energy is something present everywhere, its magical and you can channel it through pyramids or crystals. It also can be used by the mind to alter reality (like in the book The Secret) and to fold spoons and forks, as well as perform surgeries without anesthesia.paulmarch wrote: Chris:
One question: What is your definition of "energy". A physical description of same in your system-state world view could be illuminating...
Best
Mach Effect progress
Translation is just Rotation with an infinite radius of curvature.DeltaV wrote:Energy has the same physical dimensions as Torque (Mass*Length^2*Time^-2 = Force*Length, or in units, N*m or J).
Rotation is more fundamental than Translation.
Emphasizing rotation over translation for the "aether" gives Maxwell's E and B equations, 25 years before Maxwell published them:
viewtopic.php?p=28022&highlight=#28022
The write up from first principles with equations is available here:Write it all up when you have something, equations, proofs from first principles and of course, experimental verification.
Feynman Volume II Chapter 28
The experiments so far are inconclusive.
As to people who are wrong about x being automatically wrong about y. I think that is incorrect logic.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Okay, this is a significant improvement over what you described above -- but I believe your "if and only if" infinite conditions for G are also satisfied by a finite, spherical uniform distribution, and rotations of this finite sphere would supply alternative equivalent views of "energy" per your definition of energy, which would mean your system state does not have a way to define unique conditions.chrismb wrote:So I've got folks saying 'why does [my] theory help?', well, here is an example:TallDave wrote: Personally, I'd like something that nicely wraps this up with the Tajmar effect and the Pioneer anomaly. I'm still leaning toward Grand Unified Experimental Error as the likely winner, but I'd like to be wrong.
Locally, the rate of change of entropy with respect to distance as a body passes up from the earth's surface will be constant, then will begin to tail off as the body gets sufficiently far away that the space containing the earth and this body becomes large with respect to the volume actually taken up by the earth and the body. In other words, what counts in totting up the total configuration of the earth-body frame also includes the amount of space between them. OK, so this predicts gravity will diminuish as the body gets further away from the earth. So far.. so what, I hear you say.
Now imagine that this body has got sufficiently far enough away from the earth and also the sun that this solar-system-to-body frame is no longer overwhelmingly bigger than the universe-body frame. Again, so what.. this predicts that the body will eventually tend towards experiencing zero gravity, and we might anticipate that intuitively.
But what my interpretation adds is that the rate of change of entropy with respect to all the other mass in the universe will only be constant (that is, 'big G' would be constant, as we measure it) if, and only if, all the matter in the universe is distributed across uniformly distributed dimensions, e.g. an infinite space. If the space is finite and is not 'equal' in every direction, so the body far away from the solar system will get to a point where its rate of change of configuration with respect to all the other universal mass won't be constant. Then it will experience what conventional physics would describe as a change in big G.
What my description says is that big G is only as constant as the local distribution of matter permits the dE/dx to be constant. When far away from locally dominant bodies, you should expect the distrubution of mass in the universe to begin to become dominant.
Sciama and Woodward also would argue that "local distribution of matter" actually cannot affect big G in any significant way, so you are definitely in opposition to M-E theory.
So again, it's not yet actually adding something novel, at this point it's just another point of view, and it's one that I don't yet see as equivalent or superior to the conventional Newtonian/SRT/GRT views of the universe.
But I suppose every valid theory does start with a tautology...so I'm listening.
Tom.Cuddihy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Faith is the foundation of reason.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Faith is the foundation of reason.
I'm glad you've stayed with it so far!
So one of the outcomes is that if you were to find an object that has measurable momentum in your inertial frame but whose momentum cannot be altered by the application of any 'force' in your frame, then it is a truly stationary object.
Can you think of any objects that satisfy this condition; that have momentum that cannot be altered by force?
So one of the outcomes is that if you were to find an object that has measurable momentum in your inertial frame but whose momentum cannot be altered by the application of any 'force' in your frame, then it is a truly stationary object.
Can you think of any objects that satisfy this condition; that have momentum that cannot be altered by force?
I am quite familiar with the idea that seeing the same picture from different angles can give us different informations, and I got your point about what type of "angle" you intend to use (change of entropy or total system information).chrismb wrote:I'm glad you've stayed with it so far!
So one of the outcomes is that if you were to find an object that has measurable momentum in your inertial frame but whose momentum cannot be altered by the application of any 'force' in your frame, then it is a truly stationary object.
Can you think of any objects that satisfy this condition; that have momentum that cannot be altered by force?
What I cannot understand until now if where you want to lead this discussion to.
Is this "object" a fundamental part of the discussion?
Do you intend to prove that such an object exists or does not exist?
For me I cannot imagine the existance of such an object with the conditions you stated, but I am curious to see where this will lead us to.
Not particularly. It is just one of several very interesing consequences of all the above theorising.Giorgio wrote:Is this "object" a fundamental part of the discussion?
Find me an object that is truly stationary, with respect to the centre of mass of the universe... my theorising, above, says you will know it to be so when you find that forces cannot be applied to it to alter its momentum.
Do you agree with the logic, though? - that, if you accept my way of looking at things, that you cannot impart energy into a 'truly stationary' thing [viz. 'impulses' are a patch-up where forces stop mathematically 'working' at the singularity of an impact] because there is never an initial displacement of it to 'get it going'?
Hmm, well light would seem to have some of these properties. You can alter its momentum by altering its frequency, but it is stationary in time. I could certainly see an argument that said that the only special frame of reference is @sol. If nothing else, you've piqued my interest, and now I'm going to have to read through the thread to see what you folks have been talking aboutchrismb wrote:So one of the outcomes is that if you were to find an object that has measurable momentum in your inertial frame but whose momentum cannot be altered by the application of any 'force' in your frame, then it is a truly stationary object.
-Dave
I think if you ever encountered a situation where momentum was not conserved, like an object which could be pushed on without changing its momentum, you would find that space itself is breaking symmetry. I think things like what even is an inertial reference frame come into question, which most modern physics depends on. How you would even define momentum in that case is questionable.
Carter
There is no contest to the conservation of momentum. But momentum is only transferred if there is a displacement during the application of the force. That's the very heart of the point I am making. If something is 'fully stationary' (in the universe's CoM frame), then you cannot transfer momentum to it by a static force in the universe's CoM frame because the origin of that force must also come from something fixed in the CoM - yet both are stationary to each other!kcdodd wrote:I think if you ever encountered a situation where momentum was not conserved, like an object which could be pushed on without changing its momentum, you would find that space itself is breaking symmetry.
I take your point that if you can push yourself away from a thing that doesn't move then you've created momentum spontaneously, which is not possible. But that's not my point. What I'm saying is that if you find something 'stationary' then it is not so much that you can push yourself away from it, so to speak, but that you just can't find a way to apply a force at all! It won't have any 'handles' to push or pull on!
And, indeed, a photon appears to be such an object. A thing with a 'force-less momentum'. Which implies we are moving at the speed of light with respect to the CoM of the universe, and the photons are stationary. Let me now re-phrase something relativity says, and make it trivial; "nothing can move slower than the speed of a photon". It is an utterly trivial statement because nothing can go slower than 'stopped'!!!
So I've now covered the origin of gravity, and that things don't appear to be able to go 'faster' than light speed. D'you want some more deductions, arising from my description of forces, or is that too much already?...
What is "P"?kcdodd wrote:Force is dP/dt, so you integrate over time interval, not displacement, to find change in momentum. Changes in momentum do not depend on displacements.chrismb wrote:But momentum is only transferred if there is a displacement during the application of the force.
You can apply a force at any rate you wish, but it makes no difference to what you are pushing if it doesn't move. The kinetic energy gained by a body (in conventional parlance) is equal to the work done on a body, which is force x distance. Energy is the integral of force with respect to distance, not time.
Sorry. I thought you were implying you disagreed with something I had put about energy.kcdodd wrote:P is momentum.
So, what is your point. I don't see the disagreement. [However, I do see the confusion that talking about 'forces' and 'momentum' can cause, which doesn't happen if you stick with 'energy'.]