Paradox
©
Fisana

Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

THE Science Thread


  • Please log in to reply
151 replies to this topic

#141 Juthro

Juthro

    dope smoking hillbilly

  • OG VIP
  • 4,742 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 08 November 2016 - 05:52 PM

and yet more bumping

You want MORE bumping? Fine, here you go...

[Direct Link]



#142 CatsAndBats

CatsAndBats

    [^._.^]ノ彡 & /|\( ;,;)/|\

  • OG VIP
  • 7,978 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 08 November 2016 - 07:02 PM

bumps.jpg

 

We doing bumps?



#143 SteampunkScientist

SteampunkScientist

    Distinguished Mad Scientist

  • OG VIP
  • 2,615 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 09 November 2016 - 09:11 PM

Yeah Alder, Mr. Bach has written a few very interesting books. "Bridge accross Forever" and that seagull book with the long name I'm not typing out. :) Come to mind. And several on airplanes.

Edited by SteampunkScientist, 09 November 2016 - 09:12 PM.


#144 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    Shiitake Novice 206 Logs

  • OG VIP
  • 9,408 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 09 November 2016 - 09:18 PM

I love them all.   He studied with Jane Roberts and was into the Seth material.   I heard that he recovered okay from his serious plane crash injuries.  


  • SteampunkScientist likes this

#145 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    Shiitake Novice 206 Logs

  • OG VIP
  • 9,408 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 06 January 2017 - 10:14 AM

I just got Bach's Illusions II: the Adventures of a Reluctant Student.   There was to be no sequel to Illusions, but Richard Bach's near fatal plane crash and subsequent coma brought another book, the next on my list to read. 


  • SteampunkScientist likes this

#146 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    Shiitake Novice 206 Logs

  • OG VIP
  • 9,408 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 14 March 2017 - 11:36 AM

gallery_131808_1351_6253.jpg

 

gallery_131808_1351_28532.jpg


Edited by Alder Logs, 14 March 2017 - 11:40 AM.

  • Arathu, Spooner and SteampunkScientist like this

#147 Arathu

Arathu

    Dirtmaker

  • OG VIP
  • 4,829 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 15 March 2017 - 02:18 PM

Indeed!



#148 SteampunkScientist

SteampunkScientist

    Distinguished Mad Scientist

  • OG VIP
  • 2,615 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 15 March 2017 - 04:45 PM

It is not actually known if Einstein actually said that, although he did congratulate Tesla when he got Time Magazine's man of the year award.

Tesla was no fan of Einstein's General Relatively, and wrote quite acerbic commentary about it.

The problem we have is that light speed is now defined as a certain number of wavelengths of the cesium atom's vibration at a certain temperature... Which means that it is a cyclical definition. This has been pointed out by Rupert Sheldrake and others, as it means if the speed of light were to actually change, we won't know.

Prior to this definition, the "constant" c wasn't. It changed ever so slightly as years passed, in both directions!

Now if the speed of light changes, the vibration of cesium atom's light frequency will change by an amount that it will not change mathematically.

This is the kind of stupid shit Tesla was taking about.

#149 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    Shiitake Novice 206 Logs

  • OG VIP
  • 9,408 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 15 March 2017 - 07:03 PM

Durn, out of likes.  That doesn't happen every day.

 

I've heard that Einstein said that if any part of his theories did not hold, then none of it would hold.  If there is no constant speed of light in a vacuum, then I would say it would be out the window or down the crapper.   I have just as hard a time with relativity as I have with the big bang, missing or dark matter, dark energy, black holes, and so many other products of the mathturbatory arts.   They all are meant to stand with Newton's fLaw of Universal Gravitation (F = G m1 m2 / r2) in some way.  This, I believe is where the real trouble begins.


Edited by Alder Logs, 15 March 2017 - 07:05 PM.


#150 Spooner

Spooner

    Horney Toad

  • Black VIP
  • 1,984 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 15 March 2017 - 07:13 PM

The problem we have is that light speed is now defined as a certain number of wavelengths of the cesium atom's vibration at a certain temperature... Which means that it is a cyclical definition...

Prior to this definition, the "constant" c wasn't. It changed ever so slightly as years passed, in both directions!

Now if the speed of light changes, the vibration of cesium atom's light frequency will change by an amount that it will not change mathematically.

This is the kind of stupid shit Tesla was taking about.

 

This is NOT a priori "stupid shit" as suggested, but is rather an admonition to use this value only as a relationship rather than as an unrelated fixed value.  In this context. the actual relationship between terms is more illuminating than a simple fixed value would be.  The problem arises when the term is erroneously used beyond the limitations of it's actual definition, which I admit, happens all too frequently.

 

The fact that the mathematical relationship does NOT change, is an asset rather than a liability and reveals a deeper relationship that might otherwise be obscured.

 

Always remember that equations are just models or stories that reflect reality, they are not actual reality.


Edited by Spooner, 15 March 2017 - 07:17 PM.

  • SteampunkScientist likes this

#151 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    Shiitake Novice 206 Logs

  • OG VIP
  • 9,408 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 15 March 2017 - 08:50 PM

Sadly, I am not a mathematician, but in this equation: F = G m1 m2 / r2, where the empirical research involved was where m1 & m2 were interchangeably either a falling chunk of matter, or the Planet Earth, did this model set up an assumption that the reality reflected is that what is dynamically true of Planet Earth is dynamically true of any odd chunk of matter which has been attracted by its field, and that what is massively true of any given chunk of matter is massively true of this Planet Earth, as to its structure?   And did not this assumption get carried on out to the limits of all cosmology and cosmogony, and did the extension of this reach through the macrocosm not also weigh into our ideas of the nature of microcosmic realities as well?   

 

My question is, if the dynamic of gravity is not merely some property of mass, as in practice, the force of these falling pieces of matter have been used to weigh, as it were, the Planet Earth, under the above assumption.  And, the attractive force's actual dynamics have been assumed to exist within the falling matter, to the measure of their masses, as they are attracted to Earth; is not a total rethinking of everything the above equation has touched in order?  

 

We don't know the mass of any planet or gravitating body.  All such values have been calculated, based on the aforementioned observed falling masses, many of which in Newton's research were cannonballs.   We can't really measure the attraction of any cannonball within an extraneous gravity field (such as Earth's) and trust such a measurement, just as we could not measure the resident magnetism of any piece of iron by its attraction to a nearby known secondary magnetic field, within that field. 

 

With F = G m1 m2 / r2, we've told ourselves a Hell of a story.   Is it fact, or fiction?


Edited by Alder Logs, 15 March 2017 - 11:35 PM.

  • SteampunkScientist likes this

#152 SteampunkScientist

SteampunkScientist

    Distinguished Mad Scientist

  • OG VIP
  • 2,615 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 16 March 2017 - 05:26 PM

I get your point Spooner, but the problem is that while the cesium atom's measurement of c allows us to have a fixed quantity of c, that is also it's problem. Now we can no longer see "c" for what it actually is, because it is obscured behind our model.

It's mathematical hand waving, which is fine when you want to calibrate a geosynchronous time keeping satilite, but not so good when you are attempting to understand physical reality...
  • Alder Logs likes this




Like Mycotopia? Become a member today!