Re: Sue's Experiment

Hmmm, now Sue ask anyone "who's not a bitter fundamentalist like Bilge
and Guisse", and you will notice:

1. that when I write, I "immediately" afterwards right the logic behind
in simple laymen's terms, but what you write seems completely off basis
and with no DIRECT explanation?

2. What I write is VERY short and clear for someone unknowledged of
what I'm talking about, you right short, and someone unknowledge would
not comprehend and then give a link to 200 paragraphs of
informtation(how many people do you think are going to read those 200
paragraphs to your explanation = 1 or 2 people at most)?

Example:

We take someone with *****no knowledge**** of the science that's going
on and I ask you from who will he comprehend more:

1. I write in laymen's term how an increase in density (= mass of
object increases but not it's size) will form two bends in a rubber
*** = (short, clear & consise)

2. you write: coulomb coupling, em continuum and not material
continuum, ions and dipoles (in your link) and swapping positions of
atoms?

Who do you suppose this person reading this new information to him will
understand better?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And for em continuum and not material continuum:


So what the very word TENSORS = TENSE = TENSION suggests the em field
is under tension which causes the warp therefore compare A&B:

A) em continuum: the em fields resiliance and shape of this warp is
based on TENSORS (Tensor = Tension)
B) material continuum: a material is under tension and it's resiliance
to it is called tensile strenght. (Tensile means Tension)

A & B look very alike not to me but more important the new reader. The
comparison is short, concise, clear and simple...who wouldn't
understand the way I write above???

Now if you reply with coulomb coupling and atoms switching
positions....I wonder how many will understand that, to be fair now
erase all your knowledge from your memory and tell which of the two
above would you comprehend?


Yes... Coulomb coupling.

It will apply if the tensor equations assume an electromagnetic
continuum and not a material continuum.

Again... swap the position of two helium atoms, no one notices.
Swap the position of an electron and positron, the whole universe
knows.



Sue... wrote:
guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
The_Man wrote:
guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Hayek wrote:
guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Sue took a rubber ***

1. Sue put two balls that always REMAIN 4 inches
apart on the ***

Sue noticed only one dent in the ***

2. Sue increased the size and mass of the balls

Sue noticed one larger dent occured in the ***.

3. Sue increased the mass but not the size.

Sue noticed two full dents in the rubber ***
(dents occur based on the tensile strength or
elasticity of the ***).

Dents depend on elasticity, which is a function of the chemical
properties of the rubber ***. None of which has a GD thing to do with
GR.


The 1st think I look for before someone says it's incorrect is to
clarify they understood what I ment!

Thank You....you are the man for very few have been capable of such!




4. Sue compared results in #3 with Einstein GR
dented rubber *** model.

And became terribly confused. Why? Einstein GR is NOT A THEORY ABOUT
balls on a freakin' rubber ***. It is fucking ANALOGY, a way of
visualizing for dolts who can't understand mathematics, who need
Tensors are complex and I hate derivatives.
everything dumbed down for them.

The purpose of the rubber *** analogy (if you would pay attention),
is to demonstrate how gravity can affect photons, which have ZERO mass.
it's for all mass including Mercury's precession.

The path of photons is bent, just AS IF the beam of light WERE
following a dent in a rubber ***.

REPEAT - AGAIN - It is just a visualization tool, nothing more.


OK but:

#1. It's mass warps space and not mass generates a space that's warped

Mass spoils the isotropy of a Machian field. Try that.

#2 It's been called the fabric of space (of spacetime)

A cordinate system based on the conservation of mass energy and c.
Useless for finding your way around Hong Kong.


#3 Einstein wrote GR using a cosmological constant at the time (which
I think demands an eather)??

You don't know the difference in a Maxwell fluid and a material
fluid so you should care what other think a shut up about what you
think. :o)

#4 I think at the time Einstein wrote his GR and rubber *** model,
he believed that there was an eather (someone might still have a link
to his exact words which I read on this subject)

IF #3 or #4 are correct then when Einstein did his rubber *** model,
he was invisaging that the ether was warped by mass

I doubt Einstein even did that model. Probably some PR type did it.


#5 What is demonstrated is an Engineering MECHANICS law, proof is
needed that it doesn't apply to Quantum MECHANICS and relativity.

Where ya been the last 100 years?

Build this:
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html
With this:
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node26.html



#6. In the Mechanics world it's known as tensile (= TENSION) strength
of the fabric,

Yes... Coulomb coupling.
why wouldn't it apply to Tensors (= TENSION) of
spacetime ( the proper tensor equation would be needed to deny the
relationship)?

It will apply if the tensor equations assume an electromagnetic
continuum and not a material continuum. When you learn
Maxwell's equations, you'll see the difference.

Again... swap the position of two helium atoms, no one notices.
Swap the position of an electron and positron, the whole universe
knows.

Sue...


This proves again that attempts to "popularize" science are doomed to
failure; those who are not intelligent enough to understand the theory
are fooled into thinking that all the memoery aids and visualization
tricks ARE the theory.



Sue noticed that according to that model, two fully
separated dents would suggest no more attraction
between both balls??

Sue noticed a conflict with Newton's law that an
increase of mass(regardless of dimensional size) at
a SAME distance would require more attraction and
not less attraction??

Sue ran to hide because here comes the angry
fundamental critics.


Sue should have been in your message filter.

Uwe Hayek.

--
L'intellectuel qui pense comme autrui ne sert à rien !

This is the bitterest pain among men, to have much
knowledge but no power.
Herodotus (484 BC - 430 BC), The Histories of Herodotus

IDIOCY - Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups.

I agree! Some Hayeks are too stupid and need little wordsto understand,
here's the little words:

"That as mass increases but the two objects remain the SAME VOLUMETRIC
SIZE then Einstein's rubber *** forms TWO completely separated dents
and therefore the force of attraction would decrease and NOT INCREASE
as Newton's Gravity Law demands."

-------------------------------------------------------

Two objects who's distance remains the same on Einstein's rubber ***:

Mass and Size increase = larger "U" = larger attraction
Mass but not size increase = two "U"s = "W" = (double U) = LESS or no
attraction

.

Quantcast