Spin Mechanics

a reply to: verschickter

Yes but the effect of time dilation could in fact compress the object.

Not difficult to understand given the range of conclusions out their.

a reply to: Kashai

What´s your point again? Compressed or not, at some point, in theory (assuming you can do it), the outer atoms will be at the speed of light. Not difficult to understand. To use your own words.

What´s the point of your thread again?

Consider that all stars at death are spinning and if they are massive enough to become black holes, what happens in relation to that rate of spin?

a reply to: Kashai

I don´t know, if you know, simply say it. What are you trying to tell us?? You want us to explain something to you but you act like you already know it. What´s your point?

a reply to: verschickter

That basing a point upon semantic differences is irrelevant.

Actual research into the potential of matters reaction to relative speeds trumps guess work. Based upon nothing but a conservative interpretation of something that can only be verified by actually preforming an experiment.

Besides that the math makes clear that in construct accelerating an object to near C alters the structure and contents to an extent time dilation is experienced.

Is that difficult to understand?

a reply to: verschickter

I did not say I knew anything.

Actually preforming this experiment would resolve an issue which as I have pointed out. I opinion that mass would increase.

In relation to actually conducting such an experiment there is the issue of having a rather serious containment problem.

If the object flies apart then text books would change and if it does not then text books would change. either way

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: chr0naut

No I mean, If I say I predicted that the moon will disappear. What does this sentence imply?

a) the moon disappeared (already)
b) the moon will disappear (in future)

remember, I wrote predicted.

It does not have to do with your post but since you´re mother language is english, I thought I´d ask you.

Oh, I misunderstood.

By definition of the scientific method: observation comes first, leading the scientist to formulate a theory as to how the observed may happen.

The scientist then tries to determine if the theory is correct.

One of the initial tasks is usually (especially in physics) to model the situation mathematically and then calculate things that would happen as a result of the process of the theory. By reducing the process of the theory down to numbers and equations, confusion as to word meanings can be avoided. It has been argued that this reductionist thinking is invalid in the light of a chaotic and complex reality, but it does fit the scale of our mental processes.

Then, the mathematical model can guide us as to what to expect for our experimental results and can also guide the design of the experiment so as to increase its specificity. These expected results are the predictions of the theory.

The scientist would then perform the experiment and verify the results. New experiments with different values and designs are repeated to either strengthen confidence, reduce experimental error or disprove the theory.

This process feeds back into the start to build further theory on the basis of other tested theory.

Note that for many reasons, classical scientific method is not always followed. Like in music, where great artists often break the rules and produce works of genius, sometimes scientists don't follow the rules and they come to understandings that are not systematic and incremental (Einstein's GR & SR are a bit like that). This usually means that we don't have the ability to test the theories directly but must work towards confidence in the theory by other methods.

E.g: like with the Higgs Boson, we cannot absolutely prove the particle, because we are talking a high energy, random, quantum event. We can repeat the experiment until statistically, the theoretical particle signal and energy level is significant enough to be proven.

By the way, if English is not your first language, you are still quite articulate in it.

Cheerz!

" It has been argued that this reductionist thinking is invalid in the light of a chaotic and complex reality, but it does fit the scale of our mental processes."

Based upon what conclusion?

A reductionist one?

Do you have any idea how "funny" what you have just said really is?

By that I do not mean funny in the general sense.

a reply to: chr0naut
for the post, if you don´t mind, I sent you an U2U.
I somehow feel bad because what you wrote is roughly what I wrote 2 hours before in another thread ^^.
Not that nicely worded, of course. My question is still another, I sent you a U2U if you don´t mind and made it clear
Before I get to offtopic. Sorry for the hassle but I appreciate your post!

a reply to: Kashai

originally posted by: Kashai
" It has been argued that this reductionist thinking is invalid in the light of a chaotic and complex reality, but it does fit the scale of our mental processes."
...
Do you have any idea how "funny" what you have just said really is?
....
By that I do not mean funny in the general sense.

Why don´t you correct him instead of asking rethorical questions? Enlighten us if you´re able to. Instead of what you are doing constantly please.

a reply to: verschickter

In science being wrong about something means you get to work on something else.

Spinning an object the size of a ball bearing to near C has never been tried.

How's that for Enlightenment?

a reply to: Kashai
The quote above my own last two lines is there for a reason.
Try again. I added a reply tag of yours above the quote, in case you oversaw it was you I was talking to.

second double post in my whole career on ats, I´m sorry.

a reply to: verschickter

My point is "I do not know".

I that not obvious?

I am not interested in semantic arguments I want proof related to actually conducting the experiment.

I have presented that there is evidence to support my position but that evidence is not different than my detractors

They could be right and I could be wrong but I doubt such a conclusion.

You see there arguments fall into the context of semantics all things considered.

My point is that same context no more or less valid because the experiment has not been conducted.

a reply to: Kashai

My point is "I do not know". I that not obvious?

absolutly not.

Do you have any idea how "funny" what you have just said really is?

It seems you have but we not. So enlighten us.


Because you edited your post after I wrote mine, I now take actions. The above quote was everything that was there when replied.

a reply to: verschickter

Reductionist models for consciousness are no longer treated seriously.

There was a really big problem back in the 60's because then they actually were taken seriously.

a reply to: Kashai
What was the problem? Hippies?

a reply to: verschickter

No the way people were treated in Mental Health Facilities. And the reasons why they were placed their.



Willowbrook State School

a reply to: Kashai

Now I get where you are coming from. But I consider his sentence in the context that our human brain can not fathom the complexity (at least now) of the universe, thus we need to reduce it to a certain point.

It´s like when you let away friction in a calculation because it´s not significant in the bigger picture (for example fritcion is so small, it only changes the calulation by a factor of 1.0000000001)

a reply to: chr0naut

Could you be Otis Eugene Ray (Doctor of Cubism and Wisest Human)?

Judging by the silence, you may well have scored a direct hit!

a reply to: Astyanax

Actually I am a Caribbean Indian raised with respect that that culture until I was seven years old.

From there I was provided a "Western Education" and one reason being the extent I developed while relating to my Indigenous Background.