Heck no. I made a general analogy and these people want to try and make it literal and precise. It is absurd. The point I was making was just as you have the E = mc^2 relationship that I propose that it applies to space. Where space is formed of unbound flowing energy and mass is compacted space. That is a large volume of energetic space is tied up in mass.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
McCoin Last Thread
- Thread starter MacM
- Start date
Heck no. I made a general analogy and these people want to try and make it literal and precise. It is absurd. The point I was making was just as you have the E = mc^2 relationship that I propose that it applies to space. Where space is formed of unbound flowing energy and mass is compacted space. That is a large volume of energetic space is tied up in mass.
RussDill
Philosopher
I think you have a misunderstanding of how the mathematical concept of "rotation" is being used here. Why do you think Terrell rotation applies to this discussion? What are you trying to say?
RussDill
Philosopher
You are the one attempting to apply conventional physics to some unknown process by attempting to describe your theory by invoking Cherenkov radiation.
If the physical process you are attempting to explain has something in common with Cherenkov radiation (a wavefront of photons produced when a charged particle moves through an insulator faster than photons can traverse the insulator) then explain what it has in common. What stands in place of the charged particle?
Also note that light does not actually change speeds when moving through matter. It interacts with electrons. Photons get absorbed and re-emitted.
Additionally, photons are always produced when a charged particle moves through an insulator. Usually the photons interfere and cancel each out. In the case of Cherenkov radiation, the interference is constructive.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
The point is that you did not state clearly that it was an analogy - you just seemed to ignore the units which is bad physics and mathematics.
So I gues that it was just an off-the-cuff comment meaning nothing.
The problem is that your concepts are simliar to those of many crackpots who do not know basic physics:
- Space is the boundless, three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction.
- Space cannot be "unbound flowing energy" since energy is "a scalar physical quantity that describes the amount of work that can be performed by a force, an attribute of objects and systems that is subject to a conservation law.". That is energy is a property of objects in space not of space itself.
But if you are going to go on about "compacted space" then you are heading into some quite interesting mathematics, e.g. Riemannian manifolds. I hope that you can handle it.
RussDill
Philosopher
Can you please provide an example with numbers? Something in physics is either literal, or meaningless, anything in between would be metaphysics.
Also, have you performed the experiment with a light bulb and two sheets of paper?
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 64,127
Of course he can't. He can't do it with units either. MacM has never done any math in the past, why should we expect that to change now? That stuff is for the little people, not great minds like his.
Perhaps because you raised the issue when contraction was being discussed.
While on your high horse perhaps you might want to tell others here why charged particles sitting in a gravity well aren't emitting Bremsthraling since according to relativity they are accelerating.
REALLY. Perhaps it is time you go back to school.
Last edited by a moderator:
Marcus
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
- Messages
- 3,857
Brief question from a lurker, MacM- I believe you about your training, I'm wondering why you aren't able to use any math on this thread? It would make your positions easier to follow for non-professionals like myself.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 64,127
And yet, you have never done a calculation here to demonstrate anything you are saying. I ask you to show a calculation you said you did, and what's your response? To run away and hide from the issue. I really don't care what you say your training is: I care about what you can demonstrate here and now. And that has, so far, been basically nothing. I'm not the one who refuses to show the calculations he claims he did. Whenever I claim to have done a calculation, I can show it. You can't. That's been a consistent "feature" of your posts from the beginning. Getting mad at me for pointing out what everybody else already knows won't actually hide that fact.
Last edited by a moderator:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Why?
Is it because I can read the definitions of space and energy and you cannot?
It really isn't about being able or not. It is about not being side tracked since the isue is not about mathematics. What possible advantage would therevbe to doing abunch of math to show what SAR predicts? We know whatit predicts and to do so proves nothing.
The issue is the underlying physics assumptions. Also it has been 45 years since I have done calculus and to attempt to do so now would be wasted effort.
So it is not that I haven't or can't but it is not at issue and not worth the effort.
Funny how you forgot how many times I provided relavistic calculations. Those went without comment because they don't agree with this negative innuendo.
No because your head is stuck in one concept that of relativity only and not the more recent efforts in quantuum.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84_kXpsDJEk
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 64,127
Those went without comment because the only times I've seen you provide such calculations, you were showing something everyone already knows. You have yet to provide any calculations to support your ideas. In particular, I've asked you several times to show your volume conversion calculations. You have yet to do so. Stop making excuses.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Nice video about the space/time foam. It is a good summary of the space/time geometry that I already know about and is taught in undergraduate physics students.
He does not state that space/time geometry is energy. He talks about a theory where universes emerge from space/time foam. This may or may not be correct.
The facts remain is that the defintion of space is that it is a geometry. A geometry does not have energy.
The things contained in the geometry do have energy because the definition of energy is that it is a property of objects measuring their ability to do work (not geometry).
The hypothetical universes created from space/time foam are objects and do have energy. But this energy is zero which is a problem for your "compacted space" idea. Everything has zero mass! Don't worry though you can still use the idea if you add negative mass to it (n.b. this is not antimatter). Then you have to explain where this negative mass is in teh universe.
I've stated more than once that my concept has not been formalized mathematically. I guess you missed that too.
I've stated more than once that my concept has not been formalized mathematically. I guess you missed that too.
Been too busy the last 40 years?
Mac, this is degenerating into a "look at me" thread. You jump all over the place with your ideas. You use terms in an unconventional manner, but you don't explain what they mean to you. You act like it's a real theory that has made real predictions verified by experiment, but you won't show your work.
Pick one thing, who cares what it is, just pick one thing. Explain it well. Back it up with evidence. Accomplish something. Because right now you've done little to convince anyone you have anything valid to offer.