Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits
From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 07/19/04
- Next message: Mr Geography: "Re: Question on water pressure on dam"
- Previous message: Bilge: "Re: Radius of electron"
- In reply to: David Thomson: "Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits"
- Next in thread: DaveL: "Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 07:24:18 GMT
"David Thomson" <news3 @ spam.me.not volantis.org> wrote in message
news:A1HKc.519$2r4.92386@news.uswest.net...
> "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> news:tJFKc.7046$K53.2933@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > Hint, you can't post what a dimension is here because the scientific
> > > community has so screwed up the words of "dimension" and "mass" that
> you'll
> > > get lost in semantics long before you'll define either.
> >
> > I can tell you exactly what dimension is. It is the minimum number of
> > vectors necessary to span a vector space.
>
> That's good.
>
> > The reason we consider time as a
> > dimension in SR is we also wish to define other properties on vectors
such
> > as length and for those properties to actually have physical meaning.
> > According to SR the conventional norm x2 + y2 + z2 is not invariant so
can
> > not form the basis of definition of a norm that has physical meaning.
To
> do
> > that you must go to 4 dimensions, including time as a dimension, and
have
> a
> > norm that is not positive definite.
>
> But the truth is there are 5 dimensions. There are the three dimensions
of
> length and two dimensions of time.
And the experiment that that supports this second dimension of time is? STM
postulates a 5th dimension but its signature (it is doubtful you even
understand what that is) is spatial and not time like.
> How does SR account for the fifth dimension?
How does SR account for figments of an imagination? - obviously it does not.
Unless of course you can detail your reasoning for believing in its
existence other than simply stating we have two dimensions of time.
>
> > > There are dimensions, and there are measurements that are called
> dimensions.
> > > What you need to do is question what it is you're calling a dimension
> and
> > > see if it really is one.
> >
> > Can you name the book you got that from or is this simply you indulging
in
> > word games?- I claim the later.
>
> You have had too much to drink. The book is called a dictionary. The
> definition is as follows: "Dimension. A physical property, such as mass,
> length, time, or a combination thereof, regarded as a fundamental measure
or
> as one of a set of fundamental measures of a physical quantity: Velocity
has
> the dimensions of length divided by time."
> (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
> Copyright © 2003 by Houghton Mifflin Company.)
It might be a good idea if you used the other part of the definition, from
the same source, relevant to this discussion, namely:
The least number of independent coordinates required to specify uniquely the
points in a space.
It is obvious that in the context of what appears in the equations of SR the
above definition is what is being considered. Context shifting is a typical
crank technique.
>
> > > In the context of this discussion, units (such as energy, resistance,
> > > velocity, potential, etc) are composed of dimensions (mass, charge,
> length,
> > > and time). Units are not composed of groups of military personnel,
> groups
> > > of other things, or an expression with a base value of one.
Dimensions
> are
> > > not other universes, the number 1, or other definitions of dimension.
> >
> > Read a book on linear algebra yet?
>
> Keep it within the context of the discussion, will you?
I am. In SR the concept of dimension pertaining to space-time has to do
with the mathematics of the theory.
>
> > > First of all, you can't measure mass.
> >
> > Then all the devices we have that can do it are figments of our
> imagination.
> > Got it.
>
> What is it, beer or wine? What does the inability to measure mass have to
> do with the devices we think measure mass?
I have heard a lot of philosophical mumbo jumbo in my time but 'What does
the inability to measure mass have to do with the devices we think measure
mass' must rank right up there with the worst codswollop. Mass is an
assumed property of material particles that manifests itself in a number of
ways. The force they experience on earth is one of those ways it manifests
itself and allows us to measure it.
>The fallacy is in believing you are measuring mass, not whether the
machines exist or not. If you step on a
> bathroom scale, the scale exists, but you are not measuring mass.
Correct - I am measuring the force gravity exerts on me that experiment
shows is proportional to a scalar property possessed by all material
objects. That property is defined as mass.
> You are
> measuring the force of your body against the scale and the Earth.
>
I am measuring the force of gravity exerted on me by the earth. Experiment
shows, to a very high degree of accuracy, that is proportional to mass. As
to what mass is see page 6 Landau - Mechanics.
> Just
> because a little dial or electronic voice is calibrated to tell you how
much
> you weigh doesn't mean the scale is measuring mass.
>
No - experiments relating mass to the force of gravity tells us that.
>
> > > You can measure > weight, but then you aren't measuring mass, you are
> > measuring force.
> >
> > Wow and on earth I suppose mass is not proportional to the gravitational
> > force it experiences. Of course not.
>
> Oh, so you know what proportions are? Well, now just step back and
realize
> that the force on the bathroom scale is proportional to the sum total of
all
> the protons, neutrons, and electrons in your body. You are measuring
> subatomic particles.
What a mind blowing insight.
> What are the subatomic particles? The subatomic
> particles are angular momentum.
You obviously have no idea what angular momentum is see
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/noether.html
> You can't break down angular momentum. So
> the stuff you call mass is really the mass within the angular momentum of
> the subatomic particles.
As I said you obviously have no idea what angular momentum is.
>
> Mass, once again, is merely a dimension. In the case of angular momentum,
> it includes the dimension of mass along with two dimensions of length and
> one dimension of frequency. Except in fantasies, you can't separate the
> mass from the angular momentum.
Emily Noether did - which is why we can apply the concept to things like EM
fields (page 24 - Schwinger - Classical Electrodynamics). But that is
probably way beyond your delusional framework.
> The angular momentum is a unit that
> produces physical matter and the mass is a dimension of that unit, just as
> are the length and frequency.
>
> > I have better thinks to do with my time than continue discussing with
this
> > turkey. I have already spend over an hour responding to idiots like
this.
>
> It wouldn't have taken so long if you had remained sober and had a clearer
> mind. You ought to read all your posts tomorrow and see all the things
your
> wrote in this post and others.
Reasoning with cranks is always the same - pointless. Its only value is to
ensure those that read the posts understand that is what they are.
Bill
- Next message: Mr Geography: "Re: Question on water pressure on dam"
- Previous message: Bilge: "Re: Radius of electron"
- In reply to: David Thomson: "Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits"
- Next in thread: DaveL: "Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
