Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So says the guy who's misunderstanding of physics implies that it's impossible for streetlights to work. You'll forgive me if I trust reality over the ranting of someone on the internet.
Again . . . cite this purported misunderstanding on my part so I can expose YOUR misunderstanding in drawing any such asinine implication. Otherwise I will ignore your sideline heckling as ignorant bloviation.
What I definitely thought I knew was that the Atomic Bombs work by splitting the Nucleus, then releasing energy as less potentially energetic nuclei are formed. Nothing to do with the "acceleration" of the particles. In fact, The speed of light is a SPEED, not an ACCELERATION.
What is philosophically amazing about relativity is that if you are in a space-ship going .98c and someone turns on a flash light in the direction of propagation, it still goes at the speed of light, there is no increase. weird huh?
Sorry . . . you need to reorient yourself to an existential framework. We are discussing the implications of our mathematical formulations as clues about the structure of our reality. The inane insistence on drawing physical implications from the analogies (I suspect deliberately) despite repeated attempts to reorient my critics' focus is what has you confused. "Speed and acceleration" are just analogues for increasing frequency of vibratory action (as in molecular activity). So-called "particles" are simply "energy events" comprised of high frequency wave packets. As they aggregate, the spherical standing wave frequency of the energy system they comprise (which is what we experience as "substance") is 'slowed" through "massing" and frequency interference. (See my traffic system analogy in my synthesis). That is as "laymen termed" as it gets . . . though it has caused more grief from the agenda-driven sideline hecklers than clarification, I'm afraid.
ETA: Splitting the atom simply "un-masses" the "energy traffic jam" and releases the energy at high frequencies.
Do you have anything substantive to rebut about the non-analogy I presented and its philosophical implications or not?
There is no philisophical impliations of nonsense. You make something up and it has no implications for anything really. Whatever your point actually is that you want to make here it is not served by making up false science for the purposes of analogy. It only serves to bamboozle the scientifically illieterate and leave the scientifically literate with the impression you are either scientifically illiterate yourself or worse - scientifically literate but dishonest.
Not saying either of those things _is_ true about you before you take offense. I am just trying to point out that this is the impression and results you are most likely to attain by making things up to use as analogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
What I definitely thought I knew was that the Atomic Bombs work by splitting the Nucleus, then releasing energy as less potentially energetic nuclei are formed.
It is a little more complex than that - and in fact energy can also be released in fusing nuclei - not just splittingthem - but yes you have the basic essentials correct. So not be bamboozled by the nonsense on the thread about the bomb accelatating matters and turning it into energy.
Again . . . cite this purported misunderstanding on my part so I can expose YOUR misunderstanding in drawing any such asinine implication. Otherwise I will ignore your sideline heckling as ignorant bloviation.
I already did the last time you asked for it. You responded to it - by ignoring the content and instead lashing out and calling everyone ignorant. Seems to be a pattern when you run into something uncomfortable to your religious dogma.
There is no philisophical impliations of nonsense. You make something up and it has no implications for anything really. Whatever your point actually is that you want to make here it is not served by making up false science for the purposes of analogy. It only serves to bamboozle the scientifically illieterate and leave the scientifically literate with the impression you are either scientifically illiterate yourself or worse - scientifically literate but dishonest.
Not saying either of those things _is_ true about you before you take offense. I am just trying to point out that this is the impression and results you are most likely to attain by making things up to use as analogy.
It is a little more complex than that - and in fact energy can also be released in fusing nuclei - not just splittingthem - but yes you have the basic essentials correct. So not be bamboozled by the nonsense on the thread about the bomb accelatating matters and turning it into energy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC
I already did the last time you asked for it. You responded to it - by ignoring the content and instead lashing out and calling everyone ignorant. Seems to be a pattern when you run into something uncomfortable to your religious dogma.
More sideline heckling completely devoid of substantive scientific rebuttal and full of spurious bloviations against my belief in God (which is off topic). The failure to see the existential implications of the mathematical formulations as clues to the structure of our reality is typical of USERS of mathematics who do not actually understand the artificiality of mathematics. We successfully model and predict using the artificial rubric . . . but a model only mimics outcomes using our discrete "measures" (energy events) not the actual processes of reality. They symbolically provide clues to that reality for those "who have eyes to see."
Useful how a phrase like "sideline heckling" gets you off replying to anything at all is it not.
Again my understanding of the science and mathematics behind Relativity is pretty robust. There simply are none of the implications or statements within it that you are trying to declare. Blanket dismissal of those who point this out is not going to change that either. Especially when - As KCfromNC points out and cites - the declarations you make about science not only show you clearly do not have the grounding required to make those declarations - but are so far off reality that certain technologies would not work were you correct at all.
What is going on here is simply a Deepak Chopra style bamboozlement of the scientifically illiterate by someone who is clearly well capable of stringing scientific sounding sentences together without a care for what those terms actually mean - while ignoring - poorly and transparently - the scientifically literate, trained and educated when they walk in and point out that it is all pseudo science and nonsense.
There are those in our world who - if bamboozled enough - will come to the conclusion you must know what you are talking about and hence unquestioningly swallow your premises and conclusions. Just no one on _this_ thread.
Useful how a phrase like "sideline heckling" gets you off replying to anything at all is it not.
Again my understanding of the science and mathematics behind Relativity is pretty robust. There simply are none of the implications or statements within it that you are trying to declare. Blanket dismissal of those who point this out is not going to change that either. Especially when - As KCfromNC points out and cites - the declarations you make about science not only show you clearly do not have the grounding required to make those declarations - but are so far off reality that certain technologies would not work were you correct at all.
What is going on here is simply a Deepak Chopra style bamboozlement of the scientifically illiterate by someone who is clearly well capable of stringing scientific sounding sentences together without a care for what those terms actually mean - while ignoring - poorly and transparently - the scientifically literate, trained and educated when they walk in and point out that it is all pseudo science and nonsense.
There are those in our world who - if bamboozled enough - will come to the conclusion you must know what you are talking about and hence unquestioningly swallow your premises and conclusions. Just no one on _this_ thread.
I see plenty of claims to your expertise but no substantive evidence whatsoever . . . just assertions and bloviations about me and bamboozlement. Why don't you show that what I discussed about the philosophical implications of mass-energy equivalence is not true with your own explanations of what it does show. That would get us past this posturing and into substantive rebuttal . . . assuming you have any . . . which I seriously doubt. Users of mathematics seldom have a grasp of the philosophical implications of the formulations they so routinely use.
I already did show why it is nonsense. Matter - and nothing about matter - is ever accelerated to past the speed of light. Forget even the square of the speed of light - a truly massive number.
The "philisophical implications" of made up pseudo scientific nonsense are - nothing at all. You are simply making up baseless stuff and then declaring we should all be considering the implications of it. And as KCfromNC cited some of the stuff you make up is so far wrong that technology we are all using would not even work if you were remotely correct.
There is no misconception. As I said if you make up nonsense in order to make an analogy to it then all you are doing is making an analogy to nonsense. The whole point of analogy is to make comparisons to known and understood and established things in order to highlight the meaning in your own content. Making up nonsense for the purposes of analogy defeats that purpose too.
There is simply no matter - or aspect of matter - which gets accelerated to the square of the speed of light. End of. Whether presenting it as analogy or as fact it still remains nonsense. As does declaring that people engage with the "philisophical implications" of the nonsense you just made up. If you make something up based on nothing then there _are_ no philosophical implications. You just made it up and it seems name calling is your only defense for it.
I never once said you made up mass-energy equivalence. Not once. You are just changing the subject now. I said you made up nonsense about matter - or aspects of matter - operating at a speed not only larger than the speed of light but exactly the square of the speed of light. This is pseudo scientific nonsense.
The analogy therefore - whatever you wanted to use it for - is an analogy to nonsense and is hardly going to do what analogies are meant to do - which is highlight some aspect of your own point by comparison to things known and understood by the listener.
Mass-Energy equivalence is something else entirely and refers to the fact that amount of energy in matter is proportional to it's mass. Nothing magical or amazing there - but also nothing to do with anything this threads nonsense has been about from accelerating things to past the speed of light to things vibrating at the square of the speed of light. This is all made up and is not science.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
