[Physics] About "logical errors"

Sun Nov 6 12:34:55 CET 2016

Dear James,
It is a good question, on ei do not know the answer but have given it much thought. I have considered the question of  why “2” as opposed to something else is so important in wave equations…My best partial guess is that the speed of light can be considered to be particle-like where c = SQRT(1/uoeo) and wave-like where c = omega/k. c^2 takes both properties into consideration.
See: http://labs.plantbio.cornell.edu/wayne/pdfs/maxwell.pdf
Thanks,
Randy

Randy Wayne,
Providing a Second Opinion on Scientific Issues Since 1982
[second opinion]
http://labs.plantbio.cornell.edu/wayne/

From: Physics [mailto:physics-bounces at tuks.nl] On Behalf Of James Rose
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2016 6:29 PM
To: General Physics and Natural Philosophy discussion list <physics at tuks.nl>
Subject: Re: [Physics] About "logical errors"

Mike, Tom, et al.,

I would like to introduce an atypical idea that is not discussed in mathematics/physics literature.

We use exponents to represent many different things and relationships.  One of the uses of exponent - in whole-number form (so far; there are fractal relations that do consider expanded notions, but I won't explore those here) - is associating whole number exponents with the number of 'dimensions' present and under consideration.

The gravity~acceleration presumed equivalency is an especially interesting one to discuss in regards to 'dimensions'.  The Einstein expansion to include time (t) as the 'fourth' dimension has accomplished a lot in relativity.  But.  The reduced form of the relativity equation, E=mc^2, troubles me.   Not in its equivalence relation but in regard to what "c^2"  ... c squared ..,. actually 'means'.   An engineer friend of mine tells me, "Don't dwell on that, it only references time as a tensor relationship. Don't think it means anything physical, instantiated, or 'real'.  It a mathematical term only."

Well, I don't think so.   I think that "c^2" gives us a clue that time is no more a scalar or a one-dimension tensor vector than space is not 3-dimensional, when we use XxYxZ or x^3.   There are unexplored relations when we allow that time is also multi-dimensional and that "c^2" exactly identifies the cross product of TWO real time dimensions, not just a transfer coding of quantity values: energy measure to mass measure.

What we come to realize directly and easily from this allowance is that gravity is a real produced (emerged; secondary product) of the interaction of temporal dimensions, rather than being one of the 4 'fundamental' forces, as currently designated.

Please take some time to mull this over, but please do write back your impressions.

Jamie Rose

________________________________
From: "mike at mlawrence.co.uk<mailto:mike at mlawrence.co.uk>" <mike at mlawrence.co.uk<mailto:mike at mlawrence.co.uk>>
To: General Physics and Natural Philosophy discussion list <physics at tuks.nl<mailto:physics at tuks.nl>>
Sent: Saturday, November 5, 2016 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Physics] About "logical errors"

Tom,

I don't disagree that the two situations are different. They are,and that is why your argument is looking at the wrong issue. To compare acceleration and gravitation using the same mass requires one side of the equation to be a gravitational situation and the other to be an acceleration situation. What you describe are two different situations where the total energies are not the same. You have not provided any input for why the room is being accelerated. The only situation where the two mass situations can be compared is the orbital force equation I quoted.
But I do agree with you that the two situations, each looked at individually, can be differentiated. As I said previously in an earlier email, the acceleration-only situation describes a system where the total energy of the mass is positive,whereas the total energy of the mass in the gravitational-only system is negative.
As an aside, the orbital system is a zero total energy system for the mass (because if it had energy it would move inwards or outwards) and the energy equation is then exactly the same as the force equation, with one less Rb on each side. The issue is that the kinetic energy of the spins of all the particles in orbital systems has been ignored so far. And with the mass energy equal to the spin energy of all fermions, the motional energy on the kinetic side of the energy equation should be twice what it is usually said to be. This could be interpreted as producing the centrifugal force outwards that opposes the inward gravitational pull, with a balance of both force and energy totalling zero. But it's not accepted yet.......
Cheers
Mike

On Nov 5 2016, carmam at tiscali.co.uk<mailto:carmam at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

Mike, there are two answers to your refutation of my equivalence principle argument.

1. I started out with the very simple case of an MBH being dropped from 20 metres above the Earth's surface. The total gravitational attraction is now 19.6 M/s^2 and the black hole will reach the surface in 1.4s . True or false?If the MBH is dropped from 20 metres in a "room" which is being accelerated at 9.8M/s^2 , it will hit the floor after 2s . True or false?We have to make some assumptions here. A. The accelerated room is being held at a steady 9.8M/s^2 , no matter what mass it contains.B. The fall is timed from the reference frame of the Earth or the accelerated room.C. There are no external influences. This includes nothing influencing the clock eg it is far enough away from the MBH.D. The gravitational attraction of the MBH is 9.8 M/s^2 at 20 metres, I am ignoring the increase as the two masses approach.Please respond before we move to the second part.
Tom.

_______________________________________________
Physics mailing list
Physics at tuks.nl<mailto:Physics at tuks.nl>
http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161106/97ae3c8e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4425 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161106/97ae3c8e/attachment.jpg>