Notices
Results 1 to 92 of 92

Thread: Come on, REAL Physics please!

  1. #1 Come on, REAL Physics please! 
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    Forces cannot be unified at all.
    This is just another silly paradigm setted by an Einstein's thought, the same as "particles' entaglement". Just silly and wrong statements.
    And there are many physicists braking their minds, wasting time and money in such "paradigms"...

    Not to say Relativity Theory is really a wrong theory.
    But not only Einstein was wrong, also De Broglie's waves actually do not exist.(Actually there are no "waves associated to matter", only a wave-like behavior!).

    To continue wasting brain, time and money?
    Note also that from wrong theories only wrong predictions can surge...

    Wake up! Open the eyes! There's an entire totally new big possibility in Physics!

    Time to rethink it all!


    See: www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics
    Startpoint for a "New Physics": Real Physics! (Under development).
    A totally new theory rising...

    Don't miss...


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    121
    The weak force and electromagnetic force have been unified already. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_force

    Also if de Broglie was wrong, why do we get right predictions?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Come on, REAL Physics please! 
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    Forces cannot be unified at all.
    This is just another silly paradigm setted by an Einstein's thought, the same as "particles' entaglement". Just silly and wrong statements.
    And there are many physicists braking their minds, wasting time and money in such "paradigms"...

    Not to say Relativity Theory is really a wrong theory.
    But not only Einstein was wrong, also De Broglie's waves actually do not exist.(Actually there are no "waves associated to matter", only a wave-like behavior!).

    To continue wasting brain, time and money?
    Note also that from wrong theories only wrong predictions can surge...

    Wake up! Open the eyes! There's an entire totally new big possibility in Physics!
    Is this supposed to be funny? I do not deny that there might be a totally different way to approach nature with a different set of equations. But what makes you think that our current knowledge is wrong? Just handwavingly saying this is all just crap really does not help, even more so when all these principles you reject actually work. I have the impression that you have it all figured it out already and are bursting to share your wisdom with us, right? Well, welcome, the end of the queue is at the other side.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: Come on, REAL Physics please! 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo

    To continue wasting brain, time and money?

    Wake up! Open the eyes! There's an entire totally new big possibility in Physics!

    Time to rethink it all!
    Cut that crap, the real reason you're posting is right here: $$$

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/1419601202?...N1H5J6RP68WFA&
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    Cut that crap, the real reason you're posting is right here: $$$
    If that would be the case why to present all sections freely available directly from the web site and even in a full .PDF file to freely download?

    That's not the case.

    The case is that I have made some fantastic discoveries in Theoretical Physics.
    That's the case.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    Cut that crap, the real reason you're posting is right here: $$$
    If that would be the case whu to present all sections freely available directly from the web site and even in a full .PDF file to freely download?

    That's not the case.

    The case is that I have made some fantastic discoveries in Theoretical Physics.
    That's the case.
    If you have some physics to present, then present it.

    If you are just trying to sell some crackpot book then admit it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    DrRocket:
    If you have some physics to present, then present it.
    Is presented at the site the best way I could with much effort. But you even won't see it isn't it?

    If you are just trying to sell some crackpot book then admit it.
    No, my main interest is not to sell the book. Actually it was developed for those who would prefer to study the subjects reading a printed book (may be more comfortable for someones costumed to read books than read on a computer).

    My main interest is for the new propositions (for example the photon's structure) to be taken into consideration seriously by several people around the world. I think they deserve that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    If you actually want to be taken seriously, publish papers. Books are nearly worthless in this regard, as are e-books and forum posts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    MagiMaster:
    If you actually want to be taken seriously, publish papers. Books are nearly worthless in this regard, as are e-books and forum posts.
    I disagree with that.
    The new theories were based on a deep web research and so I strongly believe in the internet's capabilities.
    Also, the theory is not on a stage to be published in papers. It is under development and some things still remains to be done like proposed experiments. Not to mention that it will not pass the "peer review" phase since it strongly disagrees with current main theories like Relativity.
    Not to mention jornals require for the articles to not have been published other places and I have published a book.
    At the end how many people in the world really read journals (and which journals froma the large variety since each country has its own ones?)? I'm reaching much more people with my web site.
    And very probably journal's readers are much more closed minded to new theories than people surfing at the web. The theories need "open minds".

    Among the theory be freely available at the web it present a printed version book for those all fashioned ones who prefer to read books than watch a monitor. Old physicists used to write books...
    Sometimes is needed strong attention and concentration in what is being read mainly when each word and symbol has a very precise meaning very important in what is being analyzed (I know about this). At this level of study a book would be a very valuable resource for those who are really interested and working on the subject.

    The theory is still under development and under what I consider a "worldwide peer review" to perfectionate it as much as possible (although I consider I has already reached a great level of accuracy).

    I think it is the right aproach for a so big (it disagrees with some big current theories) and fantastic (may be incredible) new point of view on Physics.

    By the way I don't htink posting in this forum is worthless...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    There's many things wrong with what you just wrote.

    1) Deep web research sounds pretty meaningless. There's so much crap on the web that I would never trust anything solely based on web research except for data about the web itself.

    2) There are many journals and conferences, at least some of which would accept papers discussing the early stages of such work. It would require a bit of work on your part in that you would need to first explain what is wrong with current theories, then explain why your theory gets it right. Experiments come later.

    3) The peer review process is there for a reason and it's not to eliminate anything that's strongly against modern theories. When the system is working properly, and I'm not saying it always does, you should at least get back some reasons as to why the paper was rejected which can be used to refine the paper for resubmission.

    4) I suppose not that many people read journals, but those that do are the people that care about this kind of stuff (and vice versa), so that argument is meaningless.

    5) Schools are for teaching what is currently accepted as fact. Journals are for peers to decide what is currently accepted as fact. The internet is for neither.

    6) Worldwide peer review implies that it's being reviewed by peers, that is other people that know something about the topic. In other words, other scientists. The general public is not equiped with the knowledge to review your work.

    7) Old physicists didn't have peer-review journals, so they wrote books instead. Modern physicists only write books to attempt to explain things to the general public, not each other.

    8) I said that posting on forums is nearly worthless for getting your idea taken seriously, not worthless in general.

    Can anyone else think of anything I missed?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    There's crap on the web but there'a a lot of true meaningfull staff. It's in our own skill to distinguish what is right or wrong, what is good and what is not, and get what it will worth for us and everybody do this.
    The main advantage is that everybody can search the web and find material by subject.

    At this point I want to reach "open minds" what would be very unprobable in journals' developers and readers. Some of them would write the papers you are mentioning but not me. Actually I'm not a Physicist but an Engineer and my way of thinking differs from a common physicist. May be that's why I discovered wonderfull things in Physics...

    You are closed to some traditional rules followed by common physicists. Many things appeared in a non traditional manner and the web is a totally new resource being explored.

    I will continue following my current approach. Let we see...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    121
    Do you realise that F= and F=ma are not contradictory? Also nobody is going to take you seriously if all your research was done on the web.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    Stuart Thomson
    Do you realise that F= and F=ma are not contradictory?
    Yes they are. Relativity Theory is based on the relation F=dp/dt while if actually the equation of force is F=ma (which are very different) this means Relativity Theory is a wrong theory.

    Also nobody is going to take you seriously if all your research was done on the web.
    Really? I don't understand how much bad opinion of the web. May be you and MagiMaster don't know how to search in the internet...

    By the way, my research on the web was about 1% of my work to understand the true behind some subjects like "Davisson-Germer experiment", "double slit experiment", "pair creation and annihilation", etc and another 1% discussing in forums.
    The main part (99%) was a work of rethink it all from the beginning based on what I learned at University and some special books like Blatt's book on Physics, Einstein's book on Relativity and some others.

    I'm saying I'm presenting something new in Physics and I mean NNNEEEWWW!
    90% of the theory is based on a deep understanding of Electric and Magnetic Fields and how they apply in the new particles' structures presented and as an Electrical Engineer I have a large and strong base for that.

    You should not miss but is up to you only to decide to take a look or not because it could worth or not.
    Let me guess something, you have wrote your post without even taking a look on the site isn't it? You could be missing something good...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    Stuart Thomson
    Do you realise that F= and F=ma are not contradictory?
    Yes they are. Relativity Theory is based on the relation F=dp/dt while if actually the equation of force is F=ma (which are very different) this means Relativity Theory is a wrong theory.

    Also nobody is going to take you seriously if all your research was done on the web.
    Really? I don't understand how much bad opinion of the web. May be you and MagiMaster don't know how to search in the internet...

    By the way, my research on the web was about 1% of my work to understand the true behind some subjects like "Davisson-Germer experiment", "double slit experiment", "pair creation and annihilation", etc and another 1% discussing in forums.
    The main part (99%) was a work of rethink it all from the beginning based on what I learned at University and some special books like Blatt's book on Physics, Einstein's book on Relativity and some others.

    I'm saying I'm presenting something new in Physics and I mean NNNEEEWWW!

    You should not miss but is up to you only to decide to take a look or not because it could worth or not.
    Let me guess something, you have wrote your post without even taking a look on the site isn't it? You could be missing something good...
    Ok right. I don't understand how you can assert that something with variable mass can be governed by the equation F=ma. What do we use for m? If m is variable we must use F=dp/dt. What has led you to the conclusion that this is wrong?

    Also if E does not equal mc^2, How do you explain how a nuclear bomb works?

    And of course I looked at the site. How else would I know what you think about F=ma?? You never mentioned it here.

    On another note, don't you think something as simple as using the wrong force law have been picked up already by somebody?

    And just becaue something is new, doesn't make it good.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    Stuart Thomson:
    Ok right. I don't understand how you can assert that something with variable mass can be governed by the equation F=ma. What do we use for m?
    You have variation in space and time F(x,t), a(x,t) and also m=m(x,t) just that.

    What has led you to the conclusion that this is wrong?
    Because that relation would introduce transversal acceleration and so transversal movement in rockets (the direction of the force and the acceleration are not the same). Rockets present the component vdm/dt not neglihible since their mass varies much and fast and it would introduce transversal components in the acceleration.
    I nowhere and never heard that rockets present transversal components.

    Also if E does not equal mc^2, How do you explain how a nuclear bomb works?
    Who said that. In the new theories Einstein's E=mc2 is valid but have a different physical meaning rather than the space-time distortion.

    On another note, don't you think something as simple as using the wrong force law have been picked up already by somebody?
    Sorry but I can have really original ideas. If you want to have some you must pass over that reasoning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    So skeptics are close-minded? Sorry, but as soon as you say that, you reveal yourself to be close-minded, not the other way around. "Be open-minded, but not so open-minded your brain falls out." (Though I can't remember who said that originally.)

    Any scientist in any field anywhere must accept that their theory could be wrong. Failure is a common and important part of science. If you already know your theory is right, you're already doomed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    174
    ... I like new ideas... But due to the fact that it could eat so much time to analyze and go through it, I suggest that you ask really qualified group of people to go over your stuff.


    By the way, your website needs a designer..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    MagiMaster:
    I just say that only those who could have the mind open to new ideas could consider the new theory properly. There are people that believe so much in the current theories that would have serious problems to consider a new one.
    Skeptic different, they mantain "distance" from some position but fully knowing about the subject may be waiting for some more proof or demonstrations.
    Skeptics would read the new theory.
    Closed minded would not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    I just say that only those who could have the mind open to new ideas could consider the new theory properly. There are people that believe so much in the current theories that would have serious problems to consider a new one.
    It's not a matter of believing, you fool. Those other theories work, yours do not. Case closed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    Stuart Thomson
    Do you realise that F= and F=ma are not contradictory?
    Yes they are. Relativity Theory is based on the relation F=dp/dt while if actually the equation of force is F=ma (which are very different) this means Relativity Theory is a wrong theory.

    Also nobody is going to take you seriously if all your research was done on the web.
    Really? I don't understand how much bad opinion of the web. May be you and MagiMaster don't know how to search in the internet...

    By the way, my research on the web was about 1% of my work to understand the true behind some subjects like "Davisson-Germer experiment", "double slit experiment", "pair creation and annihilation", etc and another 1% discussing in forums.
    The main part (99%) was a work of rethink it all from the beginning based on what I learned at University and some special books like Blatt's book on Physics, Einstein's book on Relativity and some others.

    I'm saying I'm presenting something new in Physics and I mean NNNEEEWWW!
    90% of the theory is based on a deep understanding of Electric and Magnetic Fields and how they apply in the new particles' structures presented and as an Electrical Engineer I have a large and strong base for that.

    You should not miss but is up to you only to decide to take a look or not because it could worth or not.
    Let me guess something, you have wrote your post without even taking a look on the site isn't it? You could be missing something good...
    OK let's get this over quickly.

    The variation of the twin paradox that you presented has the same resolution as the usual twin paradosx. You can only apply special relativity in an inertial reference frame. Neither traveler is in an inertial reference since each much travel, stop, change direction and come back. The only valid reference frame in the picture is that of someone who remains at the starting point. There is no paradox and relativity works just fine.

    F=ma is not valid if the mass is not constant. Newton's original formulation was in fact F=dp/dt. Rockets are examples of systems that have a time-varying mass. Rockets are very accurately described by F-dp/dt and are not accurately described by F=ma. In fact rockets with constant mass are commonly called "failures". I have investigated a lot of failures.

    Bottom line: Your theories are utter nonsense.

    You can forget about publishing this junk in any serious journal.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    (Q):
    It's not a matter of believing, you fool. Those other theories work, yours do not. Case closed.
    What doesn't work for you? Show that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    DrRocket:
    The variation of the twin paradox that you presented has the same resolution as the usual twin paradosx. You can only apply special relativity in an inertial reference frame. Neither traveler is in an inertial reference since each much travel, stop, change direction and come back. The only valid reference frame in the picture is that of someone who remains at the starting point. There is no paradox and relativity works just fine.
    Your argument is not valid. Einstein applied Special Relativity to trains without taking into account that they would have been accelerated before reaching their relativistic velocities. Special Relativity and its Lorentz Transforms are applied to inertial frames which means objects travelling at constant velocities, I agree, but it doesn't matter how they reached that state, it doesn't matter how they were accelerated in the past.

    F=ma is not valid if the mass is not constant. Newton's original formulation was in fact F=dp/dt. Rockets are examples of systems that have a time-varying mass. Rockets are very accurately described by F-dp/dt and are not accurately described by F=ma. In fact rockets with constant mass are commonly called "failures". I have investigated a lot of failures.
    This is the current view and your opinion, I disagree and Section 1.1 shows why.

    Bottom line: Your theories are utter nonsense.
    Is your opinion and your decision. Let we see in some future...

    You can forget about publishing this junk in any serious journal.
    I'm not interested. That's a physicist's dream, I'm an Engineer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    What doesn't work for you? Show that.
    Why? So, as a kook, you can state that I'm wrong, just like stating to everyone else who points out your flaws?

    I had to stop at your assertion that the speed of light is variant and your worldview is that from an absolute frame. Idiocy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Why is it always engineers that think they can suddenly overturn hundreds of years of scientific achievement?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    MagiMaster:
    Why is it always engineers that think they can suddenly overturn hundreds of years of scientific achievement?
    May be because there still are wrong things.

    You know, common people (witha perfect right intuition) don't swallow all that things you, physicists, "proudly" announce on TV about the existence of "parallel universes", "dark matter and energy", "time/space travel in wormholes", "wave-particle duality", etc, etc.
    We all know that all that is just Fiction from the very badly solved things in Physics and one day phisicists will ashame for having to state all that absurdities.
    And you know what is the cause? Just to believe too much in wrong or partially wrong Physics Theories.

    Some day all things will be really solved and meanwhile much of us are working for that while you simply stay as if everything is fine and actually hiding things in front of people like me, confronting current "ideas", because at the end you actually know there are problems, but as you can't solve them you assume the position of "parrots" of mainstream theories (just in front of us, not at your work and home where you spend lot of time trying to solve many inconsistencies and absurdities).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    (Q)
    So, as a kook, you can state that I'm wrong, just like stating to everyone else who points out your flaws?
    Actually points you think could be flaws but I don't think so...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    MagiMaster:
    Why is it always engineers that think they can suddenly overturn hundreds of years of scientific achievement?
    May be because there still are wrong things.

    You know, common people (witha perfect right intuition) don't swallow all that things you, physicists, "proudly" announce on TV about the existence of "parallel universes", "dark matter and energy", "time/space travel in wormholes", "wave-particle duality", etc, etc.
    We all know that all that is just Fiction from the very badly solved things in Physics and one day phisicists will ashame for having to state all that absurdities.
    And you know what is the cause? Just to believe too much in wrong or partially wrong Physics Theories.

    Some day all things will be really solved and meanwhile much of us are working for that while you simply stay as if everything is fine and actually hiding things in front of people like me, confronting current "ideas", because at the end you actually know there are problems, but as you can't solve them you assume the position of "parrots" of mainstream theories (just in front of us, not at your work and home where you spend lot of time trying to solve many inconsistencies and absurdities).
    Yeah. That's almost stereotypical crank-speak there. Sorry. I'm not buying it.

    First, you didn't even address the point you were quoting.

    Second, human intuition sucks and everyone knows it, whether or not they want to believe it. (Seriously, if you look outside, it looks like the sun goes around the earth. This is intuitive and blatantly wrong. Intuition is the root cause of many, many, many troubles.)

    Third, as for the problems in physics, DUH! No scientist says we know everything. If we did, the scientists would be out of a job. What do you think a scientist is paid to do? Answer: try to figure these problems out. The things physicists say, like "There seems to be something out there that we don't understand. We'll call it Dark Energy for now." and the questions they work on at the office/home, "What is Dark Energy, really?" are not inconsistent.

    Finally, no scientist believes that current theories are generally wrong. Many believe that they may be incomplete, but NONE believe that they're useless, meaningless, techno-babble, fast-talk, propaganda, (do I really need to go on?), etc.

    You know. I really can't describe what I'd like to do to people like you. Not because it'd be too rude to say, but because I really don't know. You're so blatantly wrong-headed and hard-headed and close-minded about everything to do with the modern world that I can't even imagine where to begin, though I hope that was blunt enough to get through your thick skull (though I know it isn't).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    ...
    I'm not interested. That's a physicist's dream, I'm an Engineer.
    Then you need to go back to school. You are not a representative of the profession, and if you were I would turn in my degrees.

    You need to learn the relevant physics. You have it screwed up beyond belief.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Somehow it seems like it's always an engineer that turns into a crank. I know that most engineers aren't like that, but I'm wondering if it's something like the proto-cranks are drawn to engineering and why. I know that after they get an engineering degree in some practical-but-low-on-science field, they suddenly feel qualified to say that every physicist since Tesla was lying (never just wrong, but intentionally wrong). It's just weird.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    You have taken this too personnaly.
    I'm sorry if disgusted you but that is what the average people believe.
    I just said it because I know why it happens.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    Second, human intuition sucks and everyone knows it, whether or not they want to believe it. (Seriously, if you look outside, it looks like the sun goes around the earth. This is intuitive and blatantly wrong. Intuition is the root cause of many, many, many troubles.)
    May be intuition could fail in a first approach sometimes (as the example you mentioned) but together with reasoning they bring a common sense that works.
    The problem is that "Modern Physics" teaches to neglect common sense to accept their wrong theories (like Relativity) and wrong predictions derived from them.
    Common sense is right.
    I'm sorry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Thomson
    The weak force and electromagnetic force have been unified already. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_force

    Also if de Broglie was wrong, why do we get right predictions?

    I do prototype work, there are few right predictions, from college engineers. In both structural engineering and electronics.

    Once you get a Lego system or building block system setup. To account for small loses or unexplainable forces automatically. Sure it is almost just doing the math.

    Often on state of the art systems, you still have to throw out the book.

    But you take an engineer to fresh territory, and all he knows is what he did and learned while working with the prototype specialist. Because many of the engineers books do not explain the actuality. Even though many of the formulas are great for getting an idea of feasibility. The actual application of the formulas is out of the reach of most college people.

    Today we often call, going to the shelf and picking components off the shelf engineering. Components that were actually designed in the early to mid nineteen hundreds. And have proven where and when they are successful and where they fail, in actual application.
    We put them together with other similar components and we call it engineering.

    That is going to the convenience store.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    Second, human intuition sucks and everyone knows it, whether or not they want to believe it. (Seriously, if you look outside, it looks like the sun goes around the earth. This is intuitive and blatantly wrong. Intuition is the root cause of many, many, many troubles.)
    May be intuition could fail in a first approach sometimes (as the example you mentioned) but together with reasoning they bring a common sense that works.
    The problem is that "Modern Physics" teaches to neglect common sense to accept their wrong theories (like Relativity) and wrong predictions derived from them.
    Common sense is right.
    I'm sorry.
    No, I'm sorry you can't reason you're way out of an empty box. Scientifically, common sense is absolutely worthless. It doesn't count for anything at all. Period.

    Modern science does not teach to ignore common sense. It teaches to pay attention to measurements and observations instead of gut feelings.

    Out of all of this though, how can you possibly say that it makes wrong predictions when every single one has worked? Give an example of where a prediction of modern physics has failed. Note that some predictions haven't been tested yet. That's not a failure, at least not yet. It might be or it might not be, but that will have to wait.

    And yes, you and people like you are about the second most offensive group of people I can imagine, right behind bigots, and right in front of hypocrits.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    (
    Actually points you think could be flaws but I don't think so...
    Of course you don't, that's why you're a kook. You make claims contrary to hard evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    Common sense is right.
    I'm sorry.
    No need to be sorry, your contrary claims will continue to be duly ignored.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    No, I'm sorry you can't reason you're way out of an empty box. Scientifically, common sense is absolutely worthless. It doesn't count for anything at all. Period.

    Modern science does not teach to ignore common sense. It teaches to pay attention to measurements and observations instead of gut feelings.
    Yes it does. I have heard that many times when some people argument that "Relativity Theory" does not follow common sense and it was answered that Physics not necessarily follow common sense.
    For me the main premise in Physics should be that everything in the Universe must have sense.

    Out of all of this though, how can you possibly say that it makes wrong predictions when every single one has worked? Give an example of where a prediction of modern physics has failed. Note that some predictions haven't been tested yet. That's not a failure, at least not yet. It might be or it might not be, but that will have to wait.
    Well I can say what has no sense for me: "Parallel Universes", "Dark Matter/Energy", "time-space travel (wormholes)"...
    I know, I don't have the proof they don't exist but current Physics don't have the proof they exist and state they are the predictions of current theories and so they must exist. It would be better to think "Hey, this predictions have no common sense, may be it would be better to "brake" and analize if there could be something wrong in our theories."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Sense, yes. Common sense, no. Just because you want the universe to follow common sense doesn't mean it will. The universe doesn't care about you.

    Besides, what would you do if everything you measure is telling you something is true, but goes against common sense? Just say, "no, even though I measured it, it can't be real"? That's not just stupid. I don't think there are words to describe how wrong such an attitude is. It's basically the same attitude that has caused so much suffering over the last several thousand years.

    Do you really think that the scientists that came up with these non-common-sensical theories didn't try to find something that was simpler first? Eventually you just have to accept that the universe isn't that simple.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    The Universe does not follow common sense , is the common sense that follows the Universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Sorry, you posted while I was editting.

    Anyway, what does that even mean? Do you think human common sense is some finely tuned sixth sense that tells how the universe really works? Somehow, all these scientists are suppressing this miraculous sense that tells them how things must work, even when the ruler in their hand is telling them otherwise? You're going a bit beyond ridiculous here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    Sorry, you posted while I was editting.
    The same happened to me. Please read a little back.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    Besides, what would you do if everything you measure is telling you something is true, but goes against common sense? Just say, "no, even though I measured it, it can't be real"? That's not just stupid. I don't think there are words to describe how wrong such an attitude is. It's basically the same attitude that has caused so much suffering over the last several thousand years.
    I believe in measurements but I doubt in the interpretation of them. In my theory I agree but give a different interpretation for all these experiments: Kauffman, "Strong magnet", Feynman, Davisson-Germer and Fizeau (if i haven't forgotten some other).
    You shopuld take a look how an entire Physics could be different just by reinterpreting observations.

    Do you really think that the scientists that came up with these non-common-sensical theories didn't try to find something that was simpler first? Eventually you just have to accept that the universe isn't that simple.
    But may be simply nobody have found the real and right solution even if lot of time has passed. Have you thought in this possibility?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    Anyway, what does that even mean? Do you think human common sense is some finely tuned sixth sense that tells how the universe really works? Somehow, all these scientists are suppressing this miraculous sense that tells them how things must work, even when the ruler in their hand is telling them otherwise? You're going a bit beyond ridiculous here.
    Well I can say what I feel after discussing a lot in forums since some years ago.
    I think that when we passes through University and we learn lot of things two things happen: first, we have a natural tendency in believe that what was teached is totally right (mainly when the authors of the subjects are presented as great and famous personalities in Science with big awards) and second, we study the subject and although is difficult to understand we don't find other option (in general we don't have time to look for them) and so it works as we have confirmed them.
    As more brillant one was in the University more problem he will have to overcome with the possibility that all what he have studied and even exercises he passed with excellent notes could at the end simply not apply in the reality of the Universe.
    Then "scientists" are highly conditionated by what they have learned and I think that yes, sometimes their common sense could have been "supressed".

    I have serious problems to overcome this situations when developing the new theory.

    It get worst when large publicity is made around like Einstein.
    Fortunately I could overcome that.

    Common sense don't tell how the Universe works but it acts as an intuitive reaction when something wrong seems to be happening...
    I believe humans have sense of perfection and common sense is some kind of manifestation of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    Well I can say what has no sense for me: "Parallel Universes", "Dark Matter/Energy", "time-space travel (wormholes)"...
    I know, I don't have the proof they don't exist but current Physics don't have the proof they exist and state they are the predictions of current theories and so they must exist. It would be better to think "Hey, this predictions have no common sense, may be it would be better to "brake" and analize if there could be something wrong in our theories."
    You pick the worst examples.

    Parallel Universes: I'm pretty sure that most scientists don't believe in parallel universes. I think a lot of scientists like the idea and say that if they did exist, it'd make certain things easier. There's no evidence that parallel universes actually exist though, so scientists limit themselves to "could be". Newspapers and web sites take a scientist's "could be" and then write "he said it was". There's a huge difference.

    Dark matter/energy: The terms "dark matter" and "dark energy" are just place holders for "there's something out there that we can measure, but we have no idea what it is". That's a lot to say, so scientists just say dark matter or dark energy instead.

    Time travel: Time travel forward in time has been directly observed. In fact, it's very straight forward. Go fast. Time travel backwards in time is currently thought to be impossible.

    Wormholes: Theory says wormholes might possibly be allowed to exist. That's a long way from saying that wormholes are real, and no one's really sure that they haven't missed something that would conclusively say that wormholes are impossible. Scientists aren't looking for wormholes.

    Maybe you should put the breaks on and go read a book. You don't get it, but you have to actually know what physics says before you can say it's wrong.

    And if you want to talk interpretation, there's several different interpretations of quantum mechanics. Only one of them involves parallel universes, and most scientists think this is the wrong one.

    Seriously, get your facts straight. How can you say someone is wrong if you don't even know what they actually said? You might want to reread the definition of close-minded before answering that one.

    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    Common sense don't tell how the Universe works but it acts as an intuitive reaction when something wrong seems to be happening...
    I believe humans have sense of perfection and common sense is some kind of manifestation of it.
    Since when have we lived in a perfect universe? Since when has any human had any sense of perfection? As an answer to that second question, let me say that the last person I know of that had what I'd consider a sense of perfection was Hitler. Not a good example to follow.

    When your common sense tells you that your answer is wrong, you check your answer. When you get the same answer, you have to start wondering whether or not your common sense is wrong. It's really as simple as that.

    If you still believe that common sense is some form of perfection, let me come over and give you some slight head trauma so I can demonstrate how falable human thought is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    174
    I didn't read everything.



    There are some parts of Physics which are debatable, I suppose.
    But there are also some that have really good hard evidence.

    If you propose something of the former, I'll gladly take it into consideration and ask some more questions, and we become buddies as we continue to delve into the world of possibilities.

    But if you contradict something with that of the latter, I would ask only one thing. Evidence please.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    Since when have we lived in a perfect universe? Since when has any human had any sense of perfection? As an answer to that second question, let me say that the last person I know of that had what I'd consider a sense of perfection was Hitler. Not a good example to follow.
    That's the problem. The Universe is not perfect. A perfect universe would give a totally comfortable life for all of its beings and is not our case. We humans live as we can,and we had a lot of work trying to live well without reaching hapiness except in some brief moments.
    Everybody of us try to make at least our lifes better but many ways appear some of them seem "right" other "wrong" (Don't tell me about Hitler who for me had mental illness) but nobody reach an ideal life. When we seem to be right we see our "neighbours" and they are not well and so nothing is really right.

    I think we humans have sense of perfection but don't know what is really wrong in the Universe to make something about (if we could).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by CoolEJ
    I didn't read everything.



    There are some parts of Physics which are debatable, I suppose.
    But there are also some that have really good hard evidence.

    If you propose something of the former, I'll gladly take it into consideration and ask some more questions, and we become buddies as we continue to delve into the world of possibilities.

    But if you contradict something with that of the latter, I would ask only one thing. Evidence please.
    I'm presenting a new theory that I consider is still under development and there's a lot of work I simply can't do and I would like others could develop it further. As I say at the main page "I cannot make it all!".
    I present some evidence. My work was a theoretical one and present many theoretical arguments. Some experiments are proposed like a modified version of the Davisson-Germer experiment which can demonstrate a lot (towards or against could be expected in principle).
    I think the arguments are strong enough for the new theory to be considered by the Science community to find out if at least there is something right on it.

    The problem is that lot of people like you ask for things totally ready, undoubtelly demonstrated and proved and even presented as papers. I'm sorry that's not the case. The case is that is a new theory that needs work yet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Sense, yes. Common sense, no. Just because you want the universe to follow common sense doesn't mean it will. The universe doesn't care about you.

    Besides, what would you do if everything you measure is telling you something is true, but goes against common sense? Just say, "no, even though I measured it, it can't be real"? That's not just stupid. I don't think there are words to describe how wrong such an attitude is. It's basically the same attitude that has caused so much suffering over the last several thousand years.

    Do you really think that the scientists that came up with these non-common-sensical theories didn't try to find something that was simpler first? Eventually you just have to accept that the universe isn't that simple.
    Here is an example of common sense. That is totally missed.

    You have a fellow holding fifty pounds of force off the floor. By common sense standards using 50 pounds of force. Those two weights require a 50 pound force to hold them up. Yet many have claimed and sworn that there is only 25 pounds up force or tension upon the fellow in the picture.

    That is why common sense is what counts. That is why colleges today are not following common sense anymore. Colleges at one time recommended colleges be closed. By actual common sense statistics. Colleges went for the money and condemned honest common sense colleges. As did Hamilton.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Not the place, but let's try this again.

    Take a rope. Put 25 lbs on each end. Pick it up by two points near the middle. Each half of the rope is supporting 25 lbs with 25 lbs of tension. Drape the middle over a pulley without letting go. Each part is still holding 25 lbs with 25 lbs of tension. Does letting go suddenly double the tension?

    The fact that tension ISN'T doubled simply falls out of the equations you get when you observe that the rope isn't moving. It's really that simple. Again, common sense fails.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    Quote Originally Posted by CoolEJ
    I didn't read everything.



    There are some parts of Physics which are debatable, I suppose.
    But there are also some that have really good hard evidence.

    If you propose something of the former, I'll gladly take it into consideration and ask some more questions, and we become buddies as we continue to delve into the world of possibilities.

    But if you contradict something with that of the latter, I would ask only one thing. Evidence please.
    I'm presenting a new theory that I consider is still under development and there's a lot of work I simply can't do and I would like others could develop it further. As I say at the main page "I cannot make it all!".
    I present some evidence. My work was a theoretical one and present many theoretical arguments. Some experiments are proposed like a modified version of the Davisson-Germer experiment which can demonstrate a lot (towards or against could be expected in principle).
    I think the arguments are strong enough for the new theory to be considered by the Science community to find out if at least there is something right on it.

    The problem is that lot of people like you ask for things totally ready, undoubtelly demonstrated and proved and even presented as papers. I'm sorry that's not the case. The case is that is a new theory that needs work yet.

    You have a point.
    And in some way I feel the same way as you do.

    Honestly it is just difficult to simply say I have a theory and you guys need to check it out.

    You'll need some sort of convincing. And the best way is evidence. You can do it one by one. No need to rush.

    Otherwise, you'll either be ignored or criticized (much less insulted).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    i'm an average person, and i think your theories are absolute crackpot nonsense.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Not the place, but let's try this again.

    Take a rope. Put 25 lbs on each end. Pick it up by two points near the middle. Each half of the rope is supporting 25 lbs with 25 lbs of tension. Drape the middle over a pulley without letting go. Each part is still holding 25 lbs with 25 lbs of tension. Does letting go suddenly double the tension?

    The fact that tension ISN'T doubled simply falls out of the equations you get when you observe that the rope isn't moving. It's really that simple. Again, common sense fails.
    You just claimed that Mr. Bill can hold 50 pounds off the ground with 25 pounds of force, tension, on his body. That is why common sense is always the winner.

    You need to have an open mind. You are only looking at it, to not be wrong. It is right there in your face. There has to be 50 pounds holding up the two weights in the picture.
    A block and tackle is not magic. It is just a gearing system. The smaller block and tackles are two to one systems or four to one systems.

    I just do not know how you could deny Mr. Bill is holding up 50 pounds in that picture. Something is holding up the 50 pounds, care to tell us?











    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    I didn't say he wasn't holding up 50 lbs. I just said that that 50 lbs, seperated into two blocks doesn't create a full 50 lbs of tension.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    I didn't say he wasn't holding up 50 lbs. I just said that that 50 lbs, seperated into two blocks doesn't create a full 50 lbs of tension.
    I know you said that. Now you need to go and look at that for a while until it gets through to you. I am not being funny, I would tell my son to get this straightened out if he misunderstood it.

    There has to be 50 pounds of force on Mr. Bill, or those two weights hit the floor. You cannot hold up 50 pounds without 50 pounds counter force. That is a well known fact.
    To lift those weights up one inch Mr. Bill will have to apply 50 pounds of pressure for one inch. Or twenty five pounds of pressure for two inches. It is just gearing. To lift the weights he applies 25 pounds to each rope, for one inch worth of movement on each rope. Lifting 50 pounds one inch. The movement is just split up. But together the two forces have to add up to 50 pounds.


    But the dead weight speaks for itself. There is fifty pounds there, ready to go to the floor. Without a counter force of 50 pounds they will go.

    Go to he gym and try that. Put your body up against something and just lift one weight, a couple times. Your arm will get tired. Now try it with two weights, both arms will get equally tired. Because you are lifting the same weight with both arms. And your chest is bearing the tension of twice the individual weight amount.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    William, this is exactly why math is important. We can sit here and argue about this until our keyboards break, or we can just do the math and be done with it. But you don't like math, and you'd never believe something that was explained with equations, meaning we'll have to sit here and argue about this until our keyboards break.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    William, why not do an experiment? Make a setup as in your picture and replace MR Bill with a scale. Come back and report your findings. How is that?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Because he doesn't believe in scales. He thinks they're one-sided.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Because he doesn't believe in scales. He thinks they're one-sided.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    New Member Perillux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4
    First thing I read about on your website is bs. about the twin paradox.

    t' would be equal to t*k NOT t/k

    if your going to try and feed bs to people on a science forum you should at least get your equations straight. You might be able to fool some people on certain technical concepts, but equations are straight forward.
    "The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world." --GMan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    William, this is exactly why math is important. We can sit here and argue about this until our keyboards break, or we can just do the math and be done with it. But you don't like math, and you'd never believe something that was explained with equations, meaning we'll have to sit here and argue about this until our keyboards break.
    You could not do the math on that because you do not even understand it.

    By holding to your opinion, you just claimed I can hold up 50 pounds with 25 pounds of force. You are something else.

    That is why I have been condemning colleges my whole life.

    When times were bad in the seventies and early eighties. Kind of like now. I actually took one college course. And I know God, found this professor for me. Because it just steeled me, to staying away from college. He was a sign from God.

    I walk into his class, I have my Fringe leather biker jacket on. Kind of like a Davy Crocket design, western cut. A custom made jacket to withstand a good fall off a bike.

    Here is the professor in Orange overalls, orange "T" shirt, orange socks, orange boat shoes, and he claimed his underwear were orange as well.

    He had a wooden pendant with a picture, that he claimed was his spiritual leader. He asked us to call him Vamockha, because his spiritual leader said, that was his name. I called him Eugene, and asked him why he was wearing orange. And he said it was because it made him invisible.
    He taught us stuff that was totally common sense stuff. Like first grade common sense stuff.

    I wanted to just call the money I spent on college, that I got, from a second job, washing guard dogs, a wash. About a week into class. But, I knew that if I did not pass. Some wise guy would walk up and say "you couldn't even pass one college course". And I knew, I would have to kill him in the name of God, by ripping off his limbs and beating him to death with them. So I thought it better to pass and just call it quits. Ha-ha.

    I made a good pun there, with the wash. Ha-ha.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Because he doesn't believe in scales. He thinks they're one-sided.

    This one is as simple as seeing two apples in one area and two more apples in another area, and knowing, if we concatenate or add up all the apples, it is four apples. Common sense rocks.

    If you note in the picture, below. There are four scales. Two scales are hanging from the ceiling, holding 25 pounds each. You can also note that you need two scales to measure both 25 pound weights hanging from the ceiling accurately.

    Next we see that we have two scales horizontally measuring two weights. We know from the first scenario that we need two scales to measure two twenty five pound weights accurately. We can conclude that the horizontal scales are also measuring accurately two twenty five pound weights.

    The ceiling had 50 pounds of force upon it. The two hooks on the horizontal scale have 50 pounds of force upon them. And incidentally so does every inch of rope in the entire picture. And all the hooks in that picture have 50 pounds of tension.

    That is the real world. That is why stuff is collapsing.





    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    William, this is exactly why math is important. We can sit here and argue about this until our keyboards break, or we can just do the math and be done with it. But you don't like math, and you'd never believe something that was explained with equations, meaning we'll have to sit here and argue about this until our keyboards break.
    You could not do the math on that because you do not even understand it.
    Since you insist, I will do the math.

    The system for this will be two 25 lbs weights on each end of a rope over two pulleys, very similar to what's been drawn so far. First, let's seperate the system into two parts, seperated between the two pulleys.
    - The first part consists of the left weight, the left pulley and the left half of the rope.
    - The second part is everything else.

    Additionally, to avoid complicating things unnecessarily, we'll assume a weightless rope. This should closely approximate a real test using as light a rope as possible.

    Since nothing's moving, all forces must be in balance. The forces in question are simply gravity and tension. Tension is uniform throughout the rope under these conditions.

    First we'll consider what things would be like if the pulley were a fixture instead. Since lbs is a measure of force, a 25 lbs weight simply exerts 25 lbs on the rope in the down direction. This means that the rope between the block and the pulley is exerting 25 lbs of force on the block. This must be so, otherwise something would be moving. This causes the fixture to exert 25 lbs of reactionary force on the rope. Again, this must be so since nothing's moving. (If the fixture exerted no force, the rope would fall.) Now, the fixture isn't causing the rope to exert a further 25 lbs on the block, since then the block would be rising off the floor.

    Now, when we change the fixture back to a pulley, the reactionary force is replaced by a 25 lbs force from the other half of the system. Again, this doesn't exert a further 25 lbs on the first part of the rope.

    Having worked through this, I think I can point out the real problem here. We're working on two different definitions of tension here. Your definition is the sum of the absolute value of the parallel forces acting on the rope. Mine is the force the rope is exerting. I think we may actually agree on what's going on, just not what we call tension.

    Since arguments about definitions never get anywhere, I think we can drop this here, unless you think I got something in my math wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    Perillux:
    First thing I read about on your website is bs. about the twin paradox.

    t' would be equal to t*k NOT t/k

    if your going to try and feed bs to people on a science forum you should at least get your equations straight. You might be able to fool some people on certain technical concepts, but equations are straight forward.
    No. t'=t/k is right.
    You should be more carefull in doing the math, is not so obvious.
    Note that in the Lorentz transform the variable "x" must be replaced by the apropiated value x=vt in the calculation what leaves to t'=k(1-v**2/c**2)t getting t'=t/k.

    I apreciate your interest.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    William, this is exactly why math is important. We can sit here and argue about this until our keyboards break, or we can just do the math and be done with it. But you don't like math, and you'd never believe something that was explained with equations, meaning we'll have to sit here and argue about this until our keyboards break.
    You could not do the math on that because you do not even understand it.
    Since you insist, I will do the math.

    The system for this will be two 25 lbs weights on each end of a rope over two pulleys, very similar to what's been drawn so far. First, let's seperate the system into two parts, seperated between the two pulleys.
    - The first part consists of the left weight, the left pulley and the left half of the rope.
    - The second part is everything else.

    Additionally, to avoid complicating things unnecessarily, we'll assume a weightless rope. This should closely approximate a real test using as light a rope as possible.

    Since nothing's moving, all forces must be in balance. The forces in question are simply gravity and tension. Tension is uniform throughout the rope under these conditions.

    First we'll consider what things would be like if the pulley were a fixture instead. Since lbs is a measure of force, a 25 lbs weight simply exerts 25 lbs on the rope in the down direction. This means that the rope between the block and the pulley is exerting 25 lbs of force on the block. This must be so, otherwise something would be moving. This causes the fixture to exert 25 lbs of reactionary force on the rope. Again, this must be so since nothing's moving. (If the fixture exerted no force, the rope would fall.) Now, the fixture isn't causing the rope to exert a further 25 lbs on the block, since then the block would be rising off the floor.

    Now, when we change the fixture back to a pulley, the reactionary force is replaced by a 25 lbs force from the other half of the system. Again, this doesn't exert a further 25 lbs on the first part of the rope.

    Having worked through this, I think I can point out the real problem here. We're working on two different definitions of tension here. Your definition is the sum of the absolute value of the parallel forces acting on the rope. Mine is the force the rope is exerting. I think we may actually agree on what's going on, just not what we call tension.

    Since arguments about definitions never get anywhere, I think we can drop this here, unless you think I got something in my math wrong.

    You realize that 25 pounds of force, is a weight and a string falling to earth. Nothing more. Now if you hang it, place it on something. There is going to be a counter force necessary to realize the first 25 pound force. That means that there will be 50 pounds of force on the rope to hold up one 25 pound weight from a ceiling.

    Twenty five pounds downward force, and 25 pounds lift from what ever you hang the weight from. That is fifty pounds of tension/force on the rope. Because when you apply a counter force to the 25 pound weight, to get it to stop falling. The force of the weight is still present, pulling at 25 pounds force. While an equal and opposite force is pulling on it, in the opposite direction at 25 pounds of force. For a total of 50 pounds of force.

    I grew up on the water, and we built our own stainless steel boat davits and counter weight systems. It is like I am saying it is.

    When you hang the two weights over the two pulleys, it becomes very obvious that you have 50 pounds of force that the rope must fight. Or you have the magic perpetual motion rope. That can suspend 50 pounds with 25 pounds of force.

    It also becomes obvious that when you hang two 25 pound weights from the ceiling, that the two weights create fifty pounds of weight, force. Although if you look at modern buildings this may not be all that apparent to modern engineers.

    I like the movement aspect of it. Because if you look at my picture, below, you can see that if you want to lift the two weights hanging from the ceiling, one inch. Which is the equivalent of lifting one fifty pound weight one inch. You have to lift each 25 pound weight one inch. While supporting 50 pounds.

    The horizontal scales in the picture below, will show the exact same thing as the hanging scales. They are all measuring a 25 pound load accurately. Which of course means that there is fifty pounds of force/tension on the rope.

    This is something you should get squared away, because it really is that easy.




    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    If you tie a rope to a block, and drop the two together, the only force acting on the system is gravity. There is no tension in that system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    If you tie a rope to a block, and drop the two together, the only force acting on the system is gravity. There is no tension in that system.
    That was my point, that is twenty five pounds alone.

    There is tension, if it is over a pulley. But very low tension. In fact if you play around with dropping weights while the rope is in a pulley be careful of your eyes. The rope could easily whip, and take out an eye.

    If you gradually slow up the falling, block you will see that you need to create and maintain a constant counter force, equal to the weight of the block in the opposite direction. While the block continues under gravity to pull with equal pounds of force. Doubling your tension compared to your weight.

    I believe the one you need to look at, is the fact that Mr. Bill has to apply 50 pounds of force, to the weights in the picture below, to keep them off the ground. If you can answer how he can do that with 25 pounds of force, I will cease my attempts to sway you.

    He is either a perpetual motion machine or he has 50 pounds of force opposing him.





    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Here is another way to look it what is happening. This may make it easier to see and prove to yourself.

    There below in the picture, you have both 25 pound weights attached out one foot, on a wheel. And one fifty pound weight attached one foot out on the same wheel. That setup will stand still. It also shows that there is 50 pounds of force from two 25 pounds weights over a pulley.






    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    50 lbs of weight 50 lbs of tension, though again, I think our definitions of tension differ, which makes the whole argument pointless.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    William,

    In that last diagram the ropes have to be attached to the pulley, otherwise something is going to slip. The ropes with 25 lb on them have 25 lb of tension. The rope with 50 lb has 50 lb of tension. What do you think you have proven? Give it up, Billy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    May be intuition could fail in a first approach sometimes (as the example you mentioned) but together with reasoning they bring a common sense that works.
    Not in many cases. Newtonian mechanics would seem to match well with common sense. But it is only a good approximation in many cases.

    Relativity does not match common sense quite so well. But relativity has been shown to be more nearly correct than Newtonian mechanics and has completely replaced it in physics.

    The problem is that "Modern Physics" teaches to neglect common sense to accept their wrong theories (like Relativity) and wrong predictions derived from them.
    Common sense is right.
    Relativity is not wrong. You are wrong. You need to learn some physics.

    I'm sorry.
    Yes, you are indeed sorry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    50 lbs of weight 50 lbs of tension, though again, I think our definitions of tension differ, which makes the whole argument pointless.
    Maybe your definition of tension might be what we need here.

    In this picture below as I mentioned in the first post. The two twenty five pounds weights and the 50 pound weight strings are attached to a wheel one foot away from the center of the wheel.

    That means that there is 25 foot pounds of torque from each 25 pound weight and 50 foot pounds of torque from the single 50 pound weight.

    Since we know that both loads are identical there is obviously 50 pounds of tension necessary to hold up two 25 pounds weights. If anyone can clarify their crystal clear understanding of the situation, please do so, because we all look bad, not agreeing on something very simple.





    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    121
    Ok William we can settle this thing once and for all now I hope. Today i did an experiment, two pulleys, the a spring balance between them and each end of the balance attached to a 200g weight. The balance read 200g.

    Think of it like this; when you suspend a weight from the roof the balance would read 200g right? The roof is providing a force on the spring eqivalent to 200g, otherwise the balance would be moving right? The forces are balanced. The pulley system is exactly the same, except that instead of the roof counteracting gravity, it is another weight.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Thomson
    Ok William we can settle this thing once and for all now I hope. Today i did an experiment, two pulleys, the a spring balance between them and each end of the balance attached to a 200g weight. The balance read 200g.

    Think of it like this; when you suspend a weight from the roof the balance would read 200g right? The roof is providing a force on the spring eqivalent to 200g, otherwise the balance would be moving right? The forces are balanced. The pulley system is exactly the same, except that instead of the roof counteracting gravity, it is another weight.

    The spring scale is not designed to measure the opposing force from the ceiling. The spring scale is only designed to measure the weight on one side of the scale.

    That is why you have to use this method below if you want to actually find out how much tension you have on a rope.

    Look at the ceiling spring scales in the picture below. We see we need two scales to accurately measure, two separate 25 pound weights. From a ceiling that does not move. We know we need two scales to measure two separate weights accurately.

    So when we use two opposing weights to create a stationary point to hang the scales horizontally. We know we need two scales to measure the two weights. And the scales are still accurate.



    If we use another setup doing away with scales. If you know about torque you can see that in this picture below, two twenty five pound weights attached one foot out on a wheel, create 50 pounds of torque. That requires 50 pounds of counter torque to keep them stationary and off the floor.



    And of course we see Mr. Bill doing the impossible if he can hold 50 pound of weight off the floor with only 25 pounds of force.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    William,

    In that last diagram the ropes have to be attached to the pulley, otherwise something is going to slip. The ropes with 25 lb on them have 25 lb of tension. The rope with 50 lb has 50 lb of tension. What do you think you have proven? Give it up, Billy.

    The rope with the fifty pound weight has 100 pounds of tension. The two twenty five pound weights ropes have 50 pounds of tension each.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    William,

    In that last diagram the ropes have to be attached to the pulley, otherwise something is going to slip. The ropes with 25 lb on them have 25 lb of tension. The rope with 50 lb has 50 lb of tension. What do you think you have proven? Give it up, Billy.

    The rope with the fifty pound weight has 100 pounds of tension. The two twenty five pound weights ropes have 50 pounds of tension each.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    If that is true then all the weights are accelerating upward at 1 g. What is wrong with this picture ? Ans: William is all wet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    Relativity is not wrong.
    Yes it is, already demonstrated in Section 1.1 of my manuscript.

    You need to learn some physics.
    More Fiction Physics teached as "Modern Physics" I have already learned?
    I prefer the Real Physics that needs to rise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    William,

    In that last diagram the ropes have to be attached to the pulley, otherwise something is going to slip. The ropes with 25 lb on them have 25 lb of tension. The rope with 50 lb has 50 lb of tension. What do you think you have proven? Give it up, Billy.

    The rope with the fifty pound weight has 100 pounds of tension. The two twenty five pound weights ropes have 50 pounds of tension each.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    If that is true then all the weights are accelerating upward at 1 g. What is wrong with this picture ? Ans: William is all wet.
    You are confusing tension with the weight. There was one or two guys here saying you can measure two 25 pound weights over a pulley with one spring scale.

    The spring scale is not measuring the counter force of the ceiling suspending the scale. You do understand that?

    Think about going to a scrap yard and seeing two buckets over two pulleys with a single spring scale holding up both buckets. You put in your scrap metal in both buckets and they pay you for what the scale says. If they need to balance the scale, they just deduct the counter weight they put onto the scale. Ha-ha.




    Take a look at this one. How much pressure is the 25 pound weight applying to the vertical "H" beam?




    How much does this scenario apply to the vertical "H" beam?



    You can see that you always double your tension for what ever weight you plan to hang or support.

    The Horizontal "I" beam is under 50 pounds of tension.
    The vertical "H" beams have a load of 50 pounds upon them form the weights alone.
    The vertical "H" beams are under 100 pounds of tension from the weights alone.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    121
    I think you are using a different definition of tension from the rest of us and that is where this confusion has arisen. If we define the tension as the force exerted on an object by the rope, then the tension must be equal to the force on only one weight, otherwise that weight would move.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Thomson
    I think you are using a different definition of tension from the rest of us and that is where this confusion has arisen. If we define the tension as the force exerted on an object by the rope, then the tension must be equal to the force on only one weight, otherwise that weight would move.

    If you look up the definition of tension, you will see that its actual definition is the force a rope, chain, cable or rod is under. Not what it is attached to on one side of the rope.

    Because we know a rope and single weight will just fall. The tension is more then just the one end of the rope.

    You can see in this and other threads, by some saying that you can measure two weights with one scale that they do not understand it.

    I know in building this has lead to death. Many things are half or one quarter what they should be. Sometimes one one hundredth of what they should be.

    If a load rating is 100 pounds for a rope, it can lift a jostling load of 100 pounds. It does not mean the rope is only under 100 pounds of force or tension. The rope is under 200 pounds of force or tension, with a motionless 100 pound weight suspended still.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    121
    "(Mech.) The force by which a part is pulled when forming part of any system in equilibrium or in motion; as, the tension of a srting supporting a weight equals that weight."

    "In physics String Tension is the magnitude of the pulling force exerted by a string, cable, chain, or similar object on another object."

    Sounds like that agrees with me then.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    William, if I built a perfectly symmetrical spring scale, which direction is it measuring in?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Thomson
    "(Mech.) The force by which a part is pulled when forming part of any system in equilibrium or in motion; as, the tension of a srting supporting a weight equals that weight."

    "In physics String Tension is the magnitude of the pulling force exerted by a string, cable, chain, or similar object on another object."

    Sounds like that agrees with me then.
    The weight needs a counter force to be a recordable weight, and that counter force has to equal the weight.
    It is another weight in the opposite direction. As I have demonstrated numerous times. The tension has to be, not only by definition, but pure logic, the combined forces of any weight and the counter weight, holding it still for measure.

    Because we do not want to go to a scrap yard and get paid by one spring scales measurement of the two buckets it supports. Because we know that the scale is inaccurate, because it is being misused. You need two scales to accurately measure two separate hanging weights on two separate strings.

    You can show me any new definition or old, and it will not matter. This is beyond a convention or definitions. It is a logical barrier that cannot be defined away as you are trying to do.

    It will just resurface with more and more death.

    You do agree that you cannot use a single spring scale to measure two buckets? I really do my best to answer all your questions. You rarely ever answer my questions with anything but other questions. I would appreciate you taking a stand on this.




    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    If you look at the definition of a load, and the definition of tension. Tension is the stretch, of the rope, chain, rod, cable, caused by the load. It is not the, load. It is the tension caused by the load.

    The tension would be the total stretch created by two opposing forces of equal strength, necessary to hold a load stationary and suspended. The actual stretch is always going to be double the single force.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    William, if I built a perfectly symmetrical spring scale, which direction is it measuring in?
    A perfect spring scale perfectly measures half the weight or force on both its hooks.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Thomson
    "(Mech.) The force by which a part is pulled when forming part of any system in equilibrium or in motion; as, the tension of a srting supporting a weight equals that weight."

    "In physics String Tension is the magnitude of the pulling force exerted by a string, cable, chain, or similar object on another object."

    Sounds like that agrees with me then.
    The weight needs a counter force to be a recordable weight, and that counter force has to equal the weight.
    It is another weight in the opposite direction. As I have demonstrated numerous times. The tension has to be, not only by definition, but pure logic, the combined forces of any weight and the counter weight, holding it still for measure.

    Because we do not want to go to a scrap yard and get paid by one spring scales measurement of the two buckets it supports. Because we know that the scale in inaccurate, because it is being misused. You need two scales to accurately measure to separate hanging weights on two separate strings.

    You can show me any new definition or old, and it will not matter. This is beyond a convention or definitions. It is a logical barrier that cannot be defined away as you are trying to do.

    It will just resurface with more and more death.

    You do agree that you cannot use a single spring scale to measure two buckets? I really do my best to answer all your questions. You rarely ever answer my questions with anything but other questions. I would appreciate you taking a stand on this.




    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    To be honest William, I see no point having a discussion about a disagreement that arises from different uses of the same word - that cannot lead anywhere.

    I completely agree with you that the weight needs to be balanced by an equal force, and it seems that the entire misunderstanding was because you were using a different definition of tension from everyone else - so I thought simply defining the terms we were talking about would clear up the confusion.

    I guess the main reason I only ever question you is because I am sure you already know what I think on these matters - so me telling you again most likely won't make any difference. However I am intrigued as to how you explain certain phenomena, so I question you. If you really do have a theory of everything it should stand up to scrutiny, which is what I intend subjecting it to.

    I'm not sure what you want me to make a stand on though... You already know what I think about the tension thing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Thomson
    To be honest William, I see no point having a discussion about a disagreement that arises from different uses of the same word - that cannot lead anywhere.

    I completely agree with you that the weight needs to be balanced by an equal force, and it seems that the entire misunderstanding was because you were using a different definition of tension from everyone else - so I thought simply defining the terms we were talking about would clear up the confusion.

    I guess the main reason I only ever question you is because I am sure you already know what I think on these matters - so me telling you again most likely won't make any difference. However I am intrigued as to how you explain certain phenomena, so I question you. If you really do have a theory of everything it should stand up to scrutiny, which is what I intend subjecting it to.

    I'm not sure what you want me to make a stand on though... You already know what I think about the tension thing.
    It matters little what you or I think about it.

    Tension is the stretch of a rope, chain, cable, or rod, caused by a weight.

    Since a weight requires a force, equal to it, to be realized. The rope, chain, cable or rod, will have a tension and will stretch to a tune, of force twice the single load hung from it.

    So this as I mentioned all along, is not debatable. It is beyond belief that so many could overlook it all these years. We have always known it. And understood it.

    The tension from the two twenty five pound weights suspended over two pulleys, is 50 pounds tension, stretch or force on the rope, you cannot get around that. To declare a new meaning for tension is going to kill someone. For sure. Because colleges misunderstandings have already.



    But tension has always meant, the stretch the pressure on the rope, caused by a load. However the stretch is always double the actual load. Because you need an equal and opposite load to realize the original load.

    And you still did not answer my question about the two buckets and one spring scale. Does the single perfectly calibrated scale accurately measure what is in the two buckets? I have some friends in the scrap business that can double their profits by tomorrow. Ha-ha.




    I have no problem if you say the "tension caused by a 25 pound load". But you cannot say that "a 25 pound load causes a 25 pound tension". That is suicide. That is unscientific, illogical, and just plain wrong. Because the actual force on the rope is twice the single weight.

    That is turn the lights off in the education centers and enjoy the last few days of Gomorrah.







    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    121
    William I know what you are saying, you would need two scales to measure the weight of the two buckets, However when I say tension that is not what I mean. This discussion cannot go any farther as we dsagree on what we are even discussing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    It is beyond belief that so many could overlook it all these years.
    Yes, it is somewhat unbelievable. Maybe you should ask yourself why you're so willing to believe it then.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Thomson
    William I know what you are saying, you would need two scales to measure the weight of the two buckets, However when I say tension that is not what I mean. This discussion cannot go any farther as we dsagree on what we are even discussing.
    I am not here to destroy how you think about it. I thank you for your candid answer. Some here did not understand that portion of it.

    Now there are two individuals that see that the actual weight or force of two 25 pound weights over two pulleys is 50 pounds of force. Because two scales will register accurately 50 pounds of force. Now if we want to go on and determine if tension is or is not being defined properly we can do it with more intelligence. And a bigger group.

    This is where I believe it is a no brainier if we agree that there is 50 pounds of force on the rope, holding two weights over a pulley. Or 50 pounds of force on the rope holding one weight, anchored to the ceiling or a crane or whatever as the counter force.
    That the stretch is based upon a fifty pound pull or force, and not just the twenty five pound weights pull.





    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    It is beyond belief that so many could overlook it all these years.
    Yes, it is somewhat unbelievable. Maybe you should ask yourself why you're so willing to believe it then.
    Oh, I don't know, maybe the Twin towers swaying, and then coming down like a house of cards. Bridges all over America collapsing. Roadways collapsing. Parking car garages falling apart. Crane and hoisting equipment failing. Buildings collapsing, little things like that.

    We warned people more then 35 years ago all this would happen. The experts said "for the lack of extravagant safety, compared to money saved it was worth it. More then enough safety built in".
    So I guess Americans are cheap nowadays. With no space program, you have to decrease the surplus population somehow. Just the tension of walking under man made structures probably ages you a lot. I think I made a pun there.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    What saves people by chance, is that all things we use are naturally load rated. Bolts are rated by shear value. That requires an equal and opposite force to come up with that load rating. So a screw rated at 25 pounds of shear, will hold a shackle together, lifting a 25 pound weight.

    Because the screw was tested at an actual 50 pounds of force. Years ago everyone understood this. Today, not everyone does.

    Where we are in trouble, witnessed by actual things built. Is where the doubling of actual tension is not accounted for in structures. It is obvious today.

    Some of the cement structures that are being built, are not safe to live in. Because the weight of the cement alone, has to be figured on both sides of the supports. As the weight of the entire cement being supported. Plus the whole weight of each floor above it, for each side of a support.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    I also believe that today, the Ronald Reagan was built too long, for steel to support it.

    The Empire State building was 1,453 feet tall.
    The Empire State Building does not sway, it gives. With a wind of 110 miles an hour, the Building gives 1.48 inches.
    Movement off center is never greater than one quarter inch, thus measurable movement is only one half inch, one quarter inch on either side.

    This building was designed to stand still. It was not designed to be earth quake proof. Because it was too high. Much of the top of the building is very light and thin.

    There was no structural welding on the Empire State building originally.

    The Ronald Reagan, is 1092 feet long. It moves. It was welded. It rocks on the sea. There is no way the ship can be engineered for its duties. It is a dare against science and engineering.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I think I made a pun there.
    I don't think you even made sense.
    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
  •