1
General Science / Re: Was Einstein wrong about E=mc^2?
« on: 29/09/2016 08:45:28 »
And why would you want to do that? Beer is so much nicer.
The following users thanked this post: William McC
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1]
2
New Theories / Re: Does spin plus aether equal matter?
« on: 01/09/2016 13:30:11 »You make a fair point there sir, but now what you need is the evidence in support of this "simple" theory. Science requires more than a philosophical explanation. While I agree that spin is significant when studying the subatomic world, I doubt that a peer review will be successful by incorporating said Aether into your Hypothesis.The universe is a simple placeIf that were true, why are so many credible physicists still struggling to understand it's complexities? Frankly, after scrutinizing your explanation, the only thing I see spinning are the heads of those credible physicists.
Most physicists don't want the universe to be simple because you can't make a living out of explaining how a simple universe works because it is simple. On the other hand, a complex universe with hundreds of sub-atomic particles is a far more attractive a proposition, with lots of complications and lots of explaining to do and research grants in finding out how these particles behave.
The following users thanked this post: William McC
3
Technology / Re: Why Does The Pitch Of My Squeaky Car Brakes Remain Constant ?
« on: 26/08/2016 02:52:10 »
There might be some subtle temperature dependence for the pitch of the squeak. As has been pointed out by others, it is the physical dimensions and condition of whatever is vibrating. The speed of sound in the vibrating object (as well as its dimensions) will change ever so slightly with temperature, so one would expect this to have an effect (this is why the band has to literally "warm up" before tuning)
There might also be a way to dampen the vibration with water or oil or something to lower the pitch. Like a water gong:
There might also be a way to dampen the vibration with water or oil or something to lower the pitch. Like a water gong:
The following users thanked this post: William McC
4
Technology / Re: Why Does The Pitch Of My Squeaky Car Brakes Remain Constant ?
« on: 25/08/2016 10:42:01 »
does the tone change at all if you do other things differently?
The following users thanked this post: William McC
5
New Theories / Re: Radiated Mass theory of gravity
« on: 23/08/2016 23:10:26 »
The universe is under constant pressure from flows of ambient radiation from all directions simultaneously. At least according to old school.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
Your explanations sounds good. If everything is exerting pushing pressure on everything else, then the area between the objects will be depleted and the objects will be pushed together.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
Your explanations sounds good. If everything is exerting pushing pressure on everything else, then the area between the objects will be depleted and the objects will be pushed together.
The following users thanked this post: William McC
6
General Science / What is centrifugal force?
« on: 14/08/2016 19:21:31 »
What is centrifugal force?
In the previous discussion Alancalverd stated that there was no such thing as centrifugal force. Thus it is just a way of expressing the resultant force tending to push an object away from a string or a gravitational force. It appears that there are two different but similar cases. In the case of a string, the object spinning around a center point wants to go in a straight line. The string prevents this and you end up with a vector problem in which the string has actual centripetal force acting from the center point. This is just simple mechanical engineering 101.
Now let us look at the Earth spinning around the sun. For simplicity we can say that the ellipse is basically a circle although the equations are the similar. There is no longer a string between the earth and the sun. The simple vector forces of the spinning ball on a rope do not apply but the answers are basically the same. Thus we can say that we have a gravitational centripetal force and a gravitational centrifugal force. This is a much more complex scientific problem. Since there is no rope between sun and earth, space itself must act to produce the force of attraction.
However it is not really possible to conceive that space produces an attractive force. The only explanation is that space pushes the Earth and sun together. Einstein produced his general relativity equations to account for the action of space upon the sun and Earth. The pushing together of earth and sun is self-evident to me. So there is no such thing as centripetal force. It is just a mathematical tool.
Then we are left with centrifugal force. The earth and sun interact by their gravitational fields. As the earth moves around the sun the earth wants to move in a straight line. At the same time the two gravitational fields tend to combine and set up a combined center. These fields exist further out in space and the net result is the earth is pushed toward the sun and visa-versa. At the same time the sun wobbles around its axis since the center of gravity of the earth/sun combination keeps moving. Of course the other planets make the wobble of the sun more complex.
As the Earth moves in a linear fashion and is pushed toward the sun, the earth’s gravitational field tends to push against the sun’s gravitational field. This causes the combined field to look like a circular railroad track. The static fields tend to push the earth toward the sun but the dynamic fields tend to push the earth away from the sun.
We then have the centripetal force due to the static gravitational forces which tend to bring both earth and sun to a common center point and the centrifugal forces which are dynamic and tend to push the earth away from the sun. These equal and opposite forces then are very similar to the ball and string problem.
Anyway the previous response by Alancaverd got me to thinking about the centrifugal force. What do you guys think of this analysis?
In the previous discussion Alancalverd stated that there was no such thing as centrifugal force. Thus it is just a way of expressing the resultant force tending to push an object away from a string or a gravitational force. It appears that there are two different but similar cases. In the case of a string, the object spinning around a center point wants to go in a straight line. The string prevents this and you end up with a vector problem in which the string has actual centripetal force acting from the center point. This is just simple mechanical engineering 101.
Now let us look at the Earth spinning around the sun. For simplicity we can say that the ellipse is basically a circle although the equations are the similar. There is no longer a string between the earth and the sun. The simple vector forces of the spinning ball on a rope do not apply but the answers are basically the same. Thus we can say that we have a gravitational centripetal force and a gravitational centrifugal force. This is a much more complex scientific problem. Since there is no rope between sun and earth, space itself must act to produce the force of attraction.
However it is not really possible to conceive that space produces an attractive force. The only explanation is that space pushes the Earth and sun together. Einstein produced his general relativity equations to account for the action of space upon the sun and Earth. The pushing together of earth and sun is self-evident to me. So there is no such thing as centripetal force. It is just a mathematical tool.
Then we are left with centrifugal force. The earth and sun interact by their gravitational fields. As the earth moves around the sun the earth wants to move in a straight line. At the same time the two gravitational fields tend to combine and set up a combined center. These fields exist further out in space and the net result is the earth is pushed toward the sun and visa-versa. At the same time the sun wobbles around its axis since the center of gravity of the earth/sun combination keeps moving. Of course the other planets make the wobble of the sun more complex.
As the Earth moves in a linear fashion and is pushed toward the sun, the earth’s gravitational field tends to push against the sun’s gravitational field. This causes the combined field to look like a circular railroad track. The static fields tend to push the earth toward the sun but the dynamic fields tend to push the earth away from the sun.
We then have the centripetal force due to the static gravitational forces which tend to bring both earth and sun to a common center point and the centrifugal forces which are dynamic and tend to push the earth away from the sun. These equal and opposite forces then are very similar to the ball and string problem.
Anyway the previous response by Alancaverd got me to thinking about the centrifugal force. What do you guys think of this analysis?
The following users thanked this post: William McC
7
General Science / Re: What constitutes evidence?
« on: 13/08/2016 12:05:22 »
I think E=MC2 only discusses the relationship between mass and energy; interconversion equivalence. In nuclear reactions, there is often a mass change. The equation gives one an idea of the energy that will be released.
I used E=MC2 as an example of a causal relationship. This was used to show how casual relationships and correlations have different evidence standards. For example, consider the correlation of cigarettes and cancer. If I showed you people, who smoked for 50 years, and lived well into their 80's, and died of other causes, this will not impact the social correlation, since the evidence standard for correlation us not that tight, even though you get to make a blanket statement. There is something else at work, beyond reason. This is why correlations, like stereo-types, are popular. They define all with evidence that applies to some. There is a level of disconnect from reality.
Mudslinging, used in political campaigns makes use of a correlation, where one bad day, can be correlated to a relationship of doom, for an otherwise good career. Years of hard evidence, to the contrary of the negative correlation, due to a lifetime of achievement, may not matter to the electorate, who will accept this correlation. This is not rational, but it does have practical value. Correlation is often about practical value, which does not have to be rational to work.
It reminds me of a story about an ole timer who was one of the experts at electroplating. He said his secret; correlation, was him spitting chewing tobacco juice into the vat. This was not provable, but his claim did appear to work for him, based on his excellent results. The rational evidence standard is sort of waived, due to his value of the practical results. The urban legion was worth his value to the company.
Money, power and prestige can act as evidence enhancers, when it comes to correlations. For example, if an artist, prosperous, many people assume their prestige equate to them being experts in other things, due to the enhancement created by their money and prestige. They may become political spokesmen or women; evidence enhancement, without having much background beyond the layman.
Rational is the best way. It much higher evidence standard, makes it harder to game the system, with the various subjective enhancement factors, that make it appear rational, once these are added.
I used E=MC2 as an example of a causal relationship. This was used to show how casual relationships and correlations have different evidence standards. For example, consider the correlation of cigarettes and cancer. If I showed you people, who smoked for 50 years, and lived well into their 80's, and died of other causes, this will not impact the social correlation, since the evidence standard for correlation us not that tight, even though you get to make a blanket statement. There is something else at work, beyond reason. This is why correlations, like stereo-types, are popular. They define all with evidence that applies to some. There is a level of disconnect from reality.
Mudslinging, used in political campaigns makes use of a correlation, where one bad day, can be correlated to a relationship of doom, for an otherwise good career. Years of hard evidence, to the contrary of the negative correlation, due to a lifetime of achievement, may not matter to the electorate, who will accept this correlation. This is not rational, but it does have practical value. Correlation is often about practical value, which does not have to be rational to work.
It reminds me of a story about an ole timer who was one of the experts at electroplating. He said his secret; correlation, was him spitting chewing tobacco juice into the vat. This was not provable, but his claim did appear to work for him, based on his excellent results. The rational evidence standard is sort of waived, due to his value of the practical results. The urban legion was worth his value to the company.
Money, power and prestige can act as evidence enhancers, when it comes to correlations. For example, if an artist, prosperous, many people assume their prestige equate to them being experts in other things, due to the enhancement created by their money and prestige. They may become political spokesmen or women; evidence enhancement, without having much background beyond the layman.
Rational is the best way. It much higher evidence standard, makes it harder to game the system, with the various subjective enhancement factors, that make it appear rational, once these are added.
The following users thanked this post: William McC
8
General Science / Re: What constitutes evidence?
« on: 11/08/2016 02:46:52 »That formula does not actually give exacting answers in the particle oriented universe. You might make a good general guesstimate using it, however you will find that different results occur, at different distances. Because of the way rays at a certain velocity are altered as they pass through matter. It is a variable that E=MC^2 does not even consider.It seems like an interesting experiment. Can you provide the link to articles or videos about it?
So many modern scientists and schools teach that you can stop radiation with materials. They say you can stop infrared, light, or x-rays with materials. However if you actually do some hands on research you will find that the radiations are positively accelerated, to velocities that we no longer detect as the original radiation. Or, we are no longer negatively affected by the now normal ambient radiation velocity emissions, after they pass through a substance or structure.
Look at a radiometer, in the dark infrared will not spin the radiometer. With the faintest light present in the room the radiometer subjected to infrared will spin with amazing vigor, many times faster than direct sunlight or other light source. The reason is that the white paddle when illuminated by light allows a light emission to carry away the heat of the infrared as light instead of heat. However in a dark room both white and black paddles heat evenly under the infrared emission and the device will not spin.
We used to harden metal with compounds that contained zinc and or phosphorous that would glow with a blinding light when a red hot piece of metal was placed into the white powdery substance. It would cause even soft hot rolled steel to obtain a hard surface hardening. By quickly removing heat from the part. More than cold water quenching.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
The following users thanked this post: William McC
Pages: [1]