    There is information of varying quality on the Internet. The problem is people believing what they read, and not thinking critically. That is the value of Sciforums at least, we are critical, but you think that a bad thing!

    There are plenty of good conversations amogst real physicists, but you seem to be championing the woowoos. Why?

    Yeah, looky what I found;

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    Too much of that is on the WWW, and without people like us debunking it, it could lure people in.


    Basic concepts are taught in the classroom, and it's obvious the kids we have talking rubbish on here were probably off smoking spliff and bunking off class. It's not up to us to replace the education they ignored, nor humour their delsuional ramblings.

    Physics just is. It's hard, because the Universe is complex. Kids don't like it because there are wrong answers, it's not about opinion, or how you feel about something, but cold hard facts. Kids would rather gossip about celebrities or dream about being a footballers wife, than learn something Academic.
     
  14. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    Yep, you're critical. But you're not thinking at all.

    Yes, there are. But I'm not championing the "woowoos". I'm pushing for encouragement and correction, for sincerity and engagement instead of "debunking" that involves only sneering abuse and discouragement. I mean, look at Q. That's all he contributes. Tragic.

    No, basic concepts are not taught in the classroom. What do you think my essays are all about?

    TIME EXPLAINED
    ENERGY EXPLAINED
    MASS EXPLAINED
    GRAVITY EXPLAINED

    You don't understand the basic concepts. I do. But in your strange illogical world I'm a woowoo for saying I understand mass because nobody understand mass QED. It's kafkaesque. You think you're thinking critically? Try thinking critically about Mass Explained. Oh, but you don't have to, do you, because it's crackpot? You just couldn't make it up.

    If it's hard, why? What's the problem in trying to make it easy? Loss of funding? And by cold hard facts are we talking about String Theory? The Higgs Boson? Many Worlds? Time Travel? Black Hole singularities? Geddoutofit. Some kids are interested in finding out about the world, and you make it too academic, to dry, to dull, and too difficult for them.

    I plan to change that.
     
  15. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    So, what did you say about MASS EXPLAINED?

    LOL, thinking critically I see. But not thinking at all. And oh boy, threads started by phlogistician:

    http://www.sciforums.com/search.php?searchid=1376521

    You're no physicist. FFS, goodbye.
     
  16. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,203
    You planning on taking over from Anne Robinson when she retires?
     
  17. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,102
    Moderators care about the state of sciforums, the problem however is how people react when moderators try to deal with the trouble makers. Too many people cry that their freedoms and their rights are violated, suggesting the moderator team are some sort of illuminati group.

    If the moderators don't interact at all they show how anarchists manipulate the people within these forums to talk smack about each other.

    There is a lot of people that cry wolf and then some that cry it after stirring the wolves up. If they get bitten or mauled then it's their own fault, it's just some forums users that seem to have 'Selective hearing' who ignore how those individuals act and see the moderators as to blame.
     
  18. Singularity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,287
    I wont be surprised if i am again and again insulted in this thread http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1387441#post1387441

    I think what has happened since introduction of infractions is worst than days with only moderators, ie. good guys have left the building.
     
  19. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    Look bub, when the proposed ideas are so far off, it takes too much red ink to correct, in fact, it's uncorectable too often.

    Basic concepts are taught in the classroom. Kids have to learn to walk before they can run. Sorry if that means a long hard slog before they can get to play with particle accelerators, but that's just the way it is. Your essays are about your ego, obviously.

    You claim you do, but for some reason, aren't a published authority on the matter. You choose to post your essays on a web forum, instead of peer reviewed journals. Someon, wise up, nobody is going to take you seriously, and you certainly aren't going to trigger a paradigm shift from Sciforums.

    You only think you understand mass. We all understand the equations and ramafications, but nobody actually understands the cause. It's a black box, and you haven't peeked inside.

    I think that's exactly what you are doing.

    It is just hard. Let me explain; to mathematically describe the shape of the curve described by a chain hanging under gravity between two supports, you need a binomial expansion utilising a complex number. It just is complicated. Nobody decided it had to be this way so they could sell physics courses, it just is that way.

    I already told you, nobody made the subject anything. The subject, is the subject. It is an academic subject, it's just you think you you are so above it. It's not too difficult for kids, or at least wasn't. Science just isn't fashionable, and it is harder than soft skills, so kids avoid it, end of story.

    From Sciforums?
     
  20. LaidBack Physics Explains conformance Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    134
    The speed of Light equals around 300,000 Km/sec..

    Regardless of what quanta "c" equals

    If we use the quanta "c" in our calculus to define an area that consists with mass we still can calculate {via E=MC^2} the Potential Kinetic Energy to it, it does not matter what "c" equals.. As long as for each area of mass the same we use the same quanta.. Seriously! Are you paying attention here?

    Anyway "Justin Case" before we proceed further , perhaps if one spends some time at the following Links one may refresh what is involved and why the units do stack up!

    http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/waves_particles/lightspeed-1.html
    http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/02/23/why-does-emc2/
    http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen01/gen01709.htm

    Having reinforced ones memory... lets play around with E=MC^2

    Now once again I will repeat my interpretation of what the formula Implies to me, in that if we have an area that consists with mass and an area was defined with a given yard stick, which may measure out an area equal to one metre by one metre by one meter and on calculus the Energy check-summed to be equal to one, of course we know "c" is much greater and the energies checksum therefore should reflect this, but lets hope the quanta I used is basic enough for all those crackpot and or crank busters that are really slow and or extremely challenged in calculus that they can comprehend what I attempted to imply..

    NOW - If we squeezed another area "one meter by one meter by one meter of mass" into another area of one meter by one meter by one meter of mass so that the two occupy the area equal to one meter by meter by one meter, Err~ for the really slow ~ yeah you should know by now which one of ewe has bleeped like a sheep!

    Just think of the forces and or velocities that infer the forces utilised by an air compressor squeezing a gas into a liquid state and or even to solid state of mass within it strong enough to perhaps even rapture the Container.
    Yeah obviously we are stuffing a lot more mass into a larger area but by golly you should get the general idea by now!

    If we go back to where I have postulated where a mass can occupy a given area and we then stuffed two of these areas (the same) together so that two are now occupying where one normally would we would have in the implied area the energy of two areas now occupying an area equal to a single mass! But by squeezing the two together we have also Increased their Potential Kinetic Energy and if not for the containment forces would simply return to spread out at the velocity at "c" less the speed of any opposing velocities..

    So where does my implied quanta and or units not stack up?

    I insist you carefully try ones calculus again but this time by using 300,000 Km/s for "c" to give our implied distances for the areas definition and you will see the energy will double if we have two of em squashed to occupy where one would normally occupy~ Hell! why not go ballistic! and try as many masses as one likes! And you will see it will always stack up!

    OK? Can we move on to some more advanced Physics or do we still have to clarify more of basics?
     
  21. LaidBack Physics Explains conformance Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    134

    If Farsight has a passion for Physics and he is Civil yes indeed...

    But why exclude yourself, if you can point out others shaky constructs and or problems in a civil manner then we should get a long just fine..

    As for the sheep that bleep from fear of some bullies input are just as useless as the ignorant bully !

    Look~ We are all prone to anomalies, Including me! But what I don't have time for are moronic know-it all's that come out with an immediate crank and or crackpot remark!
     
  22. LaidBack Physics Explains conformance Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    134

    Don't let know it alls dictate..

    Strider has advised me he will attempt to move this thread away from pseudoscience section..
    so as soon as he does this then I will be keen to address your question.. and let me assure you it wont be answered with the same attitude as other sheep and or bullies here..
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2007
  23. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Good. I agree. But how is this at all equal to area. The first line, from the original post:

    You say "Area = c^2" effectively. Yes or no?
     

Share This Page