Re: OT UFOs on Larry King Live next Wednesday
- From: "John Scheldroup" <jschel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 08:48:00 -0500
"Cliff" <Clhuprich@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:3r14e1t4amuqc1r4u3ssfkc203j15t0ekm@xxxxxxxxxx
> 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.
:
:
In context for what I intended it for.
:
:
> 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?
>
:
:
Impedance! Air ?
:
:
Well you apparently have lost the page to then.
:
I'll play along, see your above average, what are the units of average ?
:
:
>>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?
>
:
:
Well I don't know, can it be found on a different page ?
:
I thought we were talking about linear systems of momentum <g>
:
:
>>>>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.
>
:
:
Neither
:
Since neither one would solely tell us the magic *conteract* to G-forces that
behave with respect to risk taking USAF pilots and other risky ventures,
how about some artificial gravity for the ISS? . Good old conservation and
a couple spins on the centrifugal wing <chuckle>
:
Linear systems of momentum, not air.
:
:
>>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.
>
:
:
None intended.
:
:
> 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?
>
:
:
In fact I'm sure it has very little to do with air can we count on that ?
:
:
>>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 ....
>
:
:
Oh yes G-forces play a major part in most thrill rides,
http://www.howe.k12.ok.us/~jimaskew/ps/pmoment.htm
:
I doubt conservation can be very helpful how describe effects to counteract them,
surely it can ? Surely isnt just air
:
Next Question: Who's Shirly ?
:
:
>>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" ....
>
:
:
You have not heard of it ?
:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Nonlinear+angular+momentum+
:
:
> BUT observed effects are ALL we can observe.
>
:
:
Like observing Gravity and G-Forces, and Air, is it nonlinear static friction ?.
:
:
>>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.
>
> ??
:
Reflection not to be confused with pecks of inertia.
:
>
>>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?
>
:
Could be evaded under the right circumstances.
:
>> 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
We hope so,
John
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OT UFOs on Larry King Live next Wednesday
- From: Cliff
- Re: OT UFOs on Larry King Live next Wednesday
- References:
- Re: OT UFOs on Larry King Live next Wednesday
- From: John Scheldroup
- Re: OT UFOs on Larry King Live next Wednesday
- From: Cliff
- Re: OT UFOs on Larry King Live next Wednesday
- From: John Scheldroup
- Re: OT UFOs on Larry King Live next Wednesday
- From: John Scheldroup
- Re: OT UFOs on Larry King Live next Wednesday
- From: Cliff
- Re: OT UFOs on Larry King Live next Wednesday
- From: John Scheldroup
- Re: OT UFOs on Larry King Live next Wednesday
- From: Cliff
- Re: OT UFOs on Larry King Live next Wednesday
- From: John Scheldroup
- Re: OT UFOs on Larry King Live next Wednesday
- From: Cliff
- Re: OT UFOs on Larry King Live next Wednesday
- From: John Scheldroup
- Re: OT UFOs on Larry King Live next Wednesday
- From: Cliff
- Re: OT UFOs on Larry King Live next Wednesday
- Prev by Date: Re: Setup Compound angles.
- Next by Date: Re: OT UFOs on Larry King Live next Wednesday
- Previous by thread: Re: OT UFOs on Larry King Live next Wednesday
- Next by thread: Re: OT UFOs on Larry King Live next Wednesday
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|