Re: what is the relation between force and energy?

From: Jim Greenfield (greenfield_7_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 10/18/04 

Date: 18 Oct 2004 15:38:16 -0700

lvlus@hotmail.com (TomGee) wrote in message news:<cc2dde17.0410180810.216ee3ab@posting.google.com>...
> greenfield_7@hotmail.com (Jim Greenfield) wrote in message news:<3c4afb26.0410171832.1dbd0528@posting.google.com>...
> > lvlus@hotmail.com (TomGee) wrote in message news:<cc2dde17.0410162244.5823b149@posting.google.com>...
> > > greenfield_7@hotmail.com (Jim Greenfield) wrote in message news:<3c4afb26.0410132141.478ac3da@posting.google.com>...
> > > > srp@microtec.net (Andr? Michaud) wrote in message news:<562f286c.0410131242.2ccaf18a@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > lvlus@hotmail.com (TomGee) wrote in message news:<cc2dde17.0410111935.6493ab5@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > greenfield_7@hotmail.com (Jim Greenfield) wrote in message news:<3c4afb26.0410102054.6df1e2d4@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > > Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<KMR9d.360651$Fg5.66593@attbi_s53>...
> > > > > > > > Jim Greenfield wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The rod IS NOT CHANGING LENGTH
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > The SR hypothesis is that the rod is truly changing length. And your
> > > > > > argument is that it is not changing length, it only _appears_ to be
> > > > > > doing that because the measurement of the rod is observer dependent.
> > > > > > But you offer no alternative explanation to mine which contends that
> > > > > > time is a property of matter and passes inversely proportional to an
> > > > > > object's state of motion.
> > > >
> > > > Disagree. The mistaken conclusions which lead to the beliefs of SR
> > > > arise from the erroneous idea that c=c+v. Using c'=c+v gives the
> > > > correct interpretation and understanding of what is observed.
> > > > I contend that time has no correlation with matter at all. I maintain
> > > > that time "passes" exactly the same rate whether far between galaxy
> > > > clusters, or within a neutron star.
>
> But v is the rate of change in position, i.e., a measure of the rate
> of change in position of something with respect to _time_, involving
> speed and direction
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > Can you refer me to where I can read up on the differences between
> > > your two equations above? I would like to know more about your c'=c+v
> > > theory.
> >
> > Hh humm! That would be here (me).
> > I happen to believe that c in vacuum is NOT a constant.
>
>
> I believe it is not necessarily a constant throughout the universe, as
> space is filled with a media of dark matter. As such, there can be no
> guarantee that it is the samae density throughout the universe.
>
>
> > The initial
> > expulsion velocity of a photon (measured between source and photon),
> > probably is,

(for your clarification, I add here...."c, about 300,000km/sec
separation rate")

and independent of frequency or wavelength.
> > Thus c=c+v is the magical SR Einsteinian "aether" proposition, that
> > light moves "independent of the motion of its source", and "my"
> > c'=c+v is that the source velocity must be added (+/-) to that of the
> > light (photon)
> > >
> > >
> But here you go from your claim of independent velocity to "Thus....",
> without any explanation as to how you got to the "Thus". We have no
> idea how you got there and so we cannot be convinced that you are
> correct in what you say.

Are you concentrating? My position is the OPPOSITE! I say light IS
source dependent.
Now read the last few lines again; if you can't understand how "thus"
follows........
>
> SNIP
>
> TomGee

Jim G
c'=c+v

Relevant Pages

  • Re: [PHP] Re: Webhotel structure
    ... like you are thying to think about the entire universe at the same ... Thanks for the clarification -- I was thinking it could have been a collection of those Jef Foxworthy definitions, ... those may not translate well for those not accustom to abusing the English language for fun and profit. ...
    (php.general)
  • Re: UUIDs on drives
    ... even with a 4-byte vfat UUID. ... A quick clarification here. ... number of atoms in the known universe by many many orders of magnitude. ...
    (Ubuntu)
  • Re: Scripts & Modules
    ... Bigus wrote: ... I would just like some clarification on "use"ing modules. ... Forty two." ... "I always thought something was fundamentally wrong with the universe" ...
    (comp.lang.perl.misc)
  • simple query- the gravitational reach of an electron.
    ... Is a single electron gravitationally mapped on the entire universe? ... For clarification of your position- Does its change in position send ... gravity waves out to the ends of the universe? ... mechanics (which I believe has nothing to say on the subject.So any ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)