significant zero:
Bilge wrote:

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

Thats good then you probably have a view of what fields *are* ?

We've already gone over this. You are unwilling to accept any
physics that requires you to learn new concepts and I'm unwilling
to make a caricature of the physics which fits into the conceptual
framework to which you've limited yourself. I'm not really interested
in trying to explain what a mathematical symbol means to anyone who
has already decided that it doesn't mean anything and play word games
just to argue rather than read what I've taken the time to write.

Bilge wrote:
significant zero:
Bilge wrote:

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

Thats good then you probably have a view of what fields *are* ?

We've already gone over this.

Have we ? I could not find a clear response from you on what fields are
but that in itself is not a crit its just I find that your stand on the
value of obscurity as being the answer to this question not very
fruitfull.

You are unwilling to accept any
physics that requires you to learn new concepts

What new concepts are you offering ?

and I'm unwilling
to make a caricature of the physics which fits into the conceptual
framework to which you've limited yourself.

Thats funny as I find some of current physics a bit of a caricature.

I'm not really interested
in trying to explain what a mathematical symbol means to anyone who
has already decided that it doesn't mean anything and play word games
just to argue rather than read what I've taken the time to write.

Sorry you feel that way.

sig z

Sue... wrote:
significant zero wrote:
snip
Whether the water is in the boat or in a tank on the shore
its gravitatiional energy (is there such a thing) will be the
same. Your argument is squirming worse than a politician
caught with his hand in the cookie jar. :-)

The gravitational energy must be a component of the total energy of any
system ?
If you have any beads remaining on your abacus after accounting
for the Coulomb force (10^42 time greater) then... yes, we might
take that into consideration. ;-)
http://kossi.physics.hmc.edu/Courses...Cavendish.html

Separating unlike charges stores energy so separating a pair
of masses should do likewise. Eh?

Agreed and is massive clue as to the structure of matter, fields etc

That is a good question. All ways to define and measure mass are
not equal. For most cases, the energy equivalent seems the least
ambiguous. A charge pair is 1.022 MeV but is gravitationally/inertially
hard to measure without some insight to the mechanism. "Curvature of
space-time" is not mechanism any more than Coriolis 'force' is a
mechanism. Magnetism, London and Van Der Waals are a mechanism.


The mechanism need to be considered for all forces and I don't see how
you can justify your classifications(:-)




If you define a sub set of total energy as per water in boat that
changes over time then time is a major component of the result ?

Sorry... you don't get to win the debate by defining or redefining
sets, subsets, time-sets or marmosetts. )

Bin win that is not my point.





snip

It is the same, infinite, unless you include some losses.
Ocean and gas friction will determine how many swings
the lunar pendulum makes. I have lost count, so unless you
have the total, to date, it is a busted experiment. We should
probably ask Dubya and his warhawks to shoot it down. )
My dog can find something else to to howl at.

Infinite in arbitarty period ? my arbitary period is less than infinite
and in vacuum (:-)

Well... until someone catches an electron running out of breath
and decaying, you can't label the time-to-decay arbitrary. )

We don't derive orbital mechanics from how long we estimate it
will take the moon to run down. Rather we derive the mechanics
from our measurements and estimate how long it will take the
moon to run down from calculations.

So... your proposal to compare the total swings of two pendulums
has all the infinities, built into it, that an 'evil-doer' needs to
concoct snake oil. Folks that reason in that manner usually
have aspirations to Downing Street or middle east oil. )

Have you seen the price of petrol (;-)






At the end of a race the loosing
car will perceive the clock to run slower. It is an Einsteinian thing.
Rather he had said the winning car went faster.

But did the winning car percieve the clock to run faster ?
Ahhh... I think I said that backward...
I was jus' testin' to see if you were awake. )

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz






the energy is conserved if and only if the physical laws
are invariant under time translations (if their form does
not depend on time)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem
KE = (1/2)mv^2
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...ticEnergy.html

You cant prove this assertion can you :-)


IOW... time has a physical significance only when we move a
mass or it's energy equivalent through space.

Maybe the idea that you can keep anything stationary is a bit of a no
no from a common sense and experimental pov.


Again I had a good reply to this but due to my mispost I have forgotten
but it might come back to me at some time.

If the energy at any given point is present for a short time or a long
time you seem to be claiming makes no difference to the energy at that
point?

Energy at a point? Hmmmm.
I said nothing about a point.

But you did bring a boat which could be considered as a point for
experimental simplicity.

I don't think so. All the parameters you need to describe energy
don't exist, mathematically, for a point. Perhaps for a pair of
points. An electron has energy only because an opposite charge
exist somewhere else... and only somewhere else. The little
gremlins will kill each other trying to share the same space.

So simplisticly an electron or a boat can be considered as a point ?


When folks speak of energy or space-time as a substance,
that is really visiting the sins of Leibniz on the innocents of the
class-room. )

If not a substance what are they then?

sig z


http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Energy.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...ticEnergy.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...neProblem.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Leibniz.html

Sue...



sig.z.

Pitch a load of bricks to the west and see if your
appetite is satisfied as the earth's rotation moves
the bricks back toward their original position.

Sue...



sig.z.
p.s. google keeps refusing to let me post are you having similar
problem ?

Well... Have Ms. Post send another copy:
http://www.emilypost.com/ ;-)

Sue...

sig z.

significant zero wrote:
Sue... wrote:
significant zero wrote:
snip
Whether the water is in the boat or in a tank on the shore
its gravitatiional energy (is there such a thing) will be the
same. Your argument is squirming worse than a politician
caught with his hand in the cookie jar. :-)

The gravitational energy must be a component of the total energy of any
system ?
If you have any beads remaining on your abacus after accounting
for the Coulomb force (10^42 time greater) then... yes, we might
take that into consideration. ;-)
http://kossi.physics.hmc.edu/Courses...Cavendish.html

Separating unlike charges stores energy so separating a pair
of masses should do likewise. Eh?

Agreed and is massive clue as to the structure of matter, fields etc

That is a good question. All ways to define and measure mass are
not equal. For most cases, the energy equivalent seems the least
ambiguous. A charge pair is 1.022 MeV but is gravitationally/inertially
hard to measure without some insight to the mechanism. "Curvature of
space-time" is not mechanism any more than Coriolis 'force' is a
mechanism. Magnetism, London and Van Der Waals are a mechanism.


The mechanism need to be considered for all forces and I don't see how
you can justify your classifications(:-)

All forces? Awl right... if you say so.
(There is some of my rambling 'bout that in the post
"spacetime continuum" )





If you define a sub set of total energy as per water in boat that
changes over time then time is a major component of the result ?

Sorry... you don't get to win the debate by defining or redefining
sets, subsets, time-sets or marmosetts. )

Bin win that is not my point.





snip

It is the same, infinite, unless you include some losses.
Ocean and gas friction will determine how many swings
the lunar pendulum makes. I have lost count, so unless you
have the total, to date, it is a busted experiment. We should
probably ask Dubya and his warhawks to shoot it down. )
My dog can find something else to to howl at.

Infinite in arbitarty period ? my arbitary period is less than infinite
and in vacuum (:-)

Well... until someone catches an electron running out of breath
and decaying, you can't label the time-to-decay arbitrary. )

We don't derive orbital mechanics from how long we estimate it
will take the moon to run down. Rather we derive the mechanics
from our measurements and estimate how long it will take the
moon to run down from calculations.

So... your proposal to compare the total swings of two pendulums
has all the infinities, built into it, that an 'evil-doer' needs to
concoct snake oil. Folks that reason in that manner usually
have aspirations to Downing Street or middle east oil. )

Have you seen the price of petrol (;-)
Nope. I don't have a telescope that will look that high.







At the end of a race the loosing
car will perceive the clock to run slower. It is an Einsteinian thing.
Rather he had said the winning car went faster.

But did the winning car percieve the clock to run faster ?
Ahhh... I think I said that backward...
I was jus' testin' to see if you were awake. )

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz






the energy is conserved if and only if the physical laws
are invariant under time translations (if their form does
not depend on time)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem
KE = (1/2)mv^2
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...ticEnergy.html

You cant prove this assertion can you :-)

I can offer a pretty good argument.
Two footballers can move a drag car 1/4 mile on 2 jellybeans.
It takes 2 liters of nitromethane when the regular driver does
the same thing.



IOW... time has a physical significance only when we move a
mass or it's energy equivalent through space.

Maybe the idea that you can keep anything stationary is a bit of a no
no from a common sense and experimental pov.

I think so ... unless you know how to stop the whole universe.



Again I had a good reply to this but due to my mispost I have forgotten
but it might come back to me at some time.

If the energy at any given point is present for a short time or a long
time you seem to be claiming makes no difference to the energy at that
point?

Energy at a point? Hmmmm.
I said nothing about a point.

But you did bring a boat which could be considered as a point for
experimental simplicity.

I don't think so. All the parameters you need to describe energy
don't exist, mathematically, for a point. Perhaps for a pair of
points. An electron has energy only because an opposite charge
exist somewhere else... and only somewhere else. The little
gremlins will kill each other trying to share the same space.

So simplisticly an electron or a boat can be considered as a point ?
We can consider earth-moon Lagranian points as points if we please.
But why would a couple of contrarian do a thing like that? )


When folks speak of energy or space-time as a substance,
that is really visiting the sins of Leibniz on the innocents of the
class-room. )

If not a substance what are they then?

I can't tell ya or it will compromise the security of the universe
against 'evil dooers'
It seems sufficient to say substances are comprised of fundamental
particles that can't be defined in terms of substances.

Sue...


sig z


http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Energy.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...ticEnergy.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...neProblem.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Leibniz.html

Sue...



sig.z.

Pitch a load of bricks to the west and see if your
appetite is satisfied as the earth's rotation moves
the bricks back toward their original position.

Sue...



sig.z.
p.s. google keeps refusing to let me post are you having similar
problem ?

Well... Have Ms. Post send another copy:
http://www.emilypost.com/ ;-)

Sue...

sig z.

"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...

significant zero wrote:

Have you seen the price of petrol (;-)
Nope. I don't have a telescope that will look that high.
I don't have a wallet thick enough to stand on and help you.
Maybe if you bought some time on Hubble's deep field?

[snippety snip snip]

You cant prove this assertion can you :-)

I can offer a pretty good argument.
Two footballers can move a drag car 1/4 mile on 2 jellybeans.
It takes 2 liters of nitromethane when the regular driver does
the same thing.

Cars don't run on jellybeans. They run on Sundays when the buses
don't. I'm getting another footballer for Xmas to see if my
grandson can prove your theory.

[snippety snip snip]

Maybe the idea that you can keep anything stationary is a bit of a no
no from a common sense and experimental pov.

I think so ... unless you know how to stop the whole universe.

Hmmm.. if it isn't stopped, where is it going?

[snippety snip snip]

So simplisticly an electron or a boat can be considered as a point ?
We can consider earth-moon Lagranian points as points if we please.
But why would a couple of contrarian do a thing like that? )

Mary Sue, MARY SUE! How could you say such a thing?



When folks speak of energy or space-time as a substance,
that is really visiting the sins of Leibniz on the innocents of the
class-room. )

If not a substance what are they then?

I can't tell ya or it will compromise the security of the universe
against 'evil dooers'
It seems sufficient to say substances are comprised of fundamental
particles that can't be defined in terms of substances.

Ain't no substance to particles. Particles are made of fields.
Gawd made fields to not play dice with, right after he said Einstein
does not play the field in a horserace, cos the field always wins
by running the way.
Androcles.