significant zero wrote:
Sue... wrote:
significant zero wrote:
Sue... wrote:

snip

See... It is *you* complicating the issue by arbitrarily combining
space
and time. The data collected supports no such relationship...
unless you are a bouncing in your chair as the pendulum swings.
http://obdrop.blogspot.com/2005/05/e...ndulum-do.html

:-)

Sue...

All right then is force a product of changes in time or changes in
space or changes in ? (:-)

This piece:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrometer
...mentions nothing about any type of change
necessary to the force separating the leaves.

A change happens the leaves seperate so what is it that has happend to
the time, space or whatever between the leaves that makes them stand
appart ?
They were already separated when your great great
great great great great great grandfather bought the
device at a garage sale. )


I think your avoiding the issue. What is it that makes the leaves
seperate ?
We don't know... but you haven't shown any correlation to
time. There certainly seems no reason to. They are not
gaining or loosing energy.

and dont say charge say what charge is and how it *works* in
the space between the leaves.
"what charge is and how it *works*"
"what charge is and how it *works*"
"what charge is and how it *works*"

THERE! I said it three times. Neh-na-neh na neh ne!
Whatcha gonna do about it?


They *do* describe several changes which cause the
force to decay.

Accountancy (:-) and what *exactly* are these changes and do they
involve time and/or space ? (:-)

You have made no case for time. But we can measure
the space between them. We can see a change in the
space by disturbing the charges.
Nothing happens here when you wind the clock
INVENTORY
You are carrying a rusty lamp (providing light), an
elvish sword, a guidebook, a jar, a pile of cheese and a
pepperoni. It seems that the jar is half-full of tomato sauce.
You are wearing a magic shawl.

Sue...

sig zzzz

significant zero:
Without the frilly bits the only way that I can see that force can be
tansmited over a time/space distance is by modification of that very
same time/space distance either by field or foot, anybody with other
ideas ?

Yes. Newtonian mechanics. Once you add the frilly bits needed
to explain modern technology and scientific experiments, the
physics simplifies, but only after you become familiar enough
with the frilly bits to realize what physics is in the frilly
bits.

Sue... wrote:
significant zero wrote:
Sue... wrote:
significant zero wrote:
Sue... wrote:

snip

See... It is *you* complicating the issue by arbitrarily combining
space
and time. The data collected supports no such relationship...
unless you are a bouncing in your chair as the pendulum swings.
http://obdrop.blogspot.com/2005/05/e...ndulum-do.html

:-)

Sue...

All right then is force a product of changes in time or changes in
space or changes in ? (:-)

This piece:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrometer
...mentions nothing about any type of change
necessary to the force separating the leaves.

A change happens the leaves seperate so what is it that has happend to
the time, space or whatever between the leaves that makes them stand
appart ?
They were already separated when your great great
great great great great great grandfather bought the
device at a garage sale. )


If your still in touch Sue and as they seem to have fixed Opera I will
come alive again out of my coffin with the leaves on(:-) The separation
changes so what has happened between the leaves ? (:-)


I think your avoiding the issue. What is it that makes the leaves
seperate ?

We don't know... but you haven't shown any correlation to
time. There certainly seems no reason to. They are not
gaining or loosing energy.


Time is intrinsic to the separation, in a state of stasis or no time
the separation of the leaves does not change and there is no energy
change but in the normal course of events the charge separating the
leaves will dissipate into the surroundings over time.

and dont say charge say what charge is and how it *works* in
the space between the leaves.
"what charge is and how it *works*"
"what charge is and how it *works*"
"what charge is and how it *works*"

THERE! I said it three times. Neh-na-neh na neh ne!
Whatcha gonna do about it?

I'll go back to my coffin (:-) da da da da.



They *do* describe several changes which cause the
force to decay.

Accountancy (:-) and what *exactly* are these changes and do they
involve time and/or space ? (:-)

You have made no case for time. But we can measure
the space between them. We can see a change in the
space by disturbing the charges.
Nothing happens here when you wind the clock

energy is put into the spring.

INVENTORY
You are carrying a rusty lamp (providing light), an
elvish sword, a guidebook, a jar, a pile of cheese and a
pepperoni. It seems that the jar is half-full of tomato sauce.
You are wearing a magic shawl.

You forgot the bottle of turpentine to rub on my bad back.

sig.


Sue...

sig zzzz

Bilge wrote:
significant zero:
Without the frilly bits the only way that I can see that force can be
tansmited over a time/space distance is by modification of that very
same time/space distance either by field or foot, anybody with other
ideas ?

Yes. Newtonian mechanics. Once you add the frilly bits needed
to explain modern technology and scientific experiments, the
physics simplifies, but only after you become familiar enough
with the frilly bits to realize what physics is in the frilly
bits.

If you are still there ?

True much of physics is in the frilly bits but this does not mean that
the stalk and roots of the flower can be ignored if you wish to make
living flowers. By ignoring the stalk and root of physics you end up
with dead flowers, allthough many find dead flowers attractive.

sig zero.

Androcles wrote:
"significant zero" wrote in message
oups.com...

Androcles wrote:
"significant zero" wrote in message
oups.com...
Without the frilly bits the only way that I can see that force can be
tansmited over a time/space distance is by modification of that very
same time/space distance either by field or foot, anybody with other
ideas ?

Sig ZZzzzzz (:-)


The first frill to strip out out that is the "time/space" bull****.
Don't start a thread with the very crap you want stripped.
Fields are, so start there.
Androcles.

Great, but then we have describe a field in terms that provide a
mechanism for force and as this works across time/space we have to
include them in any explanation. If you wish to rename, describe and
quantifiy time and space then be my guest but I have done my best by
using time/space instead of space/time etc as the ingredients and
transmiters of force.
How now brown cow (:-) ****

sig zzzz


We don't need to describe observation. Everyday words do it adequately.
"Fall", "attract", "drawn" are but three. I don't need to prattle on about
spacetime curvature to say I'm sitting in a chair while typing at my desk,
watch a tube in which electrons falling toward the screen and being
deflected by magnets to create a raster.
There's three fields, all have similar properties, I'm not about to rename
time or space to quantify any of them. If you want to, don't be my guest,
go away instead.
Fields are. Start there.
Androcles.

"Fields are" seem to be the words of a pragmatist or a romantic who are
both basicaly uninterested in determining how things work and how to
describe them.(:-)

sig zero

significant zero wrote:
Sue... wrote:
significant zero wrote:
Sue... wrote:
significant zero wrote:
Sue... wrote:

snip

See... It is *you* complicating the issue by arbitrarily combining
space
and time. The data collected supports no such relationship...
unless you are a bouncing in your chair as the pendulum swings.
http://obdrop.blogspot.com/2005/05/e...ndulum-do.html

:-)

Sue...

All right then is force a product of changes in time or changes in
space or changes in ? (:-)

This piece:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrometer
...mentions nothing about any type of change
necessary to the force separating the leaves.

A change happens the leaves seperate so what is it that has happend to
the time, space or whatever between the leaves that makes them stand
appart ?
They were already separated when your great great
great great great great great grandfather bought the
device at a garage sale. )


If your still in touch Sue and as they seem to have fixed Opera I will
come alive again out of my coffin with the leaves on(:-) The separation
changes so what has happened between the leaves ? (:-)


I think your avoiding the issue. What is it that makes the leaves
seperate ?

We don't know... but you haven't shown any correlation to
time. There certainly seems no reason to. They are not
gaining or loosing energy.


Time is intrinsic to the separation, in a state of stasis or no time
the separation of the leaves does not change and there is no energy
change but in the normal course of events the charge separating the
leaves will dissipate into the surroundings over time.

If I put a running garden hose in row boat and it sinks in 15 minutes
will you claim that time is what caused the boat to sink ?



and dont say charge say what charge is and how it *works* in
the space between the leaves.
"what charge is and how it *works*"
"what charge is and how it *works*"
"what charge is and how it *works*"

THERE! I said it three times. Neh-na-neh na neh ne!
Whatcha gonna do about it?

I'll go back to my coffin (:-) da da da da.

Neh-na-neh na neh ne!




They *do* describe several changes which cause the
force to decay.

Accountancy (:-) and what *exactly* are these changes and do they
involve time and/or space ? (:-)

You have made no case for time. But we can measure
the space between them. We can see a change in the
space by disturbing the charges.
Nothing happens here when you wind the clock

energy is put into the spring.

Electrometers don't have windable springs.


INVENTORY
You are carrying a rusty lamp (providing light), an
elvish sword, a guidebook, a jar, a pile of cheese and a
pepperoni. It seems that the jar is half-full of tomato sauce.
You are wearing a magic shawl.

You forgot the bottle of turpentine to rub on my bad back.

Human torches didn't work during the Viet-Nam conflict so
probably won't work today.

Sue...


sig.


Sue...

sig zzzz

significant zero:
Bilge wrote:
significant zero:
Without the frilly bits the only way that I can see that force can be
tansmited over a time/space distance is by modification of that very
same time/space distance either by field or foot, anybody with other
ideas ?

Yes. Newtonian mechanics. Once you add the frilly bits needed
to explain modern technology and scientific experiments, the
physics simplifies, but only after you become familiar enough
with the frilly bits to realize what physics is in the frilly
bits.

If you are still there ?

True much of physics is in the frilly bits but this does not mean that
the stalk and roots of the flower can be ignored if you wish to make
living flowers. By ignoring the stalk and root of physics you end up
with dead flowers, allthough many find dead flowers attractive.

Then I guess it's a good thing that I haven't ignored any of it.

"significant zero" wrote in message
oups.com...

Androcles wrote:
"significant zero" wrote in message
oups.com...

Androcles wrote:
"significant zero" wrote in message
oups.com...
Without the frilly bits the only way that I can see that force can
be
tansmited over a time/space distance is by modification of that very
same time/space distance either by field or foot, anybody with other
ideas ?

Sig ZZzzzzz (:-)


The first frill to strip out out that is the "time/space" bull****.
Don't start a thread with the very crap you want stripped.
Fields are, so start there.
Androcles.

Great, but then we have describe a field in terms that provide a
mechanism for force and as this works across time/space we have to
include them in any explanation. If you wish to rename, describe and
quantifiy time and space then be my guest but I have done my best by
using time/space instead of space/time etc as the ingredients and
transmiters of force.
How now brown cow (:-) ****

sig zzzz


We don't need to describe observation. Everyday words do it adequately.
"Fall", "attract", "drawn" are but three. I don't need to prattle on
about
spacetime curvature to say I'm sitting in a chair while typing at my
desk,
watch a tube in which electrons falling toward the screen and being
deflected by magnets to create a raster.
There's three fields, all have similar properties, I'm not about to
rename
time or space to quantify any of them. If you want to, don't be my guest,
go away instead.
Fields are. Start there.
Androcles.

"Fields are" seem to be the words of a pragmatist or a romantic who are
both basicaly uninterested in determining how things work and how to
describe them.(:-)

sig zero

Your response seems to be the words of an ignoramus. (:-)
Now do me a favour and **** off (and learn to spell "basically").

Androcles.

significant zero wrote:
Without the frilly bits the only way that I can see that force can be
tansmited over a time/space distance is by modification of that very
same time/space distance either by field or foot, anybody with other
ideas ?

Sig ZZzzzzz (:-)

Much of the problem surrounding this is the notion that particles are
real but fields are somehow less real. Or that things in spacetime are
more real than spacetime is.

An analogous issue is trying to force a resolution between equivalent
ways of understanding phenomena. Which is more fundamental:
minimization of the action? force acting at a distance through a field?
summing of infinite possible histories of exchanged quanta? Distortion
of a local chunk of multi-dimensional space? Does one *have* to be more
fundamental than the other?

Gerald O'Barr has a problem with this as well -- he feels that one is
intuitively more *real* than another, but can't nail down exactly why
other than a gut-level instinct. It's exactly the process of trying to
nail it down that forces one eventually to abandon the preconception
that there has to be one conceptual framework that is more fundamental
than another.

PD

Dastardly Fiend wrote:
"significant zero" wrote in message
oups.com...

Androcles wrote:
"significant zero" wrote in message
oups.com...

Androcles wrote:
"significant zero" wrote in message
oups.com...
Without the frilly bits the only way that I can see that force can
be
tansmited over a time/space distance is by modification of that very
same time/space distance either by field or foot, anybody with other
ideas ?

Sig ZZzzzzz (:-)


The first frill to strip out out that is the "time/space" bull****.
Don't start a thread with the very crap you want stripped.
Fields are, so start there.
Androcles.

Great, but then we have describe a field in terms that provide a
mechanism for force and as this works across time/space we have to
include them in any explanation. If you wish to rename, describe and
quantifiy time and space then be my guest but I have done my best by
using time/space instead of space/time etc as the ingredients and
transmiters of force.
How now brown cow (:-) ****

sig zzzz


We don't need to describe observation. Everyday words do it adequately.
"Fall", "attract", "drawn" are but three. I don't need to prattle on
about
spacetime curvature to say I'm sitting in a chair while typing at my
desk,
watch a tube in which electrons falling toward the screen and being
deflected by magnets to create a raster.
There's three fields, all have similar properties, I'm not about to
rename
time or space to quantify any of them. If you want to, don't be my guest,
go away instead.
Fields are. Start there.
Androcles.

"Fields are" seem to be the words of a pragmatist or a romantic who are
both basicaly uninterested in determining how things work and how to
describe them.(:-)

sig zero

Your response seems to be the words of an ignoramus. (:-)

Thats one way of avoiding the issue. I see no ships (-).
A field like an engine is made up of components that need to be
described and possibly understood before the operation of the field or
engine can be properly understood.

Now do me a favour and **** off (and learn to spell "basically").

Androcles.

No and no. Have a word with the speeling checker not the operator. Does
the tail wag the dog ? have a word with the tail I feel a fart coming
on (:-)

sig. z.