Thread: Is sphere is an the only absolute symmetry shape?(pseudo)

There are ratios between the area of a cube and the volume of a cube. As the cube gets larger and larger there is a greater difference between the cube area and the cube volume. The area is decreased in ratio to the volume.

The same is true of a sphere. However a spheres area to volume actually decreases non-proportionally to the cube of equal diameter.

The least amount of surface area, is created by the shape of a large sphere compared to a large cube. It makes it least vulnerable to gravity.

It works in reverse in the atomic world. Because the ratio's go in the opposite direction. That is why atoms do move together and stay together. Because atoms are under the most pressure due to their large surface area compared to their volume.

The electrons in the protons although repelling. Are being put under pressure by an abnormal amount of surface area created by the small sphere. It is just sphere math. We learned this in school.

That is why we are not crushed against the planet by gravity. Math. Ha-ha.

Sincerely,


William McCormick

Originally Posted by William McCormick

There are ratios between the area of a cube and the volume of a cube. As the cube gets larger and larger there is a greater difference between the cube area and the cube volume. The area is decreased in ratio to the volume.

The same is true of a sphere. However a spheres area to volume actually decreases in proportionally to the cube of equal diameter.

The least amount of surface area, is created by the shape of a large sphere compared to a large cube. It makes it least vulnerable to gravity.

It works in reverse in the atomic world. Because the ratio's go in the opposite direction. That is why atoms do move together and stay together. Because atoms are under the most pressure due to their large surface area compared to their volume.

The electrons in the protons although repelling. Are being put under pressure by an abnormal amount of surface area created by the small sphere. It is just sphere math. We learned this in school.

That is why we are not crushed against the planet by gravity. Math. Ha-ha.

Sincerely,


William McCormick

If the length of a side of cube is l then thesurface area is and the volume is so the ratio of the volume to surface area is simply The surface area of sphere is and the volume is so the volume to surface ration is

For a given volume a sphere is the shape of minimum surface area. It doesn't matter if the sphere is large, small or in between. It has NOTHING to do with "vulnerability to gravity" whatever that is.

It does not work in reverse in the atomic world or in any nother world, except for your little world (and NO ONE understands what goes on there).

Your explanation regarding the behavior of atoms is both ridiculous and false.

There are no electrons in protons. There are no electrons in neutrons either. Your fixation on electrons has no basis in physics. You ought to get help regarding irrational fixations.

It is not sphere math. There is no such thing as sphere math. The only reasonable analogy involves you going around in circles.

Once again you have demonstrated an absolute inability to grasp even a small part of either mathematics or physics. You are not doing yourself any service with these idiotic postings. That is not a big problem. But you might be confusing some young person who chances across your nonsense and perhaps thinks that a grownup could not be so far out in left field.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by William McCormick

There are ratios between the area of a cube and the volume of a cube. As the cube gets larger and larger there is a greater difference between the cube area and the cube volume. The area is decreased in ratio to the volume.

The same is true of a sphere. However a spheres area to volume actually decreases in proportionally to the cube of equal diameter.

The least amount of surface area, is created by the shape of a large sphere compared to a large cube. It makes it least vulnerable to gravity.

It works in reverse in the atomic world. Because the ratio's go in the opposite direction. That is why atoms do move together and stay together. Because atoms are under the most pressure due to their large surface area compared to their volume.

The electrons in the protons although repelling. Are being put under pressure by an abnormal amount of surface area created by the small sphere. It is just sphere math. We learned this in school.

That is why we are not crushed against the planet by gravity. Math. Ha-ha.

Sincerely,


William McCormick

If the length of a side of cube is l then thesurface area is and the volume is so the ratio of the volume to surface area is simply The surface area of sphere is and the volume is so the volume to surface ration is

For a given volume a sphere is the shape of minimum surface area. It doesn't matter if the sphere is large, small or in between. It has NOTHING to do with "vulnerability to gravity" whatever that is.

It does not work in reverse in the atomic world or in any nother world, except for your little world (and NO ONE understands what goes on there).

Your explanation regarding the behavior of atoms is both ridiculous and false.

There are no electrons in protons. There are no electrons in neutrons either. Your fixation on electrons has no basis in physics. You ought to get help regarding irrational fixations.

It is not sphere math. There is no such thing as sphere math. The only reasonable analogy involves you going around in circles.

Once again you have demonstrated an absolute inability to grasp even a small part of either mathematics or physics. You are not doing yourself any service with these idiotic postings. That is not a big problem. But you might be confusing some young person who chances across your nonsense and perhaps thinks that a grownup could not be so far out in left field.

I would do the math and check out the surface area ratio to volume of a very small sphere. Compared to a large sphere. Look at what happens to the ratio. It inverts. Causing the universe to function as it does.

The tremendous surface area of a small sphere is so many times greater then its volume that it is placed under extreme pressure. That is what holds matter together the mathematical relationship between the area of a sphere of electrons compared to the volume of that same sphere of electrons.

It allows for massive pressure to be created. Objects made of atoms become one huge object. And are not placed under the same pressure that one atom is placed under. Because there is more volume then surface area. That is why we are not crushed to the earth.

That is the principle of measuring surface tension, because the small bubble has so much surface area compared to volume, that it can measure the surface tension of a fluid.

If you have ever had small and big balloons you will note that to blow up a large balloon, it takes less pressure then it does to blow up a small balloon. It is the way of the universe. It is mathematics at its most interesting level.

Sincerely,


William McCormick

Originally Posted by William McCormick

I would do the math and check out the surface area ratio to volume of a very small sphere. Compared to a large sphere. Look at what happens to the ratio. It inverts. Causing the universe to function as it does.

The tremendous surface area of a small sphere is so many times greater then its volume that it is placed under extreme pressure. That is what holds matter together the mathematical relationship between the area of a sphere of electrons compared to the volume of that same sphere of electrons.

It allows for massive pressure to be created. Objects made of atoms become one huge object. And are not placed under the same pressure that one atom is placed under. Because there is more volume then surface area. That is why we are not crushed to the earth.

That is the principle of measuring surface tension, because the small bubble has so much surface area compared to volume, that it can measure the surface tension of a fluid.

If you have ever had small and big balloons you will note that to blow up a large balloon, it takes less pressure then it does to blow up a small balloon. It is the way of the universe. It is mathematics at its most interesting level.

Sincerely,


William McCormick

That is just nuts.

None of it is correct, but only the last sentence is sufficiently clear to be capable of direct refutation. The reason that it is easier to blow up a large balloon than a small one is the same reason that it is initially easier to stretch a large spring than a small one. You simply don't have to stretch the material as much until you make the balloon very large, usually larger than you want to make it.

Your record for truth in posting remains unblemished by even a hint of success.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by William McCormick

I would do the math and check out the surface area ratio to volume of a very small sphere. Compared to a large sphere. Look at what happens to the ratio. It inverts. Causing the universe to function as it does.

The tremendous surface area of a small sphere is so many times greater then its volume that it is placed under extreme pressure. That is what holds matter together the mathematical relationship between the area of a sphere of electrons compared to the volume of that same sphere of electrons.

It allows for massive pressure to be created. Objects made of atoms become one huge object. And are not placed under the same pressure that one atom is placed under. Because there is more volume then surface area. That is why we are not crushed to the earth.

That is the principle of measuring surface tension, because the small bubble has so much surface area compared to volume, that it can measure the surface tension of a fluid.

If you have ever had small and big balloons you will note that to blow up a large balloon, it takes less pressure then it does to blow up a small balloon. It is the way of the universe. It is mathematics at its most interesting level.

Sincerely,


William McCormick

That is just nuts.

None of it is correct, but only the last sentence is sufficiently clear to be capable of direct refutation. The reason that it is easier to blow up a large balloon than a small one is the same reason that it is initially easier to stretch a large spring than a small one. You simply don't have to stretch the material as much until you make the balloon very large, usually larger than you want to make it.

Your record for truth in posting remains unblemished by even a hint of success.

The larger balloon can even be of much thicker material then the smaller balloon. Being a TIG welder all my life. And always having helium around. I became somewhat of an amateur balloon filler. Mostly for parties and for friends. The really small balloons even though they have much, much thinner walls, blow up with great difficulty. The large balloons even with thick rubber walls, blow up super easy.

What I am saying is true. A small sphere is much harder to expand then a large sphere. This is one of the first things you are supposed to learn about atoms and the universe. They had a cure for cancer using this principle, a long time ago.

If you look at the basic dynamics of air pressure. The very terminology of air pressure, it is pounds per square inch. A human is only capable of very low air pressures from his mouth. That is what makes the difference in blowing up big and small balloons so noticeable.

But if you look at pounds per square inch, you realize that even if you could blow one pound per square inch of air pressure into a balloon. In a very small balloon that might only amount to one pound of force on the balloons walls.

But if you blow into a large balloon with really thick walls of rubber, at one pound per square inch. You could be applying as much as 25 pounds of force to the balloon.

All pipe wall, and tank wall calculations are based upon this formula for pressure. I use and work with these things all the time.



Sincerely,


William McCormick

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by William McCormick

I would do the math and check out the surface area ratio to volume of a very small sphere. Compared to a large sphere. Look at what happens to the ratio. It inverts. Causing the universe to function as it does.

The tremendous surface area of a small sphere is so many times greater then its volume that it is placed under extreme pressure. That is what holds matter together the mathematical relationship between the area of a sphere of electrons compared to the volume of that same sphere of electrons.

It allows for massive pressure to be created. Objects made of atoms become one huge object. And are not placed under the same pressure that one atom is placed under. Because there is more volume then surface area. That is why we are not crushed to the earth.

That is the principle of measuring surface tension, because the small bubble has so much surface area compared to volume, that it can measure the surface tension of a fluid.

If you have ever had small and big balloons you will note that to blow up a large balloon, it takes less pressure then it does to blow up a small balloon. It is the way of the universe. It is mathematics at its most interesting level.

Sincerely,


William McCormick

That is just nuts.

None of it is correct, but only the last sentence is sufficiently clear to be capable of direct refutation. The reason that it is easier to blow up a large balloon than a small one is the same reason that it is initially easier to stretch a large spring than a small one. You simply don't have to stretch the material as much until you make the balloon very large, usually larger than you want to make it.

Your record for truth in posting remains unblemished by even a hint of success.

Springs are fun and easy to make, I actually make and harden them myself. But they are a complex subject. I believe though in all fairness, that although I could make a large spring that was easier to stretch then a small one, your purpose and motivation for stating that scenario, is not in context with understanding springs spheres or science.

Usually a large spring is harder to compress or stretch then a small one. However I agree I could make a large spring of non-proportional ratio to the smaller one, and cause the larger spring to be more easily stretched. However there are basics of spring making that are well known that explain that. They do not match the sphere area to volume subject we are talking about.

Sincerely,


William McCormick

Originally Posted by DrRocket

The reason that it is easier to blow up a large balloon than a small one is the same reason that it is initially easier to stretch a large spring than a small one. You simply don't have to stretch the material as much until you make the balloon very large, usually larger than you want to make it.

My explanation would be that the force pulling the two halves of the balloon apart is proportional to the cross-sectional area of the balloon, but the force holding it together is proportional to the cross-sectional area of the balloon walls. If the balloon wall thickness is not reduced proportionally to the size of the balloon, then the stress in the material is less for the small balloon. It's nothing to do with the volume as William contends.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by DrRocket

The reason that it is easier to blow up a large balloon than a small one is the same reason that it is initially easier to stretch a large spring than a small one. You simply don't have to stretch the material as much until you make the balloon very large, usually larger than you want to make it.

My explanation would be that the force pulling the two halves of the balloon apart is proportional to the cross-sectional area of the balloon, but the force holding it together is proportional to the cross-sectional area of the balloon walls. If the balloon wall thickness is not reduced proportionally to the size of the balloon, then the stress in the material is less for the small balloon. It's nothing to do with the volume as William contends.

Your explanation is correct. But it requires two-syllable words that I did want to use in an attempt to explain the physics to William.

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

You know, I bet many people thought that Edison's or Tesla's experiments and inventions seemed pretty pointless at the time too, but hindsight is 20/20. Come back in 20-50 years and tell me if particles physics research is really useless.

They have been doing it for fifty years and it sent space travel into the proverbial shita. The government was only too happy to give the money to multi subatomic particle scientists rather then the space program.

Roy Grumman's hobby was space vehicles. They were so durable that the Marines had no sure fire method to take them down. No one did. Not for sure. This was very scary to sick individuals.

Other companies were not interested in space. They were interested in the money. War, buying up carbon black, and sending young men to die, to raise the price of carbon black.




This book is very old.




Sincerely,


William McCormick

Originally Posted by "William McCormick

They have been doing it for fifty years and it sent space travel into the proverbial shita. The government was only too happy to give the money to multi subatomic particle scientists rather then the space program.

If you will recall (if you can recall0 the superconducting supercollider was canceled some time ago. The space program continues to be funded.

Roy Grumman's hobby was space vehicles. They were so durable that the Marines had no sure fire method to take them down. No one did. Not for sure. This was very scary to sick individuals.

Why would the Marines be trying to take down a space vehicle ? What vehicle are you talking about, the lunar module ? Roy Grumman is mostly known for mismanaging his company and driving into the arms of Northrup http://books.google.com/books?id=8XK...esult#PPA17,M1

Other companies were not interested in space. They were interested in the money. War, buying up carbon black, and sending young men to die, to raise the price of carbon black.

[
Sincerely,


William McCormick[/quote]

Raising the price of carbon black ? You're kidding, right ? There are a lot of different carbon blacks out there, and believe met, all soot is not created equal.

Dr. Rocket

It would be the Marines, Air Force, Army and Navy's duty to be prepared for all possible events. Of course they would need forth grade science to be prepared for war. So they could avoid war. This seemed to dangerous to law makers.

So instead they had wars, and when they could not sustain those wars, they had cold wars. During these times they could limit knowledge and access to information. Restrict information. They used new terms like "cold war" and "violent minority types". To restrict the free flow of scientific information.

Take a look at what we had a long time ago.

http://www.rockwelder.com/military/Rigel.htm



This is just what they let you see. We had no scientific limitations.

We are on a plantation, like Kunta Kinta, and they cut off our space program so we could not run or leave.

Roy Grumman had a rock collector that he used to send to the moon and back. To collect relics from past civilizations. And objects that had left the earth and made it to the moon.

My father stuck me inside of one in the early sixties. One of them was caught on tape in the fifties. It was so hot that it was burning air. Yet it was still hovering very nicely. They thought it was a UFO and started to film it. It was an amazing thing. Some kind of titanium skin.


Sincerely,


William McCormick

Originally Posted by William McCormick

Dr. Rocket

It would be the Marines, Air Force, Army and Navy's duty to be prepared for all possible events. Of course they would need forth grade science to be prepared for war. So they could avoid war. This seemed to dangerous to law makers.

So instead they had wars, and when they could not sustain those wars, they had cold wars. During these times they could limit knowledge and access to information. Restrict information. They used new terms like "cold war" and "violent minority types". To restrict the free flow of scientific information.

Take a look at what we had a long time ago.

http://www.rockwelder.com/military/Rigel.htm



This is just what they let you see. We had no scientific limitations.

We are on a plantation, like Kunta Kinta, and they cut off our space program so we could not run or leave.

Roy Grumman had a rock collector that he used to send to the moon and back. To collect relics from past civilizations. And objects that had left the earth and made it to the moon.

My father stuck me inside of one in the early sixties. One of them was caught on tape in the fifties. It was so hot that it was burning air. Yet it was still hovering very nicely. They thought it was a UFO and started to film it. It was an amazing thing. Some kind of titanium skin.


Sincerely,


William McCormick

That picture is of a rocket with a ramjet final stage. Ramjets are air breathers. The do not work outside fothe atmosphere. A ramjet cannot be used to knock out a satellite because it cannot go high enough. It most certainly cannot go the the moon.

If Roy Grumman thought that he had such a collection of objects that went to the moon and back then was as loony as you are.

Any rocket that Roy had, certainly did not go to the moon in the fifties. The Russian Sputnik did not go up until 1957.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by William McCormick

Dr. Rocket

It would be the Marines, Air Force, Army and Navy's duty to be prepared for all possible events. Of course they would need forth grade science to be prepared for war. So they could avoid war. This seemed to dangerous to law makers.

So instead they had wars, and when they could not sustain those wars, they had cold wars. During these times they could limit knowledge and access to information. Restrict information. They used new terms like "cold war" and "violent minority types". To restrict the free flow of scientific information.

Take a look at what we had a long time ago.

http://www.rockwelder.com/military/Rigel.htm



This is just what they let you see. We had no scientific limitations.

We are on a plantation, like Kunta Kinta, and they cut off our space program so we could not run or leave.

Roy Grumman had a rock collector that he used to send to the moon and back. To collect relics from past civilizations. And objects that had left the earth and made it to the moon.

My father stuck me inside of one in the early sixties. One of them was caught on tape in the fifties. It was so hot that it was burning air. Yet it was still hovering very nicely. They thought it was a UFO and started to film it. It was an amazing thing. Some kind of titanium skin.


Sincerely,


William McCormick

That picture is of a rocket with a ramjet final stage. Ramjets are air breathers. The do not work outside fothe atmosphere. A ramjet cannot be used to knock out a satellite because it cannot go high enough. It most certainly cannot go the the moon.

If Roy Grumman thought that he had such a collection of objects that went to the moon and back then was as loony as you are.

Any rocket that Roy had, certainly did not go to the moon in the fifties. The Russian Sputnik did not go up until 1957.

I know you are an impatient fellow, that cannot wait to see what real things I produce to knock down your poor science.
However to jump to such far reaching conclusions, that I in some way implied that a ramjet would work in space, is certainly, either stupidity, or cowardice.
Because you do not have the courage to just tell me you do not even like science and my presence ruins your euphoric world of poor science. So you instead purposely confuse what is written and clutter the forum.

I believe it states rather plainly what the rocket used to propel itself, in the link. There was no misunderstanding on my part.
Someone was killed later at another plant working on the same design. Because they even hid the ramjet form the public at that time. So a fellow died experimenting with what was already known. At one time ramjets did not exist for the masses.

Roy Grumman from there, being a pioneer in rockets, developed a really amazing hobby toy. That our military could not take down with any repeatability. Roy Grumman was kind of shut out of science and certain military groups. All of those groups were on the take. Receiving grants and contracts that they should not have.


Sincerely,


William McCormick

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by DrRocket

The reason that it is easier to blow up a large balloon than a small one is the same reason that it is initially easier to stretch a large spring than a small one. You simply don't have to stretch the material as much until you make the balloon very large, usually larger than you want to make it.

My explanation would be that the force pulling the two halves of the balloon apart is proportional to the cross-sectional area of the balloon, but the force holding it together is proportional to the cross-sectional area of the balloon walls. If the balloon wall thickness is not reduced proportionally to the size of the balloon, then the stress in the material is less for the small balloon. It's nothing to do with the volume as William contends.

You will find that the volume increases with the wall area. As a bubble or balloon is filled.
It works almost like gears work. You add in more fluid or air, and get less expansion, but you are able to press outwardly with more pressure. Much like hydraulics, but not exactly.

That is why the planet is not crushed by gravity.


Sincerely,


William McCormick

Originally Posted by William McCormick

I know you are an impatient fellow, that cannot wait to see what real things I produce to knock down your poor science.

Impatient? Hardly. I have been waiting for quite a long tiime for your very first solid scientific response to any of my criticisms. No BS just solid science. I AM STILL WAITING. I fear that I shall have to continue to wait for a very long time indeed.

Real things ? Have you recently made contact with reality ? What gives you that impression ?

However to jump to such far reaching conclusions, that I in some way implied that a ramjet would work in space, is certainly, either stupidity, or cowardice.

You talked about taking down satellites and then posted that picture. What were readers supposed to think?

Stupidity ? Cowardice ? That is absurd. Were you looking in mirror or something ?

Because you do not have the courage to just tell me you do not even like science and my presence ruins your euphoric world of poor science. So you instead purposely confuse what is written and clutter the forum.

I actually rather like science, always have. I have made a successful career involving mathematics, science and engineering. I don't think I have purposely confused anything. I do understand that you are confused. Very confused. Very. very confused. But I am not cluttering the forum. In fact, I and others find ouselves having to sweep up after you in order to protect younger participants who may (only may since your errors are so blatant) not be able to distinguish between truth and the utter nonsense that you post.

The really sad thing is that you appear to actually believe what you post. You ought to get some serious professional help.

I believe it states rather plainly what the rocket used to propel itself, in the link. There was no misunderstanding on my part.
Someone was killed later at another plant working on the same design. Because they even hid the ramjet form the public at that time. So a fellow died experimenting with what was already known. At one time ramjets did not exist for the masses.

That is tragic, but I don't see how a ramjet would be any more hazardous than other forms of propulsion. I have been involved with the start-up of test facilities for air breathing propulsion and those tests can be done quite safely. There are far more hazardous operations in the propulsion business. And there are procedures and understanding in place to allow work to procede safely. There is simply no need for anyone to die in the development of propulsion systems. Deaths are the result of failures to follow proper procedures and utilize known safeguards. They are preventable.

Roy Grumman from there, being a pioneer in rockets, developed a really amazing hobby toy. That our military could not take down with any repeatability. Roy Grumman was kind of shut out of science and certain military groups. All of those groups were on the take. Receiving grants and contracts that they should not have.

I really think that you ought to seek professional help. Does this statement seem rational to you ?

Anytime that you want to make good on your promise to leave and take your "truths: with you, you have permission to do so.

[quote="DrRocket"]

Originally Posted by William McCormick

You talked about taking down satellites and then posted that picture. What were readers supposed to think?

You are replying to things that were not said again.


Sincerely,


William McCormick

Janus your inability to correctly carry out duties has now caused you to put my name on someone else's topic, a topic that was started by someone else and moved here.

I know we do not see eye to eye. However in the interests of science and the forum you should at least keep things straight.

Sincerely,


William McCormick

The opening math is wrong on two counts.

1. The sphere ratio is wrong.
2. You mixed apples and oranges in your lengths.

The mixing is because in one case a radius is used and in the case of the cube a 'diameter' is used. If you use 'radii' or 'diameters' for both the sphere and the cube you get the 'same' ratio.

sphere: V/S = r/3
cube: V/S = w/3

Here w=e/2. If the edge of the cube is e, then half is w, i.e. the equivalent of a radius in the sphere formula.

Ratios tend to be misleading. This is an example.