The Way I-try Views Energy [Split from The Essence of Energy]

[Strange]

Because ? agrees with the exact equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass. It is physically impossible for them not to be equal because they are one and the same mass.

 

But you have said that acceleration (in a lift) is not the same as gravity (or gravitation). This has been tested to levels of accuracy that completely rule out your "1 in 30,583,019. the difference".

[I-try]

Mordred.

Much later in ?, attempts are made to provide information regarding the manner in which particles form and interact; including information regarding how other force such as nuclear MAY originate. Therefore I will leave your first statement unanswered.

With regards to your other statement; you measure the energy constituting a particle (by assuming that the measurement did not induce change) such as an electron, by obtaining its mass value and then applying the equation E = MC^2. The existence of a particle is dependent on the magnitude of its amassed intrinsic energy.

In an environment such as our rotating and orbiting Earth, the parameters are constantly undergoing unrecognisable changes besides those that are recognisable, and therefore, the energy contained within a particle must be regarded as having a potential to be subjected to change.

Strange.

As you would well know and as I have repeatedly stated, the difference between the two lift example is with the method of the application of the accelerating influence. Gravitation results from the eternally acting phenomenon resulting in either acceleration or what is called weight. Suddenly stop the winding apparatus supplying the uniform acceleration, the lift would go into uniform motion and there would be no weight. Personally, I find it difficult to believe that people supposed to think rationally, can believe in the ridiculous idea presently provided by mainstream science to account for weight.

I have informed you of the reason why there is a need to supply energy from an external source in the case of horizontal acceleration: there is a retarding influence that requires to be overcome to achieve said acceleration, and that retarder is not present during vertical acceleration due to the gravitational effect. If you want to believe otherwise, that is your prerogative and it has nothing to do with the falsifying of ?.

[Mordred]

I'm well aware of that formula and how they measure a particle. That's not my question.

 

The title of your thread and statements of intrinsic energy and essence of energy. Implies energy existing on its own with no particle.

 

Assuming no particle how would you measure energy?.

 

 

Remember your the one pushing it as being unique and distinquishable. If that is the case you need to be able to measure it directly.

 

So I ask you again How? When we have no means of ditinquishing it directly without measuring its influence on particles etc?

Remember everything we know about the forces or energy is a measure of influences.

Also remember your after the "essence of energy" how would you identify it? Ie strong or electromagnetic or weak?

 

Again without an indirect influence measurement.

 

Get the idea why science states energy is a measured property of particles? Or a system such as a mechanical system

Or for that matter a gravitational system

Edited November 6, 2014 by Mordred

[I-try]

Mordred.

You state: Assuming no particle how would you measure energy?.

Remember your the one pushing it as being unique and distinquishable. If that is the case you need to be able to measure it directly.

Answer.

At the basic level of reality, I refer to the amassing of the intrinsic energy contained in parts of primeval waves travelling from all direction and at the speed of light; there was a reference to the extremely short wavelength being responsible for universal pressure.

That statement regarding the attempted description of the fundamental dynamic nature of energy cannot be subjected to measurement as was stated at the time of posting. Even so, and although QM cannot measure and exactly define a part of a quantum wave, you demand that I do so.

In that regard and relative to QM, ? close approximates that for a QM required version of gravity

The remainder of your post proves your earlier statement that you have zero interest in ? other than attempting to falsify it. Unfortunately that is also the attitude of Strange, and I believe most other members of this forum who have done likewise. That attempt to falsify would be acceptable if there had been any attempt to actually read and understand ?.

In that regard, the how and the why underlying physics has remained in the dark ages since Einstein attempted to define the fundamental nature of gravity and gravitation, and will remain so for the foreseeable future due to that attitude.

[Strange]

Personally, I find it difficult to believe that people supposed to think rationally, can believe in the ridiculous idea presently provided by mainstream science to account for weight.

 

<shrug> Science doesn't really care whether people think the results are ridiculous or not. There are a lot of scientists who are not happy with what science tells them. Some of them, e.g. Einstein, spend much of their lives trying to show theory is wrong for that reason.

 

But you have said that acceleration (in a lift) is not the same as gravity. This has been tested to levels of accuracy that completely rule out your "1 in 30,583,019. the difference". (You keep ignoring this.)

[I-try]

Th would appear that this thread can be accessed via the trash can, there fore to the moderators of this forum,

I have provided many posts that appear to have had an interest to viewers but of little interest to you people.

Despite my viewing of many subjects discussed on this forum, the only interest in the fundamental dynamic nature of physics was a question by robinpike when he asked how does an electron know it is being accelerated. ? automatically supplies the answer to that question along with all changes taking place during the instant by instant acceleration of an electron. About as close as you people can get to the nature of an electron is to refer to it as a point particle, or when it suits, as a cloud of probability surrounding a nucleus.

 

It appears that mainstream ideas of the how and why of that underlying physics must be protected irrespective of how valuable a concept such as the Gravitational Thermodynamic Effect may be to humanity.

 

Well done, you have convinced me of the futility of attempting to provide conceptual argument in an attempt to intrude into the hallowed concept of gravity provided by GR. You do that despite the obvious failings regarding Newtonian gravitation when Pioneer bypassed Jupiter. Do you have any idea as to why Newtonian gravitation failed in that event. I would bet you don't.

 

Yes, I agree, this thread belongs in the trash can along with Strange's replies that imply that presently believed concepts of mainstream science are sacrosanct. I will await the results of Rosetta with increased interest.

Edited November 6, 2014 by I-try

[Strange]

Th would appear that this thread can be accessed via the trash can

 

Nope. It is still in Speculations.

 

 

Well done, you have convinced me of the futility of attempting to provide conceptual argument ...

 

Yep. Science relies on evidence not vague "conceptual arguments".

 

 

Strange's replies that imply that presently believed concepts of mainstream science are sacrosanct.

 

I don't they are sacrosanct at all. Produce evidence that shows them wrong and people will modify/reject existing theories. We see this all the time.

 

However, you consistently refuse to acknowledge the existence of evidence that falsifies your theory.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

This thread is in Speculations not the trash can. The trash is normally reserved for hijacks, off-topic whining, and threads that attempt to re-open locked speculations.

 

The persecution complex / galileo gambit and the concomitant implications of staff dogmatism get stale very quickly.

 

-----

I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.

Oliver Cromwell

 

It is not enough to wear the mantle of Galileo: that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right.

Attrib. Robert Park

 

[Mordred]

As Strange stated models that are shown to be more accurate than older models do replace the older models all the time. However no model is ever replaced by one that can't supply the mathematics.

 

Ps I asked those questions for a very specific reason.

 

The reason being was I wanted to see how you would answer the question. As it is after all your model.

 

You can't supply the math and quite frankly this thread has been more argument than info.

 

I know you have some familiarity with the mainstream. Certainly enough to know that one of the most common newbie questions is basically what is energy made of or what is the essence of energy.

 

Be grateful. I can think of several forums where this thread would be instantly locked. (they only allow peer reviewed models only)

 

I happen to be a member on them as well. If you think you have a tough audience here you haven't seen anything.

 

now the point of my questions is that there is no way to measure energy directly. This is specifically why science teaches it is never a standalone measurable item. It can only be measured indirectly through its influences. Including gravity.

[I-try]

Strange.

 

Your stated.

<shrug> Science doesn't really care whether people think the results are ridiculous or not. There are a lot of scientists who are not happy with what science tells them. Some of them, e.g. Einstein, spend much of their lives trying to show theory is wrong for that reason.

 

Answer.

Especially when the concepts are ridiculously derived through ignorance and subsequently go on to cost the world community a large amount of brain power and scarce finances.

 

You stated.

But you have said that acceleration (in a lift) is not the same as gravity. This has been tested to levels of accuracy that completely rule out your "1 in 30,583,019. the difference". (You keep ignoring this.)

 

Answer.

I most certainly do not ignore that statement. How could I when you continually repeat and rely on it.

In that regard it reminds me of the day I was sitting in our car outside a friends house. Their parrot hopped through their gate and hopped over to me. It turned its head sideways and when looking up to me said; Hello. I replied hello and then the bird asked an intelligent question in the form of how are you. I answered good, how are you and the bird replied good and then turned and hopped back home.

I had a conversation with that bird which conveyed information that is impossible with you. Yes I know, that is the level of my conversational ability and has nothing to do with your complete ignorance of the intricacies regarding the fundamental dynamic nature of gravity and the gravitational effect. You have a stated disinterest in ? and only desire to attempt to falsify it . Why not provide an example of how the accuracy you refer to was arrived at.

 

 

 

imatfaal

 

Because I view all sections of this forum, then when I noticed a statement referring to Other features or words to that effect, I clicked on it and a list appeared. At the bottom of that list was the Rubbish Bin. To the right of that bin was this thread and the latest answer from Strange. Up to this point, the title of this thread has been only lightly printed and with no other markings as most other threads are. Today, this thread is in full print and equal with most other threads. .

 

If your statement regard the complex you refer to is correct, then I must have imagined that originally this thread got the attention of staff members and the other thread Gravity by I-try was locked suddenly without warning.

 

 

[Strange]

 

and only desire to attempt to falsify it

 

Yes. That is what science does.

 

But thanks for not answering the question. Again.

 

 

Because I view all sections of this forum, then when I noticed a statement referring to Other features or words to that effect, I clicked on it and a list appeared. At the bottom of that list was the Rubbish Bin. To the right of that bin was this thread and the latest answer from Strange. Up to this point, the title of this thread has been only lightly printed and with no other markings as most other threads are. Today, this thread is in full print and equal with most other threads.

 

So you are criticising the moderators because of your inability to navigate the forum. Pathetic.

 

The forum has a nice feature called "ignore". I think I will make use of it.

[I-try]

Strange.

I provided ample opportunity over a number of posts for you to realise why ? appears to violate the exact equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass. In my last post there was a request that you post the reason why you constantly state: But you have said that acceleration (in a lift) is not the same as gravity. This has been tested to levels of accuracy that completely rule out your "1 in 30,583,019. the difference". (You keep ignoring this.)

 

Unfortunately you were unable or unwilling to post a reason. In that case I cannot be fairly accused of lecturing or attempting to humiliate you by supplying an answer.

 

You should remember the discussion began with regards to a n of force relative to both methods of accelerating a kg of matter. Then to a dine of force with regards to both methods of accelerating a gram of matter. The above calculation results from the relative acceleration of a 9.81 kg of matter, and would be 1000 times less for the acceleration of 9.81 grams.

A relative acceleration of a smaller amount than a gram of matter, the difference would be proportionally less. In my posts that relationship was stated to you but you chose to ignore.

 

If an electron was the subject of comparison acceleration, the difference would be approaching infinitely small and well beyond our ability to measure. The lift explanation provided by Einstein was only an indication as to what he was referring to, and the exact equivalence is only inferred.

 

Far from falsifying ?, it presents further evidence why it should be intensely but fairly examined. To do so requires a full understanding of ?

[I-try]

To the members of this forum.

I came to this forum in an attempt to gain an evaluation of my work It appears that was never possible.

 

From the information regarding gravity and gravitation I have supplied to this forum, then perhaps the reference to the pull of gravity or gravitational pull will eventually cease to be referred to.

In that regard, mainstream science has at least one conceptual description of gravity that had it been fairly examined, has a precision to explain why Pioneer received an acceleration beyond that expected by the application of Newtonian gravitation; also why Io is the most volcanic effected body of matter in the solar-system.

 

With regards to the how and the why of mainstream science belief regarding the reason for such concepts as matter and antimatter, also nuclear force etceteras; then their belief will not be challenged by my work regarding those subjects because there will be no further posted extracts from it.

 

The reason for that decision is the lack of interest in my work and I have now received three warnings.

[elfmotat]

To the members of this forum.

I came to this forum in an attempt to gain an evaluation of my work It appears that was never possible.

 

Look, it's not our fault that your nonsense is nonsense. You're getting honest feedback here. I know you'd prefer validation, but you're not going to get it because nothing you're saying makes any sense. That's the truth.

 

 

From the information regarding gravity and gravitation I have supplied to this forum, then perhaps the reference to the pull of gravity or gravitational pull will eventually cease to be referred to.

 

I think it's safe to say that nobody has a clue what you mean when you say that gravity and gravitation are "different." People have asked for clarification several times now, but all you ever say is "I already explained the difference in a previous post."

 

 

The reason for that decision is the lack of interest in my work and I have now received three warnings.

 

It's not our fault that you can't follow the rules either. You've been hijacking threads left and right.

[I-try]

Elfmotat.

 

I will risk another warning or being banned by answering your several statement in the reverse order you provided them.

 

I was new to this forum and was reading a post in classical physics where two members stated they had no idea of a quantum wave. I provided a post to the effect that if it was allowed and their email addresses were available, I would supply them with a copy of my work. That resulted in the first warning regarding attempting to introduce my Pet theory on this forum, I left this forum for a year or so and only returned when I became aware of the speculations section.

 

The second warning came when a member was inquiring about the veracity of the author of an article he had read concerning the hunt for gravity waves. The authors name was mentioned. Several other posters stated they thought he was a quack and did not respond further. I supplied truthful information to the extent that the author was a university trained mathematician and did not mention gravity waves.

 

The third warning was the results of me thinking that somehow my post had gone astray because there was absolutely no evidence of it in that thread, so I re-posted it. Instead of just removing the. text of my first post and substituting a caution, I received that warning.

 

You stated: I think it's safe to say that nobody has a clue what you mean when you say that gravity and gravitation are "different." People have asked for clarification several times now, but all you ever say is "I already explained the difference in a previous post."

 

Answer

And so I have, Originally in the number of posts that were totally ignored because there were no replies or questions. Also explained to Strange to have it ignored and then in a later post he stated that he was not going to attempt to get his head around it. That did not surprise me because in another forum and some years ago, he stated that I was a idiot for believing that gravity and gravitation were two differing phenomenons.

 

You state: Look, it's not our fault that your nonsense is nonsense. You're getting honest feedback here. I know you'd prefer validation, but you're not going to get it because nothing you're saying makes any sense. That's the truth.

 

Answer.

It is obvious that you have given little of no attention to the many posts to this thread and to the locked thread Gravity by I-try. Apart from the moderators, the other posters to Speculation are the people who only concentrate on the threads they start, and to whatever extent, people like Strange who post to several forums. Remember, he self confessed that his value to his company required him providing polite answers to silly questions.

 

[elfmotat]

I don't particularly care why you received warnings.

 

You're still only responding to the "gravity vs. gravitation" question with deflection. Are you going to explain it or not?

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

i-try

 

I have reviewed the three warning points you have received and all were deserved.

 

You have stopped even trying to discuss science and are now concentrating on moaning about procedural matters. I see no reason to leave this thread open any more - you are evading any real scientific questioning and are relying on the protestation that you are unfairly treated.

 

thread locked - do not reintroduce the topic.