Re: OT UFOs on Larry King Live next Wednesday

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:53:24 -0500, "John Scheldroup"
<jschel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>"Cliff" <Clhuprich@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:5cj1e11mum28p1r929ee8q77fvbqjsf064@xxxxxxxxxx
>> On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 18:25:22 -0500, "John Scheldroup"
>> <jschel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Cliff" <Clhuprich@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:2suvd19s9tl1ai46gh8p19fh1lfn1pknd5@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>> On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:04:46 -0500, "John Scheldroup"
>>>> <jschel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Energy Conservation
>>>>>"two light waves can be made to extinguish each other completely if
>>>>>superposed with the correct phase, which proves that a form of energy
>>>>>conservation does not apply here. "
>>>>
>>>> <GAK>
>>>> It actually does.
>>>> Ever tried it?
>>>>
>>>>>"The momentum (change) of a particle is defined as the integral of the
>>>>>force acting on it over time, i.e."
>>>>
>>>> Nope. Think of photons .... they have momentum.
>>>> Force * distance = energy (Newton).
>>>> E = (a*t^2)/2 too ....
>>>>
>>>> Force * Time? How long have you been sitting there with that
>>>> force on your tail end? Gained a lot of momentum, did you?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Even if my tail end moves in more than one plane, I can analyze only one plane at a time
>>>or simply be paralyzed due to lack of time. <g>
>>>
>>>The resulting change in momentum occurs across time.
>>>
>>>integral force = mass x (velocity / time) = (mass x velocity) / time = momentum / time .
>>
>> <GAK>
>>
>> F= M*A (per Newton) .... Your tail end had a force on it but did
>> not move much, did it?
>>
>> F= M*(distance/time)^2
>> P = M*(distance/time)
>> F ~~ P*(distance/time)
>>
>
>distance = average velocity * over change of time
>average velocity = distance/time

On average ...

>http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/pasp/Ideal_Mass.html
>momentum is the integral of force with respect to time.)

That's not correct and is out of context as well.
Were it correct your tail end would have gained a LOT of
momentum while sitting there.

>Since momentum is also
>equal to mass times its velocity , it is clear that the unit-momentum velocity
>must be v(t) = 1/m.

P=m*ds/dt
1/m=(ds/dt)/P
I don't really see that as a time-dependant velocity.

But the subject, *in context* (see above link), was impedance,
transfer functions, etc. I think that you have your subjects confused
<g>.

>> You lost some units there <G>.

Did you look at the units?

>A linear system very effective for moments of change, while your example

??

>shows
>that there to be two masses and one single change from m1 to m2 as I interpret it.

??
In the transfer functions?

>>>force x time = momentum
>>
>> Nope. See above.
>>
>>>> Energy, to Newton, was the first integral of momentum
>>>> though ....
>>>>
>>>>>Gravitation:
>>>>>Modern theories of gravitation assume that the gravitational force between two
>>>>>masses is not an instantaneous interaction but is communicated by field quanta (gravitons)
>>>>>moving with the speed of light. However, this model can be shown to result in
>>>>>different forces in different inertial systems and contradicts therefore the
>>>>>definition of a force.
>>>>
>>>> Define "inertia" <G>.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Best approximation:
>>>
>>>Just like an object reflects in a glass mirror, inertia is that reflecting force of mass.
>>>
>>>What exactly does this force reflect with what ?
>>
>> Nope.
>> It's just the conservation laws in action.
>> You'll not find a peck of "inertia".
>>
>
>Because it's just to easy to say the "conservation laws are in action"

Choose one: the conservation laws or animism.

>Gravity is still the
>big unknown for conservation only to be responsible for it.

We don't have to know how everything works to observe conservation
laws.
If we knew how everything worked ... well, how does THAT work?

Don't confuse subjects.

BTW, I'd really suggest that you go to the archives and see the
posts to poor Shu on photons.
And the "OT - A Conundrum for BottleBob" initial post.

>Should we presume something
>greater in the unknown besides a few pecks, then be able to reproduce the force with some
>kind of effect, like photoelectric effect then were not talking about pecks or effects.

Just presumptions? Where are BB & his lint when you need them <G>?

>See.. reproduce the force which causes the effect for conservation

Do forces cause conservation laws? What "forces"? How?

>then at best you could
>describe something other then G-forces and their *effect* by conservation, since this
>approach will change or convert one effect to another effect in a controlled manner.

I'll not ask ....

>I never brought up inertia, pecks of inertia indicate to me a non-linear system, sounds
>to mechanical, as such I would doubt this is anything greater then another observed effect.

Nor will I ask about "non-linear" ....

BUT observed effects are ALL we can observe.

>Perhaps with photons inside a mirrored box could accelerate with some centrifuge to then
>cause effects for conservation while the state of photons changes energy state equivalent
>to some type of gravitons...but simply to say it's conservation becomes itself limiting.

Not at all. Momentum is being conserved.
Read those posts <G>.

>What if inertia this term we'll use was just a reflection of something greater on space time,
>but you could also remove this mass/reflection,

Those photons (see posts) have no mass.

> however still a mass at rest and with
>momentum, but where conservation rules have been evaded causing no reflection.

??

>Obviously the wormhole idea is a bad one, distorting space-time to create a shortcut
>since this would require vast amounts of energy,

Nobody knows, AFAIK.

>on the other hand if our mass at rest
>were stuck in a virtual state

And the conservation laws?

> might we have some means to gobble up space-time like
>a vacuum clean instead of spread it outward and inward to a wormhole. Then opposite
>of denting space would seem to be the vacuum cleaner *effect*.
>
> John
>
--
Cliff
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Theories, models, and simplifications.
    ... then you are de facto neglecting the change in momentum of the object ... The object of mass m in the equation is subject to ... > conservation of momentum (though no one denies that such a compenatory ... >> to whether it is an inevitable pathology, ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Uh Oh, Discrepancy Alert
    ... that inertia doesn't exist, ... I said that time is one & mass might be. ... That seems to be about the conservation of momentum. ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
  • Re: .Re: Why all the fascination with E = mc^2 ??
    ... >> Conservation of Momentum, which, in Newtonian mechanics, is a direct ... >> consequence of Newton's Third Law of Motion. ... >> and the kinetic energy of a body is given by ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Theories, models, and simplifications.
    ... > progressively ignoring part of the mass. ... then you are de facto neglecting the change in momentum of the object ... In the rocket case you neglect *both* the conservation of momentum *and* the ... > to whether it is an inevitable pathology, ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Conservation of angular momentum
    ... conserved if no net external force acts on it; ... shows that the puck stops with a lever of 6x the mass of the puck and ... and transfers all its momentum to it, ...
    (sci.physics)