Bill McC

On the contrary, I have found that those that march around proclaiming almighty science and the need to defend it against those that question it, have no science. They have a little formula that helps someone doing their homework or helps someone calculate some difficult to achieve result. But they do not have science. Science needs no protection, and if it has fallen, it has fallen because the people are not interested. If they are not interested, there is no science. When people are not interested in science/reality, they are suicidal and extremely dangerous individuals by actual observation. Someone with reality/science is rather calm and confident and can communicate civilly for years about a subject. While those claiming to have the only science, the holy grail of science, are quite poor at science and cannot explain their science. Others claim science proves nothing really, except that what it states today is the gospel, and they will not allow any other currently not supported "science" into view. Nor can they discuss or defend against sane challenges. So my thought is when you are ready for real science, I hope it is still there for you. There is not much left; that is why we haven't been to the moon in over half a century, even though we have unlimited funding for any good project in the U.S., As does any other country.

That sentence fragment marked in red is only a recitation; you did it without understanding electricity. I have worked with many experts in the electrical field, and although it is disheartening to realize that modern science took money from the government to achieve grant results that were predefined, it is what took place. Electricity today is a hot mess. There is almost no going back as you are here claiming at least an eighth-grade education, I am sure, and cannot see the total failure of institutions, especially when it comes to electricity. My eighth-grade remark does not mean that you did not spend many more years in a counterintelligence center/university. It means any eighth-grader could figure it out if they were interested in doing so. But don’t worry, most eighth-graders today will never understand electricity, so perhaps you are safe.

You probably would have had to ring the church bell during a lightning storm without him. He discussed the subtle particle of electricity that could permeate matter three hundred years ago. The man was on top of reality. Teslas fault was not giving Benjamin Franklin credit, perhaps he did not know what he had done. I attack the Leaning Tower of Pisa’s foundation constantly as well, whenever I see a similar foundation built or being built.

Many of your points are valid. However, many are standard Royal Society armchair recitals of current beliefs which are the same as ancient beliefs. I noted that you did not mention Benjamin Franklin, the other side of the coin, the man who started science on earth. A man whose inventions were better in many ways than even Tesla's inventions due to a basic understanding of the universe. The Royal society laughed at old Benjamin Franklin for thirty minutes, as his letter about static electricity and lightning being the same was read by a friend who knew of Benjamin Franklin's working lightning rods. They claimed he was spouting off. They challenged him to fly a kite in an electrical storm, and he did it easily, as can any Universal scientist today. But when the Myth Busters attempted it almost three hundred years later, they claimed that Benjamin Franklin could not have done so, and universities agreed. That would be sad if it were not criminal. Benjamin Franklin realized that only electricity stops electricity. No insulator can protect you without first charging in a ramping voltage. It took decades before Benjamin Franklin received the Copley award from the Royal Society, its highest award. Universities have since reversed their decision about single-particle electricity and have gone back to Du Fay's two-particle theory of electricity; Du Fay's theory had children going to bell towers to ward off lightning. Knowledge is no longer what universities are about. Today ARC (Anode, Rectified, Cathode) has been skewed by University's announced decision to change Benjamin Franklins exact markings to total lunacy. So before you write off people, you need to look at the government that owned science totally after World War Two. And what they have gotten you to believe that is easily debunked if you wish to face it. Most do not. It is too late for your document to protect science.

I get if you substitute mass for weight and measure an object at room temperature at sea level, and divide the weight of the object by its volume you get density. But that seems a bit far from using that formula for its inertial value as “physics" often claims it is. I am saying you need other inputs and values and standards to turn it into a volume if you only have inertia. You could convert inertia of a known substance to weight on earth and then divide by its volume to determine density but again not really a simple Density = mass/volume, in my opinion. But the formula would work for weight over volume equals density. So if it is implied in “physics” that mass means the weight of the substance the object is made of at sea level then sure you can use that formula. But it seems to me that mass is being used arbitrarily and incorrectly.

If water did not deviate from a straight or curved graph line of volume to temperature, the water at the poles would freeze solid to the bottom of the ocean. If water did not upon cooling below 38-40 degrees Fahrenheit, become less dense and float on the 38-40 degree water, to break all expansion to temperature rules of all other liquids currently known, the cold water would sink to the bottom of the ocean and freeze the ocean solid. It would not thaw during the summer, and ice caps would reach New York. Water is quite the substance. That is why we must keep the oceans free of pollutants that would destroy the water's remarkable ability to do this.

I am not confused at all, I know that you need a volume to compare to a volume to get density. The mass in the formula Density = mass/volume would only compare the number of atoms in that object over the current volume which with will yield nothing. Until you figure out the matching volume of the substance on earth at sea level at room temperature that that resists inertia equally to the object having the formula applied. From that volume of substance at sea level at room temperature you can determine by dividing by the current volume of the object where ever it is, what the density of the object is currently. So I am not the one claiming mass is equal to volume in “Physics” I am claiming in order for your formula to work mass must mean volume or is implying it means volume. Or else it is not a legit mathematical formula. I am saying you are implying that mass is volume with that formula. Which is fine if you go by the definition of mass that means volume. But you angrily tell me mass is resistance to inertia witch is not a volume in itself. You have to go outside the box, outside of the formula to relate inertia to a volume that you can compare and determine present density I am not repeating and I have gotten not one ounce of information that makes my conclusion void or invalid. I have gotten references to World War Two, but no sound mathematical information to make me move on.

You posted Density = mass/volume. If mass is the particle count the actual number of atoms of some substance in an object, comparing that to its current volume that has the same particle count would be futile. So if it is explainable have at it. You keep quoting what seems like a rather incorrect formula in anyones sphere of understanding. I am suggesting that it could work if you modify it and it should be easily understood.

I am saying that if you have an object and you want to know what its density is at the present moment by measuring its mass its inertia, you need to know what volume of that substance on earth will create an equal inertia at sea level, then you can compare that volume over the objects current volume and determine its density. That formula of Density equals mass/volume is missing some steps or assumes a value that mass alone even to physicists does not mean. Because the formula only works for density if you are comparing the substance the object is made of and its earthly volume at sea lever at room temperature, compared to the objects current volume which will give you its current density. So perhaps the formula should be Density = standard volume of known substance at standard density determined by mass, over volume. If it were written Density = standard volume of known substance at standard density determined by mass,/volume, it might get confused.

I understand the twisted jest of it, but the formula only compares one volume to another if it is to work. It has to, or it is not math and science. Inertia identifies the volume of a known substance in an object as it would be on earth and relates it to that volume as it would be on earth at sea level at room temperature. At that point, we can make a comparison of the volume of the object as it would be on earth to its current volume to determine current density. You are not comparing inertia to volume. You are not even comparing weight on earth to the volume; you are comparing volume to volume to obtain density. You have to. That formula "Density equals mass/volume" is disgusting, in my opinion, and does not fit any mathematical format of which I am aware. Unless you are saying that inertia means volume, then that formula flies. If you tell me that the convention is to call mass (volume on earth), I am ok with that, at least as far as math goes, but linguistically it would just be another physics butcher job of English. If there is something wrong with what I am saying I would love to know. Knowledge is understanding something.

There are problems with wear at joints for mechanical arms in space, because lubricants don’t like a vacuum and heat. And the lack of air between the surfaces of metal create a very strange effect most are not aware of on earth where they only get to see metal to metal with a thousandth of an inch of air between the metal, which causes it to glide on the other on that cushion of air. In space that air is pretty thin and mostly hydrogen which offers little lift and separation the two pieces of metal they almost bond to one another in space. I was suggesting that bearings for such arms could be made using magnetic bearings. That does not seem really far out to me.

Did you earth ground the plates?

If you are going to use your formula you would have to use specific gravity or density which creates the same results for density, for similar elements and substances. That would be the value you would use to create the baseline inertia value. You could reverse engineer using that information to come up with the theoretical volume of a known substance that displayed a certain inertia to form a volume based on specific gravity or density on earth. So if a meteorite slammed into earth you could extrapolate how much inertia it previously had before impact and and use volume measurements obtained through whatever means, of the asteroid, and then figure out what most of the meteorite was made of, and then determine how much heat, cold, rays, vibration played in the actual density of the meteorite. But that is way out there and I would not give a quarter for the result. If it was me and I knew what the object was approximately made of and its approximate volume I would state that, I would describe its surroundings, ambient radiations and temperature and velocity relevant to some object, that would be all I would need for anything I wanted to know about it. When you throw in inertia you are on shaky ground. Especially if you were educated with Pre World War science. Particle count would make more sense than the word mass. And there is debate about the size of atoms at room temperature now anyway. In relating to mass, yes, mass, according to “Physics,” is only the inertia created by an object of specific Volume and Density at sea level and tested for resistance to inertia. Those tests are tests of specific gravity, which is a test of Density. When we find that substance elsewhere, it may be in a different volume, different Density. Still, we can extrapolate based upon a comparison of inertia how much of the substance there is, based on the inertia tests done on the sample at sea level. So if you wanted to use a formula, it would be the Density of a known object being examined equals Volume of the mass at sea level with equal inertia over current Volume. The object cannot be unknown, or else we could not tell what inertia the substance would have back on earth to compare the inertia to at the present location. The formula would be Density equals Volume of a known substance in the known state back on earth at sea level matching inertia of object measured over the Volume of the current object. And again, those results would not get my quarter. It all seems out of order to me. I would probably know the temperature of the object before I started the crazy variable-filled comparison to see what temperature it is doing to its volume. All of this is physics whacked method of relaying simplicities not mine.

You are the one that said "Density = mass/volume." That is not a legit formula. I am explaining why. It is the same thing as saying, "Density = specific gravity/volume." It does not make sense mathematically. If you can extrapolate on your presented formula and understanding I would love that. Density of a substance measured on earth at sea level equals the mass exhibited by that substance anywhere in the universe. Specific gravity measured on earth at sea level equals the mass exhibited by that substance anywhere in the universe.

No, I was pretty clear about that. I claimed that the "physics" definition for the word mass is specific-gravity and contains all the above-mentioned information. Specific gravity sets the inertia value for that substance. Once set, those criteria are the "mass" according to "physics," not me. As you move out away from earth, you take only inertia value with you; as you heat it or cool it or expose it to rays or vibration, the Density will change. Gravity, if any, exists will affect it differently, so all that is left is the inertia it will create no matter how large or small it becomes due to expansion or contraction. So although specific gravity is Density according to "physics," and you can figure out how much a volume of the substance will weigh on earth at sea level, it leaves out any effects of heat, light, UV, X-rays, vibration, or cooling. So Density does not equal mass/volume; that equation is not even possible in "physics." Yet, haha. According to physics, Density is specific gravity, so mass is the ill-thought-out word for specific gravity, according to physics. And that sounds like something important and new perhaps, maybe something to learn? It is only the inertia a certain amount of a substance with a specific gravity on earth at sea level will create there and anywhere in the universe. It has nothing to do with density other than on earth at sea level at room temperature while not being exposed to rays, heat, UV, X-rays, vibration or extreme gravity.

Herein lies the problem; it is like two drunken people having a somewhat violent argument, neither with the total picture, arguing from two known points that may be known by each, or at least both have substantial proofs. Or it could be two points that both hold some water but do not form a total picture or understanding. The first to call the police do tend not to get tasered. Does that mean that either one was right or wrong? I look at our government as the police in that scenario; they have a plan, having bought and paid for science. They now hold a controlling interest in science. The bigger a private company, the more danger of being shut down by the government they are in, if only by being accused of "monopoly" after the EPA and IRS are not successful. Benjamin Franklin built a statically powered turkey spit that powered the spit for 20 minutes, from a few strokes of a laden jar with his hand. You may be able to find some material about this on the internet if you are really interested. He also created an open-air transistor that turned the flow of lightning voltage on and off from a wire on his hillside home's roof during a lightning storm. Most come away from college today with far less understanding of electricity than Benjamin Franklin had. Benjamin Franklin had even worked out using dehydrated gases to make use of static electricity all year long. His device was over unity; the universe is a perpetual motion device described by Newton's work. Benjamin Franklin's idea was to end slavery with perpetual motion. I cannot imagine that it would be illegal to patent or receive UL approval for perpetual motion devices if they did not exist. Why would the government care if you patented a silly invention? There are millions of silly patents if you look through patents; only silly people would pay for it if it didn't work. Today the government lets you buy lottery tickets on your cell phone. Why would they do that and spend millions on gamblers anonymous? So other than science alone, the fact the government does or does not promote or stop an activity has no moral or logical reasons behind it. Something that George Washington recognized many years ago. "Government is not reason: it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and fearful master." George Washington. Poor George and Benjamin Franklin had fought so hard to end slavery and taxation in the colonies. As soon as the war was over, Hamilton, once again, just like Britain had done for hundreds of years, rallied support to hide that money is only made on a printing press and cannot be tied to gold if a penny on the dollar tax exists upon it. He also hid how a country has unlimited funding for infrastructure. Warning this below is extremely dangerous and cause instant death. If you have ever fooled around with transformers and "V" poles, you might have to change your position on the subject of perpetual motion or at least question it.

Magnetically levitated bearings would be excellent in space where lubricants in a vacuum tend not to work because they evaporate as if they were extremely hot. Metal-to-metal interaction can create abnormal heat and wear because there are very few air molecules between the metal parts, not as there would be on earth. Even substances like Teflon may malfunction in space where friction is involved. The only problem I see is that magnetic fields can interfere with insulation materials, nullifying their ability to contain electrical charges completely. If electrical contacts near the magnetic field are insulated and covered in metal and bonded to the ship, it should not cause a problem.

So you are saying that mass is not just, and only the weight of a substance at sea level on earth, translated to inertia needed to move a certain amount of the substance at a certain velocity over a specific time? If mass is what I just described, mass compared to volume does not define current density. Mass is the density of said substance at room temperature at sea level on earth. You cannot calculate current density without knowing current temperature information, ambient pressure, and ambient radiation effects. I see that as a formula that does not balance out. If I am incorrect, perhaps you can enlighten me.

To me, mass is volume, so one liter would be one liter. I am aware in "physics," "physicists" use mass as it best confuses an embarrassing subject they do not wish to discuss, in my opinion. Physicists check a substance's specific gravity, subsequently giving the substance in question known kinetic energy to get it moving and known kinetic energy to bring it to a stop. Whether or not it is hotter or colder (more or less dense) than the substance known at sea level on earth at room temperature, which is contradictory to the original base definition of mass (a volume of some substance). It is like what happened to electricity; they took the perfect labeling and just reversed it, in my opinion. So here, mass does not mean volume at all. You may as well discuss steel, by saying "a blob of steel,” that tells you everything you need to know about the blob. Except for what effects it may be experiencing and how big it is. Specific gravity seems a bit more sane and explanatory. Instead of saying the object's mass is great or small, you would say steel's kinetic energy is what it is and we have a blob this big, if that is what mass means to a "physicist." If that is mass as defined by "physics," it seems like an attack on the English language if you ask me. I have seen intelligent conversations go awry so often because everyone has a different opinion of mass, and I am not talking about regular people but "physicists" themselves. Examining the word mass, which caused the problem, each person had another or acceptable use of it if only in their mind. If you are talking scientifically, you have to say what the substance in question is, how much of it there is, and what temperature or other effects it is experiencing, which could be velocity, rays, etc. The use of "massive object," which is perhaps as close as you can get to volume, is used often amongst "physics" folk, wrong perhaps if only to themselves, but still used that way. Would anyone think of fifty pounds of tungsten as a massive object or having a lot of mass? Would anyone think of a Hindenburg-sized bag of popcorn as a massive object, or having a lot of mass? Mass has been desecrated by “physics”. The "physics" term of mass is just the weight of the substance in question on earth at sea level compared to water as unity, the specific gravity, not the weight of the object it is made of that is being examined. It would be like looking at an asteroid heading for earth about to destroy us and saying, "holy shat, look at the specific gravity" you want to talk about poor English and poor science. Wow! Density is not Mass/Volume, even in "physics." According to "Physicists," mass is the weight of a certain quantity of the substance in question at room temperature at sea level, which converts to force needed to move that quantity at sea level from a stationary position to some velocity over a specific time period in a vacuum. That inertial force required will be the same force required even if you are on the moon or deep space or if the object is superheated and expands greatly. Suppose we take a 100-pound piece of steel measured on earth at sea level at room temperature. We know the density of the material at room temperature. If the steel is on the moon at room temperature, its "mass" nor its density will change, but its weight will on the moon compared to earth. If we heat the same piece of steel to 400 degrees Fahrenheit, its density will change, its mass will not change according to "physics" because it will still cause the same inertia. I agree that its volume will change, the steel will expand, and its weight will remain the same on earth at sea level and on the moon before and after heating. Its "mass" will remain the same, and its density will go down. So the missing heat factor or rays bombarding it would be needed to be known to make the claim you made. The word mass has always been in "modern physics," a big destroyer to communicating knowledge and understanding. All you say by describing "a mass of steel" or "the mass of steel" in "physics" is "steel" in "physics;" there are no volumes given no heat factors for mass. Steels mass is the mass of steel its weight on earth at sea level in "physics." Which again is exactly the opposite meaning to the word mass.

I was making a relation to the size of the bomb core and the force of the detonation not correlating to the weight of the explosive involved, lending doubt to the E=MCˆ2.

But yet we can take a bag of oxygen and acetylene gas and knockdown homes with force, push the ground down and create a pressure wave that will knock the wind out of you perhaps a 1/4 mile away. I cannot imagine the weight of acetylene involved would be able to do that, although hydrocarbons are extremely powerful explosives. In the olden times, just after dinosaurs, ambient radiation gave power to the bomb. The more experiments I do, the more I am assured that is the case. I used to receive special advanced Hazmat training; the trainers were few and traveled the U.S. teaching people in the field. One of the films we watched was of an ammonia and propane detonation that was silent and only affected one person in the room, with other objects and even paper in the room not affected by the "blast." Before the film, as he explained the situation, that they were making a training video of how to protect against anhydrous ammonia, using a site of an actual spill of anhydrous ammonia. He said it all went bad when they went to start the forklift. Being the clown, I said, wow, someone will be blown through a wall because I had known of this from farm accidents involving animal urine and methane. Cows flying over the moon is perhaps an overstatement but making it to another county a short distance away is not. So the trainer hit me on the back of the head and said, pay attention; you have never seen it before, and he was correct. It is a military-like environment, and he was playing the dirll the sergeant. So he runs the video, and the fellow in what they called a turtle rebreather was standing there ready to absorb the spill as the other fellow started the forklift. When he started the forklift, the guy with the camera was filming the whole scene. He shook a little from the blast but was ok. He panned to the guy with the turtle rebreather that was now stuck in the wall. He saw that he had been blown through the wall except for his rebreather. The rebreather looks like a big turtle shell on your back. It houses bellows that allow you to re-breath your own air after the CO2 is scrubbed from the air. It was strapped to him and did not penetrate the cinder blocks. The trainer ended the film and told us that the fellow was alive on the other side of the wall but very seriously injured. With the small amount of propane involved upon starting a forklift, I doubt you could make a case for E=MCˆ2. You guys do not have to believe me; I am just sharing what happened in my life that might save someone's life one day. At this time, most in the field were aware of the electrical aspect of the universe. A human being positively accelerated from zero to a velocity that allowed him to penetrate a cinder block wall four feet from his position, would have been killed if it was not an electrical effect or artificial gravity positively accelerating him.

So a metal hammer cooled with liquid nitrogen, Argon or helium can deliver the same inertial force to an object as a room temperature hammer? I think not. A very cold meteorite might shatter by being struck from a single round of metallic uranium. While a warmer one might end earth as we know it.

You guys are familiar with using mass with the meaning of a specific volume of a specific material as it exists at a certain temperature at sea level, that will create a certain inertial force “no matter the expansion of its body due to heat." In that theory it will have the same inertia regardless of its expansion due to temperature as long as it is in a perfect vacuum that does not exist. And as long as its density is exactly the same at a higher temperature. Because as a substance increases in temperature its hardness usually decreases, causing it to impart inertial force differently. If you take two identical hammers one at room temperature and one heated orange to yellow hot, and drive a wrought iron rod into the ground, the cold hammer will bounce off the rod not effecting the rod, but the hot hammer will drive the rod many inches into the ground. So again to take a word whose origin comes from a word that means a lump or volume of stuff was just the stupidest thing since reversing Benjamin Franklin’s exact markings for electricity. I have seen nothing but confusion from its use in any field thanks to physics once again choosing the wrong word or words to create a convention for a field of study. You can also do that hammer demonstration with a hammer that has a double head, one with a dead blow raw hide and one with a solid metal head. The metal head will not effect the iron rod driven into the ground while the raw hide side will move the rod almost comically fast into the ground. I am fully aware that in theory the moving hammer has the same potential inertial force however its density changes its ability to deliver it or not. If you were going to be scientific you would state you have a volume of a known substance that is heated or cooled to a certain temperature, and its current density or its current specific gravity. Because the word mass means volume to older people, which changes as a substance is heated or cooled.

I try not to use mass as I know mass as volume. I think in terms of volume, specific gravity, adjusted for temperature. Or density adjusted for temperature.

You have to remember where you are, location, location, location, you are not in the physics or chemistry thread you are in the hijacked thread. Mass here is just the volume.