Notices

View Poll Results: Is the best tool for your line of work?

Voters
0. You may not vote on this poll
  • Is this the best mathematical tool ever?

    0 0%
  • Is this set-tool the most useful math-tool ever?

    0 0%
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Relativity perception -- is it necessary?

  1. #1 Relativity perception -- is it necessary? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    72
    Mass is defined as both a quantity of matter an object has and also as the measurement of the inertia of an object -- seriously, how can it be both?
    We have a see-saw: a big object on the left and a small object on the right. They balance at different positions relative to the fulcrum.Now double their size.
    They still balance at the same position from the fulcrum -- what can we learn from this? Or what can we conclude from this? (What can God tell us about this?)
    The see-saw says the objects, although larger, still have the same mass as the objects they replaced. The objects they replaced have the same mass-inertia and yet they have a smaller quantity of matter in them!?
    Relativity here says that we must conclude that Sir Isaac Newton was wrong?
    relativity says:
    1 mass is a measure of inertia
    2 mass is not an amount of matter an object has
    3 the size of the objects is synonymous with their amount of power?
    Although power and size have different meanings, they are interchangeable in some sentences.
    Perhaps: the powerful jungle cat, and the large jungle cat -- nobody is going to picture a domestic cat as powerful.
    The see-saw is really telling us that the larger objects have more power and the same relative inertial behaviour.
    That mass is a measure of inertia, is similiar in meaning to 'mass is a measure of behaviour'. Behaviour is the general, all-inclusive, term, whereas 'inertia' suggests the measurement of mass is limited in application.
    If one adopts the former defintion then the measurement of mass is potentially or actually omnipresently useful.
    4 A further conclusion from the see-saw experiment is that:
    measurment is a comparison, measurement is a relative comparision, a relative comparision is a SET of compared objects or phenomenon.
    For example we could have put twenty objects on the see-saw and enlarged the set from a mere two objects.
    Is any set at all suitable as a comparison system? Or, are some sets better than others as measurement sets?
    Should the measurement set have a limit or not? If it should have a limit how will the limit be decided? If the set is limitless is it also therefore useless?
    Is an infinite set an irrationality?
    Well, since an infinite set is impossible to model in full, it does not exist, it cannot exist. Therefore an infinite set is out of the question.
    If this is true of sets, then what of the infinite number system of mathematics?
    We are forced to conclude the infinite set is an irrationality? nd that therefore the universe consists of many different sets, and all of the sets of the universe have definite limits in both directions.
    The best-of-all-possible sets, we agree, should describe the highest-possible order between its elements? The most-useful set should exhibit the greatest-possible harmony between its elements?
    Musical harmony? Since the musical scale is limitless we have to reject it as the basis of a perfect set, since we agreed an infinite set is useless and irrational.
    If I have a ten kilogram weight, then what does it mean if an "infinite" weight is part of its set? How can we say the ten in ten kilograms means something if the set it is in has infinite members? This irrationality is true because if we try to compare the item to all items in our set, then the comparison would be never-ending for an infinite set, and hence no true value of the item would be arrived at.
    As a a preliminary conclusion, we can say 'doubt is good' -- because in it there is hope for a better future for evolution. But there is no future where there is certainty.
    I suggest relativity perception is absolutely positively vital.
    Post script:
    The best set is found to be a set of concentric rings that are spaced according to radii the sine of angles 9, 18, 27, ...90 degrees, multiplied by a suitable constant.
    The mass of the rings is given by IC (inertial capacity) = 4 Pi Area / c-squared -- where c is the outer-length plus inner-length of any ring in the set.
    Why the best? Unlike calculus we have a definite end and beginning of the set, and each member of the set is exactly defined.
    if we plot the mass on the x-axis and the ring area on the y-axis we get a curve like a hill, if the x-axis is made logarithmic the hill is symmetrical.
    This set was almost-perfectly realized as The Mean or Standard Distribution Curve of Statistical Theory, and we see its approximation in Engineering Electrical Theory where it is called the Maximum Power Transfer Curve.
    Certainty in this set, has an unlimited future: like the number of rings of the set is unlimited.
    PS: What the above essay is about is the importance of relative measurement in the evaluation of mass. Comparison of masses without a limited set to which they belong is of less usefulness than masses compared within a set. A mass or velocity or power is defined by the members of the set to which it belongs. The best set or "Nest" is a very useful tool in all areas of science and engineering and architecture.
    It is difficult to understand the implications of the masses on the see-saw being the same and yet of different sizes or powers. The nest is saying that without its defining limits relative comparison is meaningless or of very little usefulness.


    Last edited by Joshua Stone; September 26th, 2011 at 12:07 AM. Reason: clarification
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    wtf

    Do you seriously not understand how density works...


    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Mass is defined as both a quantity of matter an object has and also as the measurement of the inertia of an object -- seriously, how can it be both?

    Have you ever been to a fair ground and got stuck to a wall of a revolving drum ? This happens because inertia takes the place of (overpowers) gravity. gravity pulls you toward earth until inertia counteracts gravities effect, in effect becoming the gravity that holds you to the drum.
    I hope this helps a bit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Inertia is gravity. Slipstream is.. being affected by another bodies inertia. Swirling mass of lava causes slipstream effect that pulls us to Earth. Even if lava does not swirl it is hot and therefore the particles are moving at great speed. The size of a body at speed affects the strength of suction draught(stand at the edge of a tube station platform as a train passes).

    Space is NOT a vacuum !!!! The solar wind is a stream of charged particles ejected from the upper atmosphere of the Sun. So how can space be devoid of matter ? Light travels at 186282 miles per second, the universe expands at 48miles per second - Vacuum ? I think not.

    The collapse of matter in a black hole is not so much collapse as coordination/cooperation of particles, organised by vortex to flow closer together.
    Last edited by Max Time Taken; July 19th, 2011 at 05:24 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Max Time Taken View Post
    Inertia is gravity. Slipstream is.. being affected by another bodies inertia. Swirling mass of lava causes slipstream effect that pulls us to Earth. Even if lava does not swirl it is hot and therefore the particles are moving at great speed. The size of a body at speed affects the strength of suction draught(stand at the edge of a tube station platform as a train passes).
    Right, and the Moon, with no internal moving lava produces its gravity How? And for a matter of fact, How did Cavendish measure the gravitational attraction between two solid brass spheres with no internal or relative movement at all? Your statements just don't jive with fact.

    Space is NOT a vacuum !!!! The solar wind is a stream of charged particles ejected from the upper atmosphere of the Sun. So how can space be devoid of matter ? Light travels at 186282 miles per second, the universe expands at 48miles per second - Vacuum ? I think not.
    The solar wind, in the vicinity of the Earth, has a density of ~6 particles per cm³. That's about 1 gm of material in a cube 435 km to a side. It is also about 1/167th as dense as the best man made vacuum ever produced. So what you have is a few scattered particles with a a lot of vacuum in between.

    The collapse of matter in a black hole is not so much collapse as coordination/cooperation of particles, organised by vortex to flow closer together.
    Gibberish.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    Right, and the Moon, with no internal moving lava produces its gravity How? And for a matter of fact, How did Cavendish measure the gravitational attraction between two solid brass spheres with no internal or relative movement at all? Your statements just don't jive with fact.The solar wind, in the vicinity of the Earth, has a density of ~6 particles per cm³. That's about 1 gm of material in a cube 435 km to a side. It is also about 1/167th as dense as the best man made vacuum ever produced. So what you have is a few scattered particles with a a lot of vacuum in between.

    Gibberish.
    Are you saying that the moon has no moving particles that sum greater than your mass ? (electrons?)
    The moon itself is a body in motion within a medium.

    The approximate equilibrium of which you speak is not a vacuum. We assume its nothing but we are looking at it from the wrong perspective. Magnetic flux in a vacuum is no longer a vacuum as a body moving through the flux is affected - part of viscosity.

    As matter travels the inward spiral toward the core of a black hole the pressure increases, we know from cern the sort of temperatures required to burst protons. The core spins, the vortex lays new material evenly.
    If you disagree - educate don't denigrate.

    The core is similar in appearance to that "vacuum" you spoke of. Consider the reason we can't see it is because it is moving faster than our equipment can detect. If that is the case there could be smaller particles in this "vacuum" that we can't see yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    Right, and the Moon, with no internal moving lava produces its gravity How? And for a matter of fact, How did Cavendish measure the gravitational attraction between two solid brass spheres with no internal or relative movement at all? Your statements just don't jive with fact.The solar wind, in the vicinity of the Earth, has a density of ~6 particles per cm³. That's about 1 gm of material in a cube 435 km to a side. It is also about 1/167th as dense as the best man made vacuum ever produced. So what you have is a few scattered particles with a a lot of vacuum in between.

    Gibberish.
    Are you saying that the moon has no moving particles that sum greater than your mass ? (electrons?)
    The moon itself is a body in motion within a medium.

    The approximate equilibrium of which you speak is not a vacuum. We assume its nothing but we are looking at it from the wrong perspective. Magnetic flux in a vacuum is no longer a vacuum as a body moving through the flux is affected - part of viscosity.

    As matter travels the inward spiral toward the core of a black hole the pressure increases, we know from cern the sort of temperatures required to burst protons. The core spins, the vortex lays new material evenly.
    If you disagree - educate don't denigrate.

    So light goes out hits the extremities of the universe, bounces back in, likely colliding with photons on their way out, possibly bursting, hmmm.
    Last edited by Max Time Taken; July 19th, 2011 at 01:20 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    where's delete ?
    Last edited by Max Time Taken; July 19th, 2011 at 01:20 PM. Reason: duplication
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •