It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
1) Mass is not determined by weight at all. Even remotely.
If I know the weight of an object and I know the local gravitational field that it is subject to, then I can determine its mass. Thusly, mass can be and is determined by and from weight.
3) Things start to have weight when they are affected by a gravitational field. A gravitational field is a force that acts upon particles of matter. Particles like protons and neutrons. But one proton remains just one proton. A billion protons still remain a billion protons. That has nothing to do with the gravitational field acting on them. Any more than 10 oranges become anything other than 10 oranges when subjected to different gravitational fields.
All things have weight, all the time. The rest I agree with.
Originally posted by Aronolac
It is possible to attain multiples of the speed of light if science should begin to look at certain phases of energy differently.
I postulated where the inquiring mind has to look to get the scent of the real answer to the question.
Mass in a relative universe does not change
For a given body, it is impossible for the mass to change in its own frame of reference. (My emphasis)
Originally posted by Aronolac
There exists a unit of matter in the universe that has no debt to gravity.
The universe is permeated by great rivers and streams of another type of energy unit that is basic to other matter. Electrons are composed of them; neutrons bear their presence, and so do quarks. Their characteristics are observable, not by their charge, or by their mass, but by the direction and speed of their spin.
Since they have no debt to material gravity, they can be used to shield mass from the linear circuitry of gravity. In a weird sense, gravity goes right through them and never knows anything was there. These units of energy can cloak a material object and make it appear massless. These energy units are like chamaeleons - it reflects the background - and when our theoretical space ship surrounds itself with their presence, and enters the major highways of energy in space, many times the speed of light can be attained.
I have not the foggiest idea about how to accomplish doing what I describe above, but some out there is those labs are getting close even though they have not yet named the unit of energy.
It is these units of energy that science is today tinkering with in its concept of "free" energy for one thing...
Originally posted by d60944
This is the error you are making though. You are confusing mathematical formula with actual causative reality. The gravitational fields and the weight are caused by mass. Mass is not caused by them.
F=mv, yes (weight = gravity x mass). However, the mass is a mathematical *constant* in the equation.
For a given body, it is impossible for the mass to change in its own frame of reference. It's weight and the field acting upon can quite easily change though. And indeed the weight is directly proportional to the field.
(don't get confused by relativity, which is about how its mass is measured to observers who are moving[/stationary] relative to it)
A constant value is a mathematical reality. The mass is termed the constant of proportionality in the equation.
...π will be different for different values of c and d - it will indeed be different - it just NEVER IS,
and that is why the equation is useful). What the equation tells us is that c and d are related by way of a fixed value of π.
If you cannot understand this, then there is no hope for you with mathematics. I am sorry.
Well, no they don't. Think back to c= πd.... not all values of d (which is in fact the length of straight line) also have associated circumference. A straight line is not a circle. It is not a diameter unless you imply the cirlce. Similarly, weight is only there when you have force (gravity) in the picture.
If you refuse to adopt the definitions of the things which are an antecedent for the formulae to work, then it is pointless to appeal to the formulae themselves. Settings of definitions and origins precedes playing with those defintions and origins.
Originally posted by DarkSide
Not understanding something isn't thinking outside of it.
The only big ego I see here is you. Want me to quote? "I am everything" "I know everything" "highschool physics cannot contain me".
Wrong, I'm against scientific dogma and for the funding of alternative research.
The words "fail" and "ignorance" are neither attacks nor are they nasty language.
Replies which you've chosen to ignore. Your loss not ours
Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
F=mv, yes (weight = gravity x mass). However, the mass is a mathematical *constant* in the equation.
Only if you limit the possibilities of the equation and therefore your mind and the universe.
(don't get confused by relativity, which is about how its mass is measured to observers who are moving[/stationary] relative to it)
Everything is relative.
A constant value is a mathematical reality. The mass is termed the constant of proportionality in the equation.
And a constant inconsistency is also a constant.
...π will be different for different values of c and d - it will indeed be different - it just NEVER IS,
Could you please clarify as to how and why it will indeed be different, how and why it could be different, and then why you assume that it never will be?
and that is why the equation is useful). What the equation tells us is that c and d are related by way of a fixed value of π.
Not true. As stated above by yourself, n will indeed be different, but for some reason mathematics hasn't found or accepted why.
If you cannot understand this, then there is no hope for you with mathematics. I am sorry.
They told Tesla and Einstein the same thing. This isn't news to me.
Originally posted by d60944
Mathematics is an analogue form of rigorous application of logic. If you want to be illogical then fair enough - but dont expect anyone to take you seriously.
What's that got to do with my statement? Yes all things are relative to a chosen frame of reference. That is the point. If instead you are trying to claim that everything is in motion or under the influence of something else and there is no frame of reference in which this is not the case
then consider that a point object is de facto stationary relative to itself. But I don't know what point you are trying to make by your comment....
No it isn't. Mathematically speaking. It's a variable in that case.
A circle with values of c = 5 and d d = 10 will yield up a different value...
... we should be using the appropraie formula for the geometry we are using.
So, no, it is not a matter of accepting anything. Your proposition is like insiating mathematics find a way to accept that 1 = 2.
Not true. Their mathematics is impeccable! It is the physics that it implies that caused problems.
I'm going to stop now, as this feels like I imagine it feels to try to spoonfeed a walrus a Landrover.
Good luck with your exploration of mathematics.
Originally posted by d60944
Rob - he has a name (male ;-))
Originally posted by Astyanax
My apologies, Rob, and a star for your stout defence of logic and reason in this howling waste of irrationality.
* * *
I think the problem should now be clear to you. You freely confess that you have no experimental results to substantiate your theory. More damningly, you are unable to address specific phenomena in the physical universe theoretically - certainly not with the necessary degree of logical (i.e. mathematical) rigour. If you could, you would have answered my questions very differently.
What in particular about this unit of energy appears, maybe, to breach the (the Second Law of Thermodynamics)?
You know you have collected them when your engine begins to run without traditional fuel.