Moderator: Flannel Jesus
Helandhighwater wrote:Feel free to tell me what happened today to your sphincter, and at length, I am very interested in your ass. Pun intended.
Helandhighwater wrote:@Hobbes: Well fair enough you're an English Teacher I think might be wrong but let's run with the analogy: how would you feel if say Shakespeare was demeaned by people using conjecture and nothing else to slander their writing. Now take the whole of modern physics not just one author, just everything in physics now aside from old classical physics; how would you feel if someone was basically saying it was all crap? Would you not feel a little aggrieved? Would you not want to argue that somebody who hadn't even studied the field properly was in no position to be on the cutting edge of it?
Hobbes Choice wrote:Helandhighwater wrote:@Hobbes: Well fair enough you're an English Teacher I think might be wrong but let's run with the analogy: how would you feel if say Shakespeare was demeaned by people using conjecture and nothing else to slander their writing. Now take the whole of modern physics not just one author, just everything in physics now aside from old classical physics; how would you feel if someone was basically saying it was all crap? Would you not feel a little aggrieved? Would you not want to argue that somebody who hadn't even studied the field properly was in no position to be on the cutting edge of it?
I'd probably say he was an idiot. I'd tell him so, then move on.
We are talking about James SS aren't we?
Word to the wise: he's not really reading what you write.
I just did a quick review of his contributions to the topic since Februrary. With the exception of one post in which he demonstrated a misunderstanding of PtA on the 23rd July, his posts have been ad homs.
Helandhighwater wrote:Feel free to tell me what happened today to your sphincter, and at length, I am very interested in your ass. Pun intended.
Helandhighwater wrote:Hobbes Choice wrote:Helandhighwater wrote:@Hobbes: Well fair enough you're an English Teacher I think might be wrong but let's run with the analogy: how would you feel if say Shakespeare was demeaned by people using conjecture and nothing else to slander their writing. Now take the whole of modern physics not just one author, just everything in physics now aside from old classical physics; how would you feel if someone was basically saying it was all crap? Would you not feel a little aggrieved? Would you not want to argue that somebody who hadn't even studied the field properly was in no position to be on the cutting edge of it?
I'd probably say he was an idiot. I'd tell him so, then move on.
We are talking about James SS aren't we?
Word to the wise: he's not really reading what you write.
I just did a quick review of his contributions to the topic since Februrary. With the exception of one post in which he demonstrated a misunderstanding of PtA on the 23rd July, his posts have been ad homs.
Well what he reads is not as important as what the lurkers or any one else reads. But I think you are right, I should move on. There's no real point in discussing a subject with someone who is completely unable to answer your questions for whatever reason they give, it's good that you can see clearly that James is as guilty of what he accuses others of though. His excuses to avoid questions from almost all of the membership here, are considerable, beaten measure for measure perhaps only by his inability to actually answer them. That much is clear, and let the record show.
I think most of us are pretty much done with him any way. We're just wasting our time.
James S Saint wrote:Those who refuse to even attempt to reason and love to hate, don't really belong on a philosophy forum.
James S Saint wrote:Those who refuse to even attempt to reason and love to hate, don't really belong on a philosophy forum.
James S Saint wrote:Those who refuse to even attempt to reason and love to hate, don't really belong on a philosophy forum.
Jakob wrote:Can someone ban Hellandhighwater? He is not expressing anything besides how he's obsessed with James.
I have no idea why it could possibly amuse someone so much to spend so much time on a personal vendetta without any intellectual content at all.
For all who are here strictly to be near James and ooze bodily fluids, if you hadn't noticed, this thread has a TOPIC. Address the topic or crawl back under your stone, please.
Hobbes Choice wrote:Jakob wrote:Can someone ban Hellandhighwater? He is not expressing anything besides how he's obsessed with James.
I have no idea why it could possibly amuse someone so much to spend so much time on a personal vendetta without any intellectual content at all.
For all who are here strictly to be near James and ooze bodily fluids, if you hadn't noticed, this thread has a TOPIC. Address the topic or crawl back under your stone, please.
I think your suggestion would be better directed at James SS.
James S Saint wrote:When you first asked this question, about a year and half ago, I was still laboring under the theory that a particle was a “tumbling bundle” of EM wave. RM taught me a lot since then. Today, I understand what is really going on.
What we call physics today has a bit of a corrupted ontology causing quite a bit of confusion, so let me try to explain this in terms of RM translated to the more loosely defined common physics terms.
Energy by concept is the ability to cause change or to affect. “Potential energy” in RM is the Potential-to-Affect, PtA. But the changing of that potential is itself a form of energy referred to as “Affectance” which is related to “radiant energy” and “mass”. That changing takes place over time and distance. A particle and its mass is formed merely due to the clustering of that propagation of changing, the affectance, not of the PtA itself.
So the energy associated with a particle is the amount of affectance (the changing) that has clustered around a location.
The affectance clusters or congests in a location merely due to a maximum rate of change that gets challenged by the random changing going on at and very near the location. As small changes add to each other, they end up having to delay their propagation simply because potential can’t change as fast as they would have had it change such as to continue it velocity. As delays occur, those delays create more delays because the changing wasn’t getting out of the way of new changes being introduced, thus the particle grows.
Due to the 3D universe, there is a fixed volume wherein the amount of delaying compared to the amount of new encounters becomes balanced and the growth stops. Thus a particle is formed with a fixed size. A particle doesn’t have an actual finite border, but at a specific radius, the amount of recursive delaying drops off quickly. The additional delaying still occurring in much less density outside that radius is referred to as the mass field or gravity field. The outer mass field also causes delays, but not significant enough to be considered as a part of the particle, as expressed in this piece concerning the movement of a particle;Firstly, "force" is an after-effect, an aberrant effect that does not actually exist except via perception. In reality, particles "migrate" due to aggregation and dissemination of their internal affectance ("energy"). There is nothing actually pushing or pulling them any in direction. They simply have cause to grow toward one direction and shrink from the other direction. They are always reforming their constituents, their "affectance" and are actually only the center of the congestion involved. It is much like a crowd of people shifting while the individual people are coming and going from the scene. The "particle" is merely the congestion, not the people themselves. And thus when the center of congestion shifts, it is perceived that the "particle" has shifted, when in reality, merely more people got involved on one side as others left the other side.
Asking how much energy is within a particle is like asking how many people are within that crowd. But realize that the number of people within the defined crowd area is going to be directly dependent upon how fast those people walk around. We could say that at the center, they get delayed to the point of having to temporarily stop regardless of how fast they normally walk. As the people shift closer to the edge of the crowd, they can return to their normal walking speed. So the “propagation speed” of the people decelerates and then accelerates back to normal. Thus the “mass” of the crowd is determined by the amount of delay in their propagation speed. And the number of them within that mass is the amount of potential energy within that massing of them.
I don’t think that I can address that equation, E=mc^2, without going through more detail concerning the exact relationship between the ontological components that make up RM and physics.
The potential to cause change can be distributed over a distance but it cannot be a local potential to cause change if the potential is evenly distributed because if all points have the exact same potential to affect each other, none of them can actually be affect. Thus their true potential would be zero. The potential must vary from point to point else there is no means to cause actual change. And as such changing occurs, the location of the changing must shift or “the changing must propagate”. When it propagates, it is referred to as “radiant energy” and propagates at the “speed of light”.
The propagation speed within “free space” is the same regardless of the amount of potential that is changing, regardless of the amount of “radiant energy”. Thus if the amount of radiant energy is to be different at any time, it is only the amount of potential that can vary such as to cause any bit of radiant energy from being any more or less than any other. Thus when analyzing how much “energy” is within a bundle of radiant energy, it is the total summed up potential energy that is being measured.
The equation in question involves the entities known at the time; “energy”, “mass”, and “propagation speed, c”. Thus to explain that equation, RM concepts have to be translated so as to reflect those concerns. And the basic concern involves how much radiant energy is being held within a confident space.
Energy = Affectance = changing of the PtA = PtA/t
Radiant Energy = propagating PtA/t = RptA
Propagation Speed = distance/time = c
Mass = radiant energy within a volume
The affectance, PtA/t, is the amount of radiant energy, RPtA, within a given amount of distance, RPtA/d.
Thus the amount of RPtA within a given distance, RptA/d, is the amount of changing PtA, PtA/t, divided by speed that it traverses that distance; time/distance, t/d, “1/c”.
PtA/t = RPtA/d * d/t
RPtA/d = PtA/t * t/d = PtA/t /c
RPtA/d = PtA/t * t/d
RPtA/d = PtA/t / c
The total amount of RPtA/d within a given distance is the amount PtA/t divided by the speed of propagation, c. Or the amount of radiant energy within a given distance is the amount of affectance divided by c.
Radiant energy / d = Potential energy / c
What is called “mass” in physics is a reflection of the amount of delay going on that doesn’t exist in free flow radiance. And it is from such delays that inertia is created. So obviously there is a connection between the mass and the energy within because the measure of the mass is the amount of energy being delayed.
In RM, the term “mass” doesn’t exist but is strongly related to inertia or the reluctance to change and the delay of affectance due to the maximum rate of change. The maximum rate of change is the anentropic element that not only causes the delays that create inertia and the particle to form, but also directly causes the propagation speed of the affectance or “speed of light”.
This creates the situation wherein the propagation speed plays upon itself such as to cause a delay upon itself. As PtA changes propagate into each other, they add such as to create a proposed rate of change that exceeds the maximum possible and thus propagation rate slows to allow more time for the changing to occur. Such slowing is what begins the formation of a particle and its mass.
Thus to calculate the mass, one must know that amount of radiant energy within a given volume. When that radiant energy gets high enough, delays come about that in turn create more delays that in turn confines more of the radiant energy within the same amount of space. The radiant energy becomes confined.
The amount of radiance getting trapped is a function of the inverse of the propagation speed in that if the propagation speed were allowed to increase, the maximum rate of change would have to have increased and thus less delays would occur. And the amount of radiant energy within the same space would also decrease, RPtA/d. Thus the amount of delaying is a function of the inverse square of the propagation speed due to propagation speed causing the propagation to slow. And if the propagation speed only slightly increased, the amount of delay and thus the amount of mass, would drastically be reduced.
Mass = RPtA/d / c
Mass = (PtA/t /c) /c
Mass = Affectance / c^2
Or as more commonly know;
Affectance = Mass * c^2
Energy = mc^2
But now realize that the equation itself was not precise and the translation between the definitionally exact measurements in RM to those of observational physics has not been created. So this explanation has been purely conceptual in intent.
Jakob wrote:[...JSS, Farsight and Abstract. The rest is here purely on account of JSS and the strange effect he has on people. He makes them jealous, I suppose, which is understandable seeing how little they have going for them (HAHW literally never says anything that isn't about another poster, neither does PhysBang). But it's very boring having to constantly scroll through all that crap.
Jakob wrote:Can someone ban Hellandhighwater? He is not expressing anything besides how he's obsessed with James.
I have no idea why it could possibly amuse someone so much to spend so much time on a personal vendetta without any intellectual content at all.
What is called “mass” in physics is a reflection of the amount of delay going on that doesn’t exist in free flow radiance. And it is from such delays that inertia is created. So obviously there is a connection between the mass and the energy within because the measure of the mass is the amount of energy being delayed.
Helandhighwater wrote:Feel free to tell me what happened today to your sphincter, and at length, I am very interested in your ass. Pun intended.
Hobbes Choice wrote:Jakob wrote:[...JSS, Farsight and Abstract. The rest is here purely on account of JSS and the strange effect he has on people. He makes them jealous, I suppose, which is understandable seeing how little they have going for them (HAHW literally never says anything that isn't about another poster, neither does PhysBang). But it's very boring having to constantly scroll through all that crap.
Jakob = JSS.
Now I get it!
Jakob wrote:Hobbes Choice wrote:Jakob wrote:[...JSS, Farsight and Abstract. The rest is here purely on account of JSS and the strange effect he has on people. He makes them jealous, I suppose, which is understandable seeing how little they have going for them (HAHW literally never says anything that isn't about another poster, neither does PhysBang). But it's very boring having to constantly scroll through all that crap.
Jakob = JSS.
Now I get it!
So you did not read the thread in which you are posting, nor do you have any conception of why that would be a problem....
Jakob wrote:James has gone through great lengths actually answering the OP's question.
Here's just one outtake:
There are, besides myself, only three posters in this thread who have understood that this is not a trolling-room but a thread with a subject - JSS, Farsight and Abstract.
The rest is here purely on account of JSS and the strange effect he has on people. He makes them jealous, I suppose, which is understandable seeing how little they have going for them (HAHW literally never says anything that isn't about another poster, neither does PhysBang). But it's very boring having to constantly scroll through all that crap.
Jakob wrote:Can you show me how James route to the formula is incorrect? Because it seems very legit to me.
Helandhighwater wrote:Feel free to tell me what happened today to your sphincter, and at length, I am very interested in your ass. Pun intended.
HAHW literally never says anything that isn't about another poster
Helandhighwater wrote:Feel free to tell me what happened today to your sphincter, and at length, I am very interested in your ass. Pun intended.
Helandhighwater wrote:Jakob wrote:Can you show me how James route to the formula is incorrect? Because it seems very legit to me.
Yeah in experiment if we used his equations the overall energy and effects within an area would be different from those that are achieved in an experimental situation because the relations between the energy and momentum of particles would not be produced by that simplified maths alone, what he has done is gloss over the actual situation. Although what he is saying is pretty much the same thing anyway, he just doesn't have the equations in place to provide the results we actually see.
There's no way we are going to get into the partial differential equations here though and have anyone understand them, suffice to say the rates of change in any given volume of any mass particles are equal to the partial equations we now use. Without them we have a very simple idea that James gives, and that is insufficient. It's hence not really explaining anything more than a superficial idea of gravitational energy and its effect. It's hence a simple face value equation that is derived from itself, it cannot be verified.
The fact is Einstein didn't arrive at something out of the blue it took years of playing with calculus, years of adjusting formula to get something that would agree with the experiment. At face value all James is saying is that if this happens this will happen but there's no maths there which would actually substantiate it or which we could verify. It's Einstein when the idea first popped into his head, there's nothing here that will provide experimental results. James needs to formulate something that could be verified quantitatively, he does not. No model = no experiment = no peer review = no science.
Jakob wrote:I understand that RM appears too basic and general to falsify. But if the maths are not verifiable, then what to make of this "Jack" module Saint has built? According to him (Saint, not Jack), his given definitions of reality and the logic of its propagation suffice to have particles emerge precisely as they do in the physical world. That is a claim to very good verification. Obviously it needs to seen before it can weigh in.
If you say that RM is simply stating the obvious, you agree that it is not illogical but at least good sense. If he used this logic to build a program that causes, without specifically being instructed to do so, the affectance field as defined in terms of differentiation of affect with a propagation limit, to form into concentrations analogous to protons, neutrons and electrons, then the logic would, even if childishly obvious, be valid. And I'd think very valuable.
IF.
The bottleneck seems to be the mathematics of infinities and infinitesimals.
Farsight wrote:It's a "standing electromagnetic field variation" with a particular disposition. The photon or electromagnetic wave is an electromagnetic field variation that goes past you at c. The field variation is sinusoidal, with a positive followed by a negative. If you fix this so that it's going round and round in a stable configuration where the negative field variation is on the outside, what you've got is a negatively charged particle.Jakob wrote:What exactly is electrical charge?
Wow, that's a great explanation. From my perspective very useful, at least. If this means that we could (if we were to distinguish categories "force" and "form") classify electrical charge in the category of form.
Return to Science, Technology, and Math
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]