Notices
Results 1 to 72 of 72
Like Tree6Likes
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By KJW
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 1 Post By Strange

Thread: Ioio ii r r

  1. #1 Ioio ii r r 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    38
    "Consider the engineering challenge of maintaining perfect sphericity of torque upon the contraction or expansion of a perfectly spherical mass. What is the compressional torque value and what is the expansional torque value?"


    Two equations I have been seeking for a substantial time are the torque covariant and the torque co-efficient between terminal velocity and the rate of expansion of space. The equations I have are E = mc^2 and c = i/E(when -1 = m) respectively.


    I understand how I have arrived at these figures, but am only 'certain' I have them the right way about due to a vague feeling that the variant should contain the square and the efficient the root.


    I am now re-analysing my procedure to identify alternate formulations. I have provided the included thought experiment as reference for how I arrived at the equations here. If anyone would be interested in solving this equation it would be a boon to refer to anothers alternate thinking.




    (contributions considerable as phD submission by the Deportment of Universal Degrees)


    Last edited by Postpocalypse; December 20th, 2013 at 09:32 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  

    Related Discussions:

     

  3. #2  
    Forum Masters Degree Implicate Order's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    27.4679 S, 153.0278 E
    Posts
    610
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    "Consider the engineering challenge of maintaining perfect sphericity of torque upon the contraction or expansion of a perfectly spherical mass. What is the compressional torque value and what is the expansional torque value?"
    I am not sure any torque is necessary theoretically assuming a perfectly homogenous and isotropic state but Markus et al may have more to say about this. For example in the context of GR replacing the perfectly spherical mass with a homogenous and isotropic universe where mass density and pressure are 'perfectly' distributed we have the Friedman equations that model this result. Of course the reality may be different to that proposed by Friedman if the assumptions of homogeneity and isotropy are invalid. :-))

    PS Of course you and I know as we peer out our windows (on a great sunny day here in Queensland) that nature is not actually perfectly homogenous and isotropic. It very much appears to have properties of a system, our locality, our region, our planet, our solar system, our galaxy etc....... Those that model systems may be able to appreciate other important theoretical directions that lead to big answers such as De-Broglie-Bohm viewpoints. With these viewpoints, everything actually matters and cannot be 'assumed away' as these models assume everything is connected and subtle processes can actually have big results.


    Last edited by Implicate Order; December 20th, 2013 at 10:57 PM.
    Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Implicate Order View Post

    I am not sure any torque is necessary theoretically
    Please properly study the analogy provided between the thought experiment and the factors of terminal velocity/spatial expansion. The variable factor is torque. I am quite certain of this. Thank you.
    Last edited by Postpocalypse; December 21st, 2013 at 12:46 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    38
    I would make the clear distinction here that both gravitation and spatial expansion are polaric expressions of terminal velocity, with c being the mediary expression.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Implicate Order View Post
    I am not sure any torque is necessary theoretically assuming a perfectly homogenous and isotropic state
    GR is a geometric model, so there is no concept of "torque" there; all we can incorporate into the energy-momentum tensor is angular momentum, which is related but not the same.
    And no, angular momentum is not necessary to produce a homogeneous and isotropic solution to the field equations - see the interior of a spherical shell for example.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Implicate Order View Post
    I am not sure any torque is necessary theoretically assuming a perfectly homogenous and isotropic state
    GR is a geometric model, so there is no concept of "torque" there; all we can incorporate into the energy-momentum tensor is angular momentum, which is related but not the same.
    And no, angular momentum is not necessary to produce a homogeneous and isotropic solution to the field equations - see the interior of a spherical shell for example.
    Can you clearly refute the assertion that gravity and spatial expansion are polaric expressions of terminal velocity. It is this premise that provides the torque factor.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    Can you clearly refute the assertion that gravity and spatial expansion are polaric expressions of terminal velocity.
    It doesn't need to be refuted, 3SwordBunny, because there is no evidence for it.
    tk421 likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    Can you clearly refute the assertion that gravity and spatial expansion are polaric expressions of terminal velocity.
    I'm afraid that doesn't even make any sense, so how does it need to be refuted ? I can only speak for mainstream science, and in that context gravity is a manifestation of the geometry of space-time, as described by the Einstein equations; there are no forces ( such as torque ) involved.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    Can you clearly refute the assertion that gravity and spatial expansion are polaric expressions of terminal velocity.
    It doesn't need to be refuted, 3SwordBunny, because there is no evidence for it.

    err, excuse me? how so? or do I need to provide all my working now?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    Can you clearly refute the assertion that gravity and spatial expansion are polaric expressions of terminal velocity.
    I'm afraid that doesn't even make any sense, so how does it need to be refuted ? I can only speak for mainstream science, and in that context gravity is a manifestation of the geometry of space-time, as described by the Einstein equations; there are no forces ( such as torque ) involved.
    Any 'force' represents the indivisibles of the covariant factor that coincide with the indivisibles of the co-efficient factor. My assertion stands.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    Any 'force' represents the indivisibles of the covariant factor that coincide with the indivisibles of the co-efficient factor. My assertion stands.
    The assertion makes as much sense as Chomsky's famous, "colourless green sheep sleep furiously".

    What happens to the different types of angular momentum?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    My assertion stands.
    So does mine - gravity does not need the presence of angular momentum or torque. The only difference between our two assertions is that I can support mine both mathematically and empirically, whereas you obviously can't. See Schwarzschild space-time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    My assertion stands.
    So does mine - gravity does not need the presence of angular momentum or torque. The only difference between our two assertions is that I can support mine both mathematically and empirically, whereas you obviously can't. See Schwarzschild space-time.
    I asked you to directly refute the assertion, not provide an explanation to a question of angular momentum. There is no reference to angular momentum in the assertion that gravitation and spatial expansion are polaric expressions of terminal velocity. Your application of these terms in assessing this question does not refute the material.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    I asked you to directly refute the assertion, not provide an explanation to a question of angular momentum. There is no reference to angular momentum in the assertion that gravitation and spatial expansion are polaric expressions of terminal velocity. Your application of these terms in assessing this question does not refute the material.
    I guess Markus got confused by the fact you have come up with a new meaningless assertion.

    What he should have said was:
    So does mine - gravity and spatial expansion does not need the polaric expressions of terminal velocity. The only difference between our two assertions is that I can support mine both mathematically and empirically, whereas you obviously can't. See Schwarzschild space-time.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    I asked you to directly refute the assertion, not provide an explanation to a question of angular momentum. There is no reference to angular momentum in the assertion that gravitation and spatial expansion are polaric expressions of terminal velocity. Your application of these terms in assessing this question does not refute the material.
    I guess Markus got confused by the fact you have come up with a new meaningless assertion.

    What he should have said was:
    So does mine - gravity and spatial expansion does not need the polaric expressions of terminal velocity. The only difference between our two assertions is that I can support mine both mathematically and empirically, whereas you obviously can't. See Schwarzschild space-time.

    Once again, assumptions about what I can and can't do. If you seek support for this assertion I will spend some time compiling an analysis, though I might have thought purely assessing the binary equations for their efficiency in providing a covariant/coefficient differential may have been possible for those with profound mathematical talents. (not mentioning any names KJW)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    I asked you to directly refute the assertion, not provide an explanation to a question of angular momentum. There is no reference to angular momentum in the assertion that gravitation and spatial expansion are polaric expressions of terminal velocity. Your application of these terms in assessing this question does not refute the material.
    I guess Markus got confused by the fact you have come up with a new meaningless assertion.

    What he should have said was:
    So does mine - gravity and spatial expansion does not need the polaric expressions of terminal velocity. The only difference between our two assertions is that I can support mine both mathematically and empirically, whereas you obviously can't. See Schwarzschild space-time.

    Once again, assumptions about what I can and can't do. If you seek support for this assertion I will spend some time compiling an analysis, though I might have thought purely assessing the binary equations for their efficiency in providing a covariant/coefficient differential may have been possible for those with profound mathematical talents. (not mentioning any names KJW)
    For instance, is there an equation that E = mc^2 is applied to that might be approached as a coefficient through applying the latter equation?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Moved to pseudo.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    38
    If those two equations don't provide matching results have you not got the simple refutation you seek?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    For instance, is there an equation that E = mc^2 is applied to that might be approached as a coefficient through applying the latter equation?
    e = mc2 is an equation.

    How do you apply an "equation to an equation"? And how do you "approach an equation as a coefficient"?

    These questions are meaningless. You might as well ask if the metric system is blue, or if you can find prime numbers using rice pudding.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    If those two equations ...
    Which two equations? You have only mentioned one (e=mc2).
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Moved to pseudo.
    I object to this until such time as the equations have been compared. I have provided an easily scrutinised formula. This took me 20 years of investigation of one single subject. Is it so difficult to ask you to provide a simple equatic analysis?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    Can you clearly refute the assertion that gravity and spatial expansion are polaric expressions of terminal velocity.
    How would you refute this? What experiment or observation would invalidate your theory? These are questions you need to consider. That is what science is about.
    tk421 likes this.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    For instance, is there an equation that E = mc^2 is applied to that might be approached as a coefficient through applying the latter equation?
    e = mc2 is an equation.

    How do you apply an "equation to an equation"? And how do you "approach an equation as a coefficient"?

    These questions are meaningless. You might as well ask if the metric system is blue, or if you can find prime numbers using rice pudding.
    I provided the equation you showed me how to arrange. This is the co efficient binary for E =mc^2. You should remember c = i/E(when -1 = m)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    Can you clearly refute the assertion that gravity and spatial expansion are polaric expressions of terminal velocity.
    How would you refute this? What experiment or observation would invalidate your theory? These are questions you need to consider. That is what science is about.
    Can we come back to this when we have compared c = i/E(when -1 = m) please. If what I have asked cannot be applied then I will return to this subject.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    OK. Just saw this from your first post:
    The equations I have are E = mc^2 and c = i/E(when -1 = m) respectively.
    1. These are contradictory and incoherent.

    The dimensions of E and mc2 are the same and therefore the equations is valid.

    The dimensions of c and i/E are not the same, and therefore the equation is not valid.

    Math Skills - Dimensional Analysis

    2. m = -1 is physically impossible. There is no such thing as negative mass.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    I provided the equation you showed me how to arrange.
    Which was just some meaningless symbols based on your meaningless blather about angular momentum. It has nothing to do with e=mc2. In fact it has nothing to do with physics, science or reality.

    This is the co efficient binary for E =mc^2.
    "Coefficient binary" is another meaningless phrase like "banana carburettor".
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    38
    At this point I am so tired that I really think I should just get some rest so I am fresh to see my boy tomorrow. It is this equation that I wish analysed. As I have tried to clearly state, E =mc^2 is a covariant equation and c = i/E(when -1 = m) is the coefficient equation. If they do not work hand in hand as they are meant to be applied I can hardly have it the right way around can I. Do you mind if we start there please?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    38
    I might add that a possible area that these two equations can be evaluated side by side is in analysing terminal velocity against the expansion of space. I could just be getting fuzzy headed though
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    Do you mind if we start there please?
    It might help if you explain what you think "covariant equation" and "coefficient equation" mean.

    Note that the first equation is derived from sound physical theory and mathematics, and therefore represents a real fact about the world.

    The second equation is a meaningless collection of symbols.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    Do you mind if we start there please?
    It might help if you explain what you think "covariant equation" and "coefficient equation" mean.

    Note that the first equation is derived from sound physical theory and mathematics, and therefore represents a real fact about the world.

    The second equation is a meaningless collection of symbols.

    hmmm, yes, I see what you are saying. It may be that this is a coefficient factor to apply to E = mc^2. At this point I have reached a degree of fatigue that is leaving me mentally disconnected from my memories and I will have to return to this at some point tomorrow. I appreciate your contribution to my analysis of this equation. I sincerely believe I am not wasting your time and will investigate a clear dynamic to apply here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    At this point I have reached a degree of fatigue that is leaving me mentally disconnected from my memories and I will have to return to this at some point tomorrow.
    See your doctor. Seriously.
    tk421 likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    Do you mind if we start there please?
    It might help if you explain what you think "covariant equation" and "coefficient equation" mean.

    Note that the first equation is derived from sound physical theory and mathematics, and therefore represents a real fact about the world.

    The second equation is a meaningless collection of symbols.

    hmmm, yes, I see what you are saying. It may be that this is a coefficient factor to apply to E = mc^2.
    You obviously don't see what I am saying. What I am saying is that your "coefficient factor" is a meaningless collection of symbols. It cannot be "applied" (whatever that means) to E=mc2.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    Do you mind if we start there please?
    It might help if you explain what you think "covariant equation" and "coefficient equation" mean.

    Note that the first equation is derived from sound physical theory and mathematics, and therefore represents a real fact about the world.

    The second equation is a meaningless collection of symbols.

    hmmm, yes, I see what you are saying. It may be that this is a coefficient factor to apply to E = mc^2.
    You obviously don't see what I am saying. What I am saying is that your "coefficient factor" is a meaningless collection of symbols. It cannot be "applied" (whatever that means) to E=mc2.
    E m and c are meaningless?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    The equations I have are E = mc^2 and c = i/E(when -1 = m) respectively.
    Just to show that this is gibberish, we can substitute c from you second equation into the first and set m=-1:

    - substituting for m and c


    Which is obviously contradictory, meaningless, wrong, incorrect, gibberish, etc.

    Consider yourself refuted. OK?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    38
    my issue is you are unspecific. if that equation is meaningless I don't know how the other one in it with the same factors works.....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    E m and c are meaningless?
    Not in the context of E=mc2.

    Yes, meaningless in the context of gibberish like: "c = i/E(when -1 = m)"
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    The equations I have are E = mc^2 and c = i/E(when -1 = m) respectively.
    Just to show that this is gibberish, we can substitute c from you second equation into the first and set m=-1:

    - substituting for m and c


    Which is obviously contradictory, meaningless, wrong, incorrect, gibberish, etc.

    Consider yourself refuted. OK?
    I did not say substitute. It is a complimentary equation, not a substitutary one
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    my issue is you are unspecific. if that equation is meaningless I don't know how the other one in it with the same factors works.....
    Because they are different equations. You can't just write a random collection of symbols and expect it to make sense.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    E m and c are meaningless?
    Not in the context of E=mc2.

    Yes, meaningless in the context of gibberish like: "c = i/E(when -1 = m)"
    With this level of fatigue I will only say this. E = mc^2 is a reductive equation. The other is productive
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    I did not say substitute.
    Doesn't matter. If c is equal to something, then it is equal to it.

    It is a complimentary equation, not a substitutary one
    Again, "complimentary equation" is meaningless term you have made up. If you want to show that your equation (a) make sense and (b) means something then you need to do something to demonstrate that.

    Anyone with a primary school education in mathematics can see that it is nonsense.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    With this level of fatigue
    Get help. Medical (psychiatric) help.

    I will only say this. E = mc^2 is a reductive equation. The other is productive
    More gibberish.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    38
    hang on. I'm getting it back but I need some air. The first equation measures rest mass. The other one is related to this in context. I will return to the issue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    With this level of fatigue
    Get help. Medical (psychiatric) help.

    I will only say this. E = mc^2 is a reductive equation. The other is productive
    More gibberish.
    Please limit your advice to your genuine level of expertise. It shows respect to the professionals you believe treat me. Thank you
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    38
    OK. E = mc^2 measures rest mass. c = i/E(when -1 = m) measures the isolation of that rest. I believe this is an accurate description but will need sleep before I can further quantify the reference.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    OK. E = mc^2 measures rest mass.
    In this equation, m is the rest mass. The equation relates rest mass to energy, E. The conversion factor is c2 (where, c is the speed of light).

    So, no, it doesn't "measure rest mass".

    c = i/E(when -1 = m) measures the isolation of that rest.
    Both "c = i/E(when -1 = m)" and "isolation of rest" are meaningless. Without sense. Devoid of meaning.
    Dywyddyr likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    OK. E = mc^2 measures rest mass.
    In this equation, m is the rest mass. The equation relates rest mass to energy, E. The conversion factor is c2 (where, c is the speed of light).

    So, no, it doesn't "measure rest mass".

    c = i/E(when -1 = m) measures the isolation of that rest.
    Both "c = i/E(when -1 = m)" and "isolation of rest" are meaningless. Without sense. Devoid of meaning.
    So there are no separate FoR's. Is it that you would prefer to spoil my one day a week that I get with my child simply to prove myself correct? I will state it provides the factors of isolation that separate thresholds of vector. That is the best I can do while I am concerned with giving my son due attention tomorrow. I hope I have not made your weekend uncomfortable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    38
    ok. in E = mc^2, E does not identify the 'nature' of rest but the mass state that approximates the local state of rest. In c = i/E(when -1 = m), c identifies the location of rest(equilibrium) within the identified system. I have supplied this as a basic illustration and will provide more clarity to the explanation tomorrow while my son plays.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Moved to pseudo.
    I object to this until such time as the equations have been compared. I have provided an easily scrutinised formula. This took me 20 years of investigation of one single subject. Is it so difficult to ask you to provide a simple equatic analysis?
    If you have been at this for 20 years, and still have not convinced anyone, perhaps it is time to find another hobby.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Moved to pseudo.
    I object to this until such time as the equations have been compared. I have provided an easily scrutinised formula. This took me 20 years of investigation of one single subject. Is it so difficult to ask you to provide a simple equatic analysis?
    If you have been at this for 20 years, and still have not convinced anyone, perhaps it is time to find another hobby.
    subject matter only please. If you wish to discuss personals please provide your own thread to do so. I did not come here seeking personal advice
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    ok. in E = mc^2, E does not identify the 'nature' of rest but the mass state that approximates the local state of rest. In c = i/E(when -1 = m), c identifies the location of rest(equilibrium) within the identified system. I have supplied this as a basic illustration and will provide more clarity to the explanation tomorrow while my son plays.
    repost
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    So there are no separate FoR's.
    Frames of reference do not come into this at all.

    I will state it provides the factors of isolation that separate thresholds of vector.
    That makes as much sense as "colourless green ideas sleep furiously."
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    ok. in E = mc^2, E does not identify the 'nature' of rest but the mass state that approximates the local state of rest.
    No. It is energy. ENERGY. What is wrong with you?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    c = i/E(when -1 = m) measures the isolation of that rest.
    What makes you think you can completely ignore the hyperglockal frangipan constant?
    Strange likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    c = i/E(when -1 = m) measures the isolation of that rest.
    What makes you think you can completely ignore the hyperglockal frangipan constant?
    He must be applying a Bogulibov transform to the frobnitz.
    Markus Hanke likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    ok. in E = mc^2, E does not identify the 'nature' of rest but the mass state that approximates the local state of rest.
    No. It is energy. ENERGY. What is wrong with you?
    Yes. the energy state that approximates local rest
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    ok. in E = mc^2, E does not identify the 'nature' of rest but the mass state that approximates the local state of rest.
    No. It is energy. ENERGY. What is wrong with you?
    Does it not measure the rest mass of a particle?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    [Yes. the energy state that approximates local rest
    No. That sentence is meaningless. It is quite simply the equivalent energy of that mass. Nothing to do with "local rest" (whatever that means). And nothing to do with states or approximations.

    It is just energy.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    Does it not measure the rest mass of a particle?
    NO. IT IS ENERGY.

    m is the rest mass, which you can measure using scales or whatever you want.

    What part of "it is energy" is hard to understand?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    Does it not measure the rest mass of a particle?
    No.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    ok. in E = mc^2, E does not identify the 'nature' of rest but the mass state that approximates the local state of rest.
    No. It is energy. ENERGY. What is wrong with you?
    Does it not measure the rest mass of a particle?
    I am astounded that you managed to study this for 20 years and still not understand it.

    Perhaps you should go back to square one: Mass
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Perhaps you should go back to square one: Mass
    Also available in Sicilian: https://scn.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%3Dmc%C2%B2
    (Which makes about as much sense as 3SwordBear Potcalypso.)
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,966
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    ok. in E = mc^2, E does not identify the 'nature' of rest but the mass state that approximates the local state of rest.
    No. It is energy. ENERGY. What is wrong with you?
    Does it not measure the rest mass of a particle?
    I am astounded that you managed to study this for 20 years and still not understand it.

    Perhaps you should go back to square one: Mass
    It won't help. He's a die-hard crank. It took him 20 years to make up new terms, and redefine old ones. Pointing him to an article on mass will only stimulate him to post a new glossary:

    mass = wobbulation
    time = ellipticoid framistatz
    framistatz = transverse wavulon
    wavulon = hamburger (hey, gotta eat; this shit be hard!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    Does it not measure the rest mass of a particle?
    NO. IT IS ENERGY.

    m is the rest mass, which you can measure using scales or whatever you want.

    What part of "it is energy" is hard to understand?
    Strange. Please don't take me for a moron. I thank you for prompting me to identify the function of c in this equation as my inexperience with algebra is what brought me here to assess this equation. I will provide a clear explanation over the course of the day. Thank you for inviting the comments of the pretentious by treating me like a dribbling gronk.....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,966
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    Does it not measure the rest mass of a particle?
    NO. IT IS ENERGY.

    m is the rest mass, which you can measure using scales or whatever you want.

    What part of "it is energy" is hard to understand?
    Strange. Please don't take me for a moron. I thank you for prompting me to identify the function of c in this equation as my inexperience with algebra is what brought me here to assess this equation. I will provide a clear explanation over the course of the day. Thank you for inviting the comments of the pretentious by treating me like a dribbling gronk.....
    He's reacting to the way you act, postpocalypse/3swordbunny. If you don't like being treated as a dribbling gronk, then all you have to do is stop acting like one.

    Easy peasy.

    Now get back to studying your wavulonic framistators. They are awaiting your proof of their covariant coefficiency. Torsion! Torsion!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    38
    It would be a sign of respect towards the efforts of this forum if people would not involve themselves in threads they are nt genuinelly contributing to. You dribbling investigation of your own rear end makes going over the meaningful information on a thread an arduous chore. Really you guys need to get your act together and try to treat this place with the respect of a university. Would a lecturer allow resounding ridicule of a question in class? I think not. I will start a new thread now to clear this assessment of ignorance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    You have said nothing that is worthy of respect.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    Does it not measure the rest mass of a particle?
    NO. IT IS ENERGY.

    m is the rest mass, which you can measure using scales or whatever you want.

    What part of "it is energy" is hard to understand?
    Strange. Please don't take me for a moron. I thank you for prompting me to identify the function of c in this equation as my inexperience with algebra is what brought me here to assess this equation. I will provide a clear explanation over the course of the day. Thank you for inviting the comments of the pretentious by treating me like a dribbling gronk.....
    He's reacting to the way you act, postpocalypse/3swordbunny. If you don't like being treated as a dribbling gronk, then all you have to do is top acting like one.

    Easy peasy.



    Now get back to studying your wavulonic framistators. They are awaiting your proof of their covariant coefficiency. Torsion! Torsion!
    As I said tk421. Now that i have been asked to clarify a particular, I will provide that solution next. Please stand by, if you are so genuinelly interested. But I will be editing my ignore button against all irrelevant contributors to my threads from now on. The only ones invited are Strange for his ability to identify the next part that needs explanation and KJW and Implicate Order. All others have provide only negative contribution to the discussion and it is now closed to them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    [The only ones invited are Strange for his ability to identify the next part that needs explanation
    Kind of you to say so, but all I do is point out the many ways in which everything you write is incoherent nonsense.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,966
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    It would be a sign of respect towards the efforts of this forum if people would not involve themselves in threads they are nt genuinelly contributing to. You dribbling investigation of your own rear end makes going over the meaningful information on a thread an arduous chore. Really you guys need to get your act together and try to treat this place with the respect of a university. Would a lecturer allow resounding ridicule of a question in class? I think not. I will start a new thread now to clear this assessment of ignorance.
    I have had disruptive students removed from class. I have had disruptive audience members threatened with removal from conferences.

    I don't know if you simply suffer from a tragic lack of self-awareness, or are a troll engaging in some postmodern theatre, or suffer from a named psychological condition. But I do know that you spout complete bollocks. Your belligerent nonsensical postings will soon get you permanently banned, as I had earlier predicted. The fact that you have not heeded anyone's warnings to this effect (despite having been suspended from this and the Physics Forum) guarantees it.

    If you can't post something intelligent, just leave. You don't have the right to insist that we suffer your gibberish in silence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    I thank you for prompting me to identify the function of c in this equation as my inexperience with algebra is what brought me here to assess this equation.
    What were you studying for 20 years?!
    20 years of learning and you did not think to learn algebra?!
    What were you actually studying for 20 years? Your navel?
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Postpocalypse View Post
    The only ones invited are Strange for his ability to identify the next part that needs explanation and KJW and Implicate Order. All others have provide only negative contribution to the discussion and it is now closed to them.
    This is an internet discussion forum. You do not have the right to choose who can or cannot contribute to the discussion, although you are free to ignore any contribution. Also, you do not have the right to expect particular people, or indeed anyone, to contribute to the discussion. Furthermore, you do not have the right to assert that your contribution to the forum be considered a valued contribution. The value of your contribution is at the discretion of the forum moderators.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    The value of your contribution is at the discretion of the forum moderators.
    And even more so at the discretion of the wider forum community, i.e. all other members.
    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
  •