beejewel Posted July 21, 2015 Author Posted July 21, 2015 But, as noted, velocity is not inversely proportional to velocity, even if you ignore relativistic effects. What does "truth" have to do with it? I thought this was a discussion of science. But you are contradicting yourself: if "truth can be found anywhere" then that must include peer reviewed journals so it can't be true to say it's not there. A body free falling through a potential gradient is just converting potential energy to kinetic energy, nothing is gained or lost by the system, the total energy remains constant, this is what I would refer to as a true statement. When you think carefully about it, the earth is such a system, it is free falling through a potential gradient converting potential energy into velocity. [latex]U_p=\frac{mv^2}{2}[/latex] Humans have a knack for conjuring up beliefs I call them "fairies" some are obvious, like the Easter rabbit and Santa Claus, we soon recognise them as fairies and ignore them, but there are a lot more of them out there and some of them have been there for a long time so people have gotten used to them. They even make their way into physics and Nobel prices are awarded for their discoveries. You can even have them in mathematical equations, as long as you have a fairy on both sides. How do we know that common use concepts like big bang, expanding Universe, forces, quarks, black holes, 1/2 spin particles, gluons, dark matter etc. are not fairies? I am not suggesting that these are all fairies, but they could be. When an experiment is done and a measurement is taken, the scientist makes an educated guess and gives it a name, if accepted in a journal, other scientists get on the bandwagon and get in on the same slip stream. Science needs to recognise and eradicate the fairies, its not easy because people want to continue to believe in them. My advise is, be suspicious of any virtual object with a strange name that you can't hang your hat on, chances are it's a fairy. On the last comment, yes you are right I worded it wrong, I meant the missing truth is not to be found there.
Strange Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 A body free falling through a potential gradient is just converting potential energy to kinetic energy, nothing is gained or lost by the system, the total energy remains constant, this is what I would refer to as a true statement. When you think carefully about it, the earth is such a system, it is free falling through a potential gradient converting potential energy into velocity. [latex]U_p=\frac{mv^2}{2}[/latex] Exactly. You have just proved that potential is not "inversely proportional to speed", as you claimed. Humans have a knack for conjuring up beliefs I call them "fairies" some are obvious, like the Easter rabbit and Santa Claus, we soon recognise them as fairies and ignore them, but there are a lot more of them out there and some of them have been there for a long time so people have gotten used to them. They even make their way into physics and Nobel prices are awarded for their discoveries. You can even have them in mathematical equations, as long as you have a fairy on both sides. How do we know that common use concepts like big bang, expanding Universe, forces, quarks, black holes, 1/2 spin particles, gluons, dark matter etc. are not fairies? I am not suggesting that these are all fairies, but they could be. When an experiment is done and a measurement is taken, the scientist makes an educated guess and gives it a name, if accepted in a journal, other scientists get on the bandwagon and get in on the same slip stream. Science needs to recognise and eradicate the fairies, its not easy because people want to continue to believe in them. My advise is, be suspicious of any virtual object with a strange name that you can't hang your hat on, chances are it's a fairy. This appears to have nothing to do with the subject of this thread. I suggest you start a separate thread on the nature of truth and its possible relationship to science, if you want to discuss that. (This is also a shoddy caricature of science, so I don't expect that thread to be very productive.) On the last comment, yes you are right I worded it wrong, I meant the missing truth is not to be found there. So you agree that your statement "truth can be found anywhere" is incorrect?
beejewel Posted July 21, 2015 Author Posted July 21, 2015 Exactly. You have just proved that potential is not "inversely proportional to speed", as you claimed. This appears to have nothing to do with the subject of this thread. I suggest you start a separate thread on the nature of truth and its possible relationship to science, if you want to discuss that. (This is also a shoddy caricature of science, so I don't expect that thread to be very productive.) So you agree that your statement "truth can be found anywhere" is incorrect? Well if it could be agreed that the observers potential is absolute and limited I could define the velocity as a function of c, but until we can agree that this is true, there is no point in going there. Consider my digression above as a margin note. Truth as well as belief can be found anywhere, but my point is that novel true statements are not found in published journals, else it would not be novel. The same reason as why you can't find news in a news paper.
imatfaal Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 Well if it could be agreed that the observers potential is absolute and limited I could define the velocity as a function of c, but until we can agree that this is true, there is no point in going there. ... c is invariant - a function of it will be constant, velocity is not constant, therefore velocity cannot be a function of c
beejewel Posted July 21, 2015 Author Posted July 21, 2015 c is invariant - a function of it will be constant, velocity is not constant, therefore velocity cannot be a function of c One can't be too careful around here... If potential can be defined as absolute then absolute velocity is a factor of the ratio between maximum velocity and maximum potential. [latex]absolutevelocity=absolutepotential*(\frac{c}{\Phi})[/latex] Where c is the maximum velocity and Phi is the maximum potential. I would like to redefine my use of absolute as something which can be defined as a fraction of a whole, ie. the total can not be infinite, as a point on an infinite scale can not be defined as a part of the whole.
swansont Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 One can't be too careful around here... If potential can be defined as absolute then absolute velocity is a factor of the ratio between maximum velocity and maximum potential. [latex]absolutevelocity=absolutepotential*(\frac{c}{\Phi})[/latex] Where c is the maximum velocity and Phi is the maximum potential. I would like to redefine my use of absolute as something which can be defined as a fraction of a whole, ie. the total can not be infinite, as a point on an infinite scale can not be defined as a part of the whole. If c and phi are constants, then you have velocity being proportional to potential, which you have already shown to be false.
beejewel Posted July 21, 2015 Author Posted July 21, 2015 If c and phi are constants, then you have velocity being proportional to potential, which you have already shown to be false. Could it be I have shown it to be false for three velocity, but true for four velocity? The two velocities are not the same. We are back to ground potential theory? Trying not to go there in this thread.
Strange Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 Well if it could be agreed that the observers potential is absolute and limited It is neither absolute nor limited. Truth as well as belief can be found anywhere, but my point is that novel true statements are not found in published journals, else it would not be novel. The same reason as why you can't find news in a news paper. Why are you polluting your thread with irrelevant (and patently false) statements?
beejewel Posted July 21, 2015 Author Posted July 21, 2015 It is neither absolute nor limited. Why are you polluting your thread with irrelevant (and patently false) statements? Opinions without reason don't count, and pollution depends on weather you are smoking it or breathing it.
swansont Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 Could it be I have shown it to be false for three velocity, but true for four velocity? The two velocities are not the same. Four-velocities are invariant, so they won't be proportional to potential either.
beejewel Posted July 21, 2015 Author Posted July 21, 2015 (edited) Actually it works for both absolute and relative potential, as long as you don't mix the concepts. [latex] absolutevelocity=absolutepotential*(\frac{c}{\Phi}) [/latex] and [latex] relativevelocity=relativepotential*(\frac{c}{\Phi}) [/latex] Edited July 21, 2015 by beejewel
swansont Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 Actually it works for both absolute and relative potential, as long as you don't mix the concepts. [latex] absolutevelocity=absolutepotential*(\frac{c}{\Phi}) [/latex] and [latex] relativevelocity=relativepotential*(\frac{c}{\Phi}) [/latex] No, it doesn't. Just asserting that it does is meaningless, and you already showed that it doesn't! Don't you believe the stuff that you post?
Strange Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 A body free falling through a potential gradient is just converting potential energy to kinetic energy, nothing is gained or lost by the system, the total energy remains constant, this is what I would refer to as a true statement. When you think carefully about it, the earth is such a system, it is free falling through a potential gradient converting potential energy into velocity. [latex]U_p=\frac{mv^2}{2}[/latex] Look! Velocity is NOT proportional to potential. Amazing.
Mordred Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 (edited) A relative value isn't absolute. By absolute do you mean invariant? Edited July 21, 2015 by Mordred
beejewel Posted July 22, 2015 Author Posted July 22, 2015 (edited) Look! Velocity is NOT proportional to potential. Amazing. Just making sure we are defining our terms the same way here, I am talking about "Potential" as in Volts, not "Potential Energy" as in electron Volts or Joules. Energy is a function of how much mass you allow to fall through a given potential, mass does not feature in my opening post. Edited July 22, 2015 by beejewel
Strange Posted July 22, 2015 Posted July 22, 2015 Just making sure we are defining our terms the same way here, I am talking about "Potential" as in Volts, not "Potential Energy" as in electron Volts or Joules. That was your calculation of potential energy I was quoting. If you were talking about voltage, why didn't you calculate the relationship between velocity and voltage? So when you said: the only cause of relative velocity is relative potential, AFAIK the only way to set a body in motion relative to another body is via a potential difference, no magic or other spooky action will do it, even a transfer of velocity from one body to another must have it's roots in a potential difference of some kind somewhere. You actually meant: "AFAIK the only way to set a body in motion relative to another body is via a voltage difference." This is clearly false. For one thing, a voltage difference will only affect objects with a net charge. Secondly, it is not the only force capable of setting something in motion. You might have heard of something called "gravity". So we are back to all three of your statements being false.
beejewel Posted July 22, 2015 Author Posted July 22, 2015 That was your calculation of potential energy I was quoting. If you were talking about voltage, why didn't you calculate the relationship between velocity and voltage? I think I have been consistent in my use of the terms potential and potential energy. You actually meant: "AFAIK the only way to set a body in motion relative to another body is via a voltage difference." Absolute Potential and Relative Potential is measured in Volts, it is the SI unit. This is clearly false. For one thing, a voltage difference will only affect objects with a net charge. Secondly, it is not the only force capable of setting something in motion. You might have heard of something called "gravity". Funny you should mention gravity, can you definitively show that gravity is not an electrical potential? I happen to think it is 3.1 Volts per meter elevation at ground level to be precise. So we are back to all three of your statements being false. Well maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong, time will show. I am trying to show you that the classic notion of gravity as a force is wrong, it's one of those fairies I mentioned before. Newton imagined this fairy to explain his theory, and we have been stuck with her for the last 300 years. Newton worked with mass and force, this worked fine until special relativity arrived on the scene, and then it got complicated, you agree because half the material on this forum is about mass confusion. Sure there are ways for experts like you to get around the maze but it's far from elegant. Not asking you to agree with me yet, but if or when I find the proof, I will
Strange Posted July 22, 2015 Posted July 22, 2015 I think I have been consistent in my use of the terms potential and potential energy. I don't think that showing a calculation for potential energy and then saying "no I meant voltage" is very consistent. Funny you should mention gravity, can you definitively show that gravity is not an electrical potential? Yes. For the reasons given, among others. Well maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong, time will show. I am trying to show you that the classic notion of gravity as a force is wrong. According to relativity, it is wrong. However, you seem to want to replace it with the Coulomb force. Which obviously doesn't work.
swansont Posted July 22, 2015 Posted July 22, 2015 I think I have been consistent in my use of the terms potential and potential energy. Absolute Potential and Relative Potential is measured in Volts, it is the SI unit. No, you haven't, and *electric* potential is measured in volts. Not gravitational potential. Regardless, it's not proportional to speed.
Strange Posted July 22, 2015 Posted July 22, 2015 Trying not to go there in this thread. Sounds like you couldn't help yourself. But at least you have provided the proof that you are wrong. Humans have a knack for conjuring up beliefs I call them "fairies" some are obvious, For example, the belief that a voltage difference will exert a force on an uncharged object.
beejewel Posted July 23, 2015 Author Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) This is more or less how I would represent the wave function.. The potential of the wavefunction is the wave height, usually referred to as U, this potential has two sides to it, one side is U/t and manifests itself as electrostatic force, perpendicular to this lies the space axis which gives rise to U/r and manifests itself as gravity. In the horizontal plane the wave function is r/t which is velocity. Of course there is a fourth axis which I can't easily represent in 2D, and it would be the magnetic side. There is only one potential axis and it is the tension axis, which can be either positive or negative. So this more or less explains why I suspect velocity and potential to be absolute and limited with respect to the observer. Edited July 23, 2015 by beejewel -1
ajb Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 This is more or less how I would represent the wave function.. The wave function of what? The picture does not look anything like wave functions from any physics textbook I have seen.
Strange Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 So this more or less explains why I suspect velocity and potential to be absolute and limited with respect to the observer. It doesn't matter what you suspect; neither of them are absolute and, as far as I know, there is no reason to think that voltage difference is limited.
Mordred Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 The wave function of what? The picture does not look anything like wave functions from any physics otextbook I have seen. Nor I
Recommended Posts