Re: Why a Problem?

In <1126035122.498707.181980@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Perspicacious <iperspicaci...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) wrote:
>> . . .

O'Barr special comments:
I cannot believe it!
What a great post you just wrote! You have proved
yourself to be a better man than I will ever be, and
certainly you are right, Hilbert would be impossible
for me to ever approach in any way. Thank you for
being so perfect, even against all my provocations!

<delete of many good things!>

Perspicacious <iperspicaci...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> . . . what new axioms do you have from the
>ancient presupposition of mechanistic philosophy
>and what can you prove with those new axioms?

O'Barr (globarr) comments:
In my at theory, I assume that all physical
interactions (collisions) that occur on the deepest
level of reality to involve spalls. These kinds of
interactions result in all matter (all matter that
interact on this level) to consist of the identical
nature of matter, since they are constantly
exchanging matter between them. (Constantly, to the
degree that collisions are constantly occurring.)
So what is a spall? A spall is where particle A
hits particle B, but does not bounce back. It
adheres to B (embeds itself into B), and a chuck of B
is driven off on the opposite side of B (opposite to
the hit side), so that all the dynamic properties of
mass, momentum and kinetic energy can be conserved.

But the important thing with such spalls, is that
the actual final result depends on the nature of the
spall produced. If the spall is the exact same
amount of mass as the colliding particle, there
appears no change in the body that was hit, and there
would also be no change in the spall that leaves, in
that it would have the same mass, energy, and
momentum of the body that had done the original
hitting. The net results is as if no collision at
all occurred! Yet there really was a collision,
there really was an interaction, but the results end
up as if no reaction at all occurred!
We now have the means of defining an ether, an
ether within which collisions occur everywhere, but
it is as if no collisions are present! It is a very
interesting base to work from.
All interesting results depend on whether or not
the spalls differ slightly in mass from the original
particles. And the spalls must follow certain well
defined limits: The average spall must be the same
as the average mass doing the hitting, or else one of
these particle will grow in size over time. So what
has to happen, in any steady state condition, is that
the only allowed variable is in the standard
deviation of the sizes of the spalls. I call this
the dispersion of sizes. And thus, around particles,
the dispersion of sizes of field particles can
differ, but not the total number of particles, or
even in their average mass.
And we find, with great pleasure, that changes in
the dispersion is sufficient to result in the
appearance of forces within such a medium. Any way,
these things I have confirmed, both by math
approximations, and by computer models. And for the
very first time, we even have an approach that allows
LeSage's type of attractive forces to exist, with
full conservation applied.

<deletes>

Perspicacious <iperspicaci...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> . . . my primary interest is in studying the
>mathematical basics of many distinct models. The
>importance of math models generating accurate
>predictions I think of as coming in second. I
>have no interest in studying inconsistent physical
>theories.

O'Barr comments:
Maybe an example of what you do would help.

You might not be interested in the physical
modeling I have done, but the math is important.
When a spall occurs, with a small change in the mass
of the two bodies that collide, the results produce a
non-linear math. We have linear math when two bodies
collide and bounce apart with the same mass as they
started. It is the non-linearity that results in the
appearance of forces.

Thanks again for such a perfect response!
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>

.

Quantcast