Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: speed

  1. #1 speed 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Einsteins one speed of light, the same speed irrespective of the relative motion of observers was an invitation to ponder, and not a statement of fact; an invitation to join him in 'thought experiment'.

    If we look at lightning, we suppose it races down to the ground. But a light tracer races up first. Our perception merely has a predelection to notice the more intense light first. Our perception races to the thickest part of the bolt and then to the thinnest and we suppose the bolt comes down.
    If we had a predeliction for low intensity then we would "see" lightning go up to the sky and fail to see it come down -- if our culture was diffrent. Just as now we see it come down and fail to see it go up. (Science says the tracer exists.)
    In a similar way we suppose we see light blast out from the sun. But if our cultural predelection changed we would "see" the sun absorbing light.

    So what's the truth?

    The truth is the nest order is beyond space and time, outside of both. Hence when we flick a light switch the light starts shining in every place in the room at the same time.

    Non-simultaniety was also an invitation to ponder. And the train-lightning experiment was saying, my opinion, that the observers point of view is absolute -- even though they, the observers, are in the same universe.

    There is potentially more order in a scientists mind than there is in the universe -- and that's not arrogance but the truth. Why get your zillion dollar super-computer to kowtow to a universe that constantly does not exhibit high order? * Why not design alternative universes?
    *If that's being objective then 'objective' needs redefinition. Its not being objective to kowtow, that's being lazy. Dont wait for the universe to show you truth, it wont.

    Defer your 'final word' and leave your options open; but settle on a belief quickly and you close down all your options, all your potential.

    The speed of light is a measure of human assumption, ignorance.

    Maybe Einstein realized the truth too, but invented Relativity Theory instead of stating the outlandish truth, avoiding ridicule? What truth?
    This truth:
    The speed of light is an assumption we make, and not an observation of reality. That order, the inverse of mass, is outside of time and space. Order is not limited by time nor by space. Light is a shine of bent space at all points simultaneously -- its only our "logic" that says it must flow or have movement.
    Light is one manifestation, among others, of the bending of space.

    Math is based on sequential logic, but pure geometry is sequence encapsulated.

    The Michelson-Morley experiment proved only an ether flowing by the earth does not exist, but did not prove no ether exists at all, only that that specific conception of an ether did not exist. But the nest is not an ether but the bending of space-time from outside of space-time.

    We could swear lighting goes up or down depending on our perceptions predelection, but neither is an actual observation but observation itself is dependent upon predelection. Our perception notices phenomenon according to what we want to see and according to how we want to see what we see.
    The observer can see simultaniety or non-simultaniety depending upon what he beleives -- regardless if on the bank or in the train.
    Going further in that thought direction: is the sun actually a nuclear reactor or did we gather evidence to prove what we wanted to believe?
    My opinion: The truth is we see what we want to see; we gather data only to validate our beliefs.
    For example Creationsists gather data to prove dinosaurs existed a mere 6,000 years ago. And Evolutionists gather data to prove dinosuars existed millions of years ago. But perhaps neither viewpoint is true?

    From a designer's viewpoint? The designer is pragmatic and asks whether either of those theories is actually uselful. How useful if useful at all and in what way useful?
    Creationism: What happened before 6,000 years??? Evolution: Why does evolution have to take millions of years?
    The train lightning: I guess seeing non-simultaniety is the result of our common belief in 'c'. In other words a common c makes us unable to communicate well; each specialist having to take great pains to communite to another specialist ("observer").
    General Relativity though, removes this obstacle; that is to say each person with his own c, own nest, can agree yet differ. ("c" the edge ring of the nest, which all complementary rings multiply to yield, in effect, a nest is one c.)

    A Specialist, an expert, is a specialist in relationship to the common c -- common maximum rate of comprehension.
    That is to say: understanding life is impossible by comparing notes -- my usual analogy is that running a marathon with the whole field of runners holding hands can never reach the championship speed. But if each runner is allowed to run independently of each other they can at least reach their personal best: their own nest c. By holding hands -- comparing notes -- the fast and slow runners are both compromised.
    By trying to progress together, by making sure the science is "appropriate", then we compromise each other and progress itself.

    Now nest theory is the General Theory Solution that Einstein, in his day, hoped for. That is to say: appropriate science is nest science, and we should not care if one individual is further along than another -- it shouldn't matter. Why do we all need to conform? Trying to enforce a 'high-scientific-standard' is actually making communication more difficult and progress slower or non-existent.
    Therefore the standard has to be more flexible and General if we are to get beyond mere rocket science.
    If each scientist can prove their work is nest related, then that is high-enough scientific standard?
    Having said that, a nest standard is not necessarily an easy standard because so general. Its more like 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration -- I think I mean that Design Science is ultra demanding in terms of personal commitment whereas Special-Relativity science lacks that.

    In design science one moves from stupid ideas to better. I have said some stupid things but I should not have to care about that. Since their my ideas Im entitled to be as stupid as I like. Design is a hard process of exploring all ideas to eliminate bad choices: get rid of the unnecessary. To be an expert in a field is anathema [right word I hope] to design, because the expert knows and will not explore all possibilities, and so never gets the breakthrough idea.

    So the 95% is not working? Maybe I was deceived? I do know for sure the salt battery and uv generator will work. I am not trying to prove I am a genius I am just contributing: putting possibilites out there.
    Once design moves on, a person no longer believes the ideas they wrote. Like ' axle torsional loss in cars' was lame -- so what! Get a life. I dont play the one c game.

    Design is ever-evolving. Now the idea of the 95% changes. A cone from low on the 2.5 DIA M. engine goes out bottom left and rises to a small point hole at top, pointing right, makes the wheel turn.
    Burn the fuel low in the cone. The depth of hot gases above is proportional to wheel speed: like a pyramid of helium balloons -- inverse of pressure with depth in water.
    Now air entering the large CSA slows and creates heat, which heat must be directed up the cone.
    The whole idea here of course is to get the huge fuel saving.
    Being a jet engine high torque is not required but the thrust plates must have vanes at lower diameter to get the mechanical advantage.
    Maybe high pressure is not required but high temperature?

    We see that volume in is equal to volume out.
    And volume /time is power.
    The wheel accelerates very slowly but reaches a high speed proportional to the cone-tip speed.
    It is with the low volume that we get the fuel saving.
    Temperature in pV =nRT is equivalent to velocity squared.
    T (v-squared) = pV / nR, where V/n is equivalent to 1/mass. The mass, that is, the number of particles per volume has to be extremely low at the cone-tip to get a great result: to get maximum efficiency, which means highly elastic particles, collisions, imparting maximum momentum to the wheel.

    The greater the slow-done speed at the cone base the greater the heat developed, released, and the higher the cone-tip temperature. So this requires good insulation like a vacuum wall.

    Now the Maximum Power Transfer Curve of electrical engineering theory is developed from the gas equation with pressure on the y-axis and mass as n / V on the x-axis, and degrees kelvin.
    (True or bullshit?)

    Notice in turbine design that a fast-to-accelerate turbine reaches a slower final speed, whereas a slow-to-accelerate turbine reaches a higher final speed.
    In order to see the truth of the universe one has to hold back from assumption, hold back from a definite answer. Like a turbine, the greater or wider, slower, the intial search the greater the final realization. Architects take years to plan sometimes for example.
    When we take a breath we are drawing in a wave that makes existing air in the lungs occupy more space and it seems we are filling our lungs with air?
    Then the charged air gives its charge to the blood.
    If water is a rigid unseen matrix, then what we suppose is water flowing is actually a wave in the matrix?
    'An element is geometrical volume in which anything can happen'? Like a stage for Plays.
    So the heart is a wave generator and not a pump?
    Slow-breathing, increases charge? (The turbine maximum speed again.) We notice the heart rate of fit athletes slows down. (?) [sorry could not fit all in] The ego makes repetitions not there in eg: do re me and periodic table.?

    I am seeking supporters for a qualitative basis of science, not quantative. Quality: precision,shape, color, pitch. Quantity: power,size,brightness,volume. A quality can be found as a ratio of quantities. Mass is a quality.
    Reply With Quote  


  3. #2  
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Indeed lightning is not quite as simple as it first seemed. It is the equalisation of electrical charge between the Earth and it's atmosphere. As you say we have detected a charge going upwards first (some about to be struck by lightning report a tingling in their hair and head). But we also see lightning effects going miles above clouds too.

    It is however conventional science, easily within the bounds of space and time.

    We flick a light switch and tungsten is heated so hot that were it in air, it would very quickly vapourise. However being in a vacuum it does not and the 100% of energy produces 98% heat and 2% light, which at 186,282 miles per second instantly lights up every point of a room.

    The speed of light can be tested over very tiny distances in a lab, and light itself can be slowed down using a BEC, and even stopped.

    As a light filament, conventional matter does not give off light unless first "excited" in some way.

    The sun is a nuclear fusion reactor, held in shape by gravity, with four atoms of hydrogen becoming one atom of helium (4P + 4E = 2P + 2E+ 2N, where N is essentially P+E), giving off heat and light as byproducts.

    Dinosaurs and an old Earth are science. Creationism is religion, so dogma and just a belief that even many christians do not accept.

    Your post covers too much. You would have got more answers had you made a number of separate posts.

    Reply With Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Is it the speed of light the max speed
    By MadeinRo in forum Physics
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: August 14th, 2011, 07:00 PM
  2. speed
    By Heinsbergrelatz in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: October 28th, 2009, 12:43 PM
  3. Zero speed
    By Shaderwolf in forum Physics
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: October 29th, 2007, 06:20 AM
  4. SPEED
    By Kolt in forum Biology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: December 9th, 2006, 12:06 PM
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts