This thread makes me think of Steven Hawking.


Now hold still while I break some backs. TO THE WHEELCHAIR WITH YE!

Yeah, something like a few million or billion years to create a gram's worth, I think.

Now, you've said that time isn't a fourth dimension, but let me tell you my definition of a dimension, and you tell me why my definition is wrong:

Unique events are unique. One thing happens over here, the other over there. Or maybe one thing happens here at 2:00 and another at 3:00. Two events happening right now at different locations are unique because they have distinct coordinates that define their position within the spatial ("normal 3") dimensions. The two events are not the same thing because they differ within the normal 3 dimensions.

However, two events occuring at the same place at different times are still unique events... only the coordinates defining their spatial position are the same. So are they not unique events? No, because they differ in another coordinate- the time coordinate.

Thus, time, like the 3 spatial dimensions, distinguishes between unique events. I would call anything that does so a 'dimension'. So why are "the 3" real and time not?




I'm sorry, but if that is an accurate representation of your understanding of Classical Physics, then you are grossly mistaken. Classical Physics states exactly what you just said. The effect that you described, the so-called 'centrifugal force', is recognized by classical physics to be an imaginary force- one that appears to exist only because of one's reference frame. There is no actual force exerted on your head; it merely continues travelling in the same direction it was until something else (the rest of your body) exerts a turning force on it. This is all in accord with classical physics.

How does your theory deal with real forces, say me pushing a box across the floor, or an electron repelling another electron?



Sometimes it's possible to not understand something because it is illogical or is presented in a poor manner.


I have a lot more questions about your later posts, as well, but I'd like to see you respond to these objections first.

To elaborate, the reason the bottom of the car starts moving first is because that's where the tires grip. If the middle or top of the car gripped something, force would come from that area of the car as well.



That paragraph explains the force you're trying to disprove, centrifugul force. Your head is "lagging behind" because of the FORCE moving it forward. The only reason it changes direction is because of the pull (another FORCE) from the rest of your body. It seems you're trying to build a model of physics here in which forces do not exist or act upon objects. If that's what you're proposing, how exactly do things move and change direction? Sheer force of will? The will of...what?

edit: I love this thread, my faith in Massassi is rekindled.

Okay--here is about all I've gotten from the last 5 posts.

I hate pants.

*just wanted to kill Crimson's love for massassi*

Anyways...Centrifugal force isn't really...a force. It's inertia. So he's trying to disprove inertia?

Whoa, what physics class did you take in high school? Since when does classic physics explain that with a force? Clearly the only force in that situation is the centripetal frictional force that holds the car to the road (simplified, of course). And inertia is definitely part of classical physics, is it not?

Centrifugal force is just really Newton's Third Law being applied. Using the example of the car, when you turn, the force points in the direction of the acceleration which is inward. Newton's Third Law says that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So the equal an opposite reaction to the force pointing in is centrifugal force.

No...centrifugal force is a made up force which is explained by inertia.

That's what my physics teacher and the other one in my school say at least. And one of them was an engineer...so I'm pretty sure he knows what he's talking about :p

Wait, wait, so his argument is that TIME is not an ENTITY? Who ever thought time was an entity? He said it was just like length and width...which are dimensions. Which makes time another dimension. Which I thought wa sa fairly well accepted theory. Hell, I figured that one out on my own.

Remember kiddies: Faster than light travel is possible, providing the light isn't in a vaccuum.

The appearance of a centrifugal force is merely inertia (as previously stated 30 billion times :p) the moving object wishes to keep its motion. Then a force is used to turn it BUT IT STILL WANTS TO KEEP ITS LINEAR MOTION (Capitals used for emphisas, not yelling. We don't want a flame war.)

Centrifugal forces are imaginary, but that's just my 2 cents, my physics teacher's 2 cents, and Bill Neyes (sp?) 2 cents.

http://timecube.com/

Everything you need to know about a theory of everything.

And here we though Friend14's theory sounded odd.

Actually, since I'm enjoying ranting on this thread, now I'll rant about inertia:

It isn't real.

Inertia is not a property of matter.

Properties of matter are quantities that vary from object to object. For example, energy, mass, velocity, volume, density, and so on are all properties of matter- each thing that you're measuring can have more or less of each of these.

An object cannot have more or less 'inertia'. People often make the claim, "Inertia is the property of matter that makes it continue at constant velocity until some force is applied to it." Well, that's not a property: that's a law (Newton's first, in fact). All matter in the universe obeys that law completely; the 'amount' that it obeys that law cannot change. Thus, inertia isn't really a property of matter but a principle that it obeys.

Sure, then you can say, "But for some objects, you have to exert more of a force to get a given acceleration than for others." Yeah, that's true, too. But the property of matter that determines how much force you'd need to exert for a given acceleration is the object's mass. The greater the mass, the more force you need to exert to get the same acceleration. People often say, "It has a lot of inertia," when they mean that it needs a great deal of force to accelerate. What they really mean to say is, "It has a lot of mass." There's no good reason to have two names for exactly the same concept- if you're talking about how much inertia something has, chances are you could replace the word inertia with the word mass without changing the meaning one bit.

The idea of "inertia" was postulated back when the ideas stated in Newton's laws were relatively new. Physicists figured there had to be something within the matter that made it resist acceleration the way it did. They called this substance "inertia". Things that accelerated less easily had less of this invisible substance, which is why they appeared to have more mass.

Today, however, we know that this effect is really due to a fundamental property of mass/matter itself.

The concept of "inertia" is equivalent to the idea of "phlogiston" (the substance that was supposed to flow out of things when they burned, causing the flames, etc.) or "ether" (the substance that was supposed to permeate all of space and be a medium for the travelling of light waves-- since all other waves were known to have some medium, scientists used to think electromagnetic waves also had to have a medium, so they named it ether).

Why such an obsolete concept is still taught in school physics courses eludes me, but I guess maybe it isn't that big of a deal...

Isn't that why inertia is really just mass? I believe Mort said something about that at one time...mass and inertia are interchangable. And my physics teacher acknowledged this.

Very true.

I just don't see the point of having two words for it.

Hold the phone. I'll admit, I'm not a physics expert, but I'll still try to make a logical point.

Inertia is the law stating that any object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. When people say that something has a lot of inertia, thus making it harder to move are using the term inertia incorrectly. If I apply 50 Newtons to a moving block that block will change velocity due to that force of 50 Newtons. If the block does not move with all 50 Newtons of force, then that means that there was a friction force or some other opposing force.


I don't entirely agree with this. I agree that the person really meant "it has a lot of mass," but that is because they were using inertia incorrectly. Inertia and mass are Not the same thing. Inertia basically says that the velocity will not decay or grow or change in any way shape or form without outside influence. Having something hard to move due to high mass means that there is a frictional force which is increased by the higher normal force [(Ff)=(u)(Fn) where (Fn) is assumed to be (m)(g) in this case] acting against you.

Again, just my 2 cents, but please consider what I say with an open mind.

That's not why though. It's because it has more mass...when a rocket leaves the Earth, it's not friction that holds the Earth in place, the mass resists the force...Same thing when you jump off the ground. Which is the same if you jump off a boat onto a dock, the boat moves back. So does the Earth, although it's not enough to notice. Hope that made sense in how I meant it.

I always liked the shopping cart analogy. An empty shopping cart is easy to push. Fill it with items and it gets harder to push because it's exerting a force back onto you. And you can't just blame that on friction, especially with ball bearing casters for wheels. It's not significant enough.

See Newton's Laws of Motion for details.

When we did inertia at college, my teacher got me to stand on a skateboard and then she stood on another one and we took turns pushing eachother. Got the message across pretty quick that yeah, they basically are the same thing.

Actually it has to do with tention and elasticty. If you look at an elasticity curve you'll see that as an object stretches it gains more tention. As long as it doesn't pass the breaking point, it will return to it's original form. So, it's the tention, not a force, that pulls your body.

For example, place a small block at the end of a spring. Pull the other end of the spring. After a moment either the block will begin to move in the direction of the spring (where the spring is attempting to return to it's 'relaxed' state) or the spring will surpass it's breaking point and will not return to it's original 'relaxed' state.

Yes, mass and inertia are exactly the same thing.

The word 'inertia' tends to be used for moving systems or when the actual motion is important, and 'mass' otherwise. But inertial and gravitational mass are fundementally indisguinishable.

I can see why the term would be useful though, it definitely does help in giving a physical meaning to the first Law. I'm sure I've used it quite a few times in explaining the concept to non-science people.

Do you have like, a random fact creator that just spews forth random data from bodily orifices? I swear it's like you keep making up stuff anytime someone debunks your claims. First it's one thing, then it's actually another. Then it doesn't really exist!

The tension is what causes the force to move your body. Tension is potential engergy, when it is released as kinetic energy the FORCE from this release is what moves your body. Tension is a property of matter, it cannot physically DO anything.

I would think that, having a degree in physics, you would know how to spell things like tension and elasticity. Use the spellchecker before posting please, it makes your posts easier to read.

Friend14, you haven't addressed my last post yet.

Sorry, I haven't read through all the posts, since I'm really tired, and I apologize in advance if this comment has already been brought up, but...

Go back 400 years ago, and tell someone that one day there will be a motorised horse with wheels that will ba able to travel at 300km/h. They would laugh at you. To that person, point out the moon, and tell them that one day, man will build build a flying device that will travel to the moon, and man will one day walk on it. they would probably ask what drugs you're on, and could you possibly share some.

I think it is very easy to think now that light speed and time travel are impossible. I'm inclined to believe these things myself, but it's impossible to know what the future will hold.

The difference being, even 400 years ago, those things might have seemed odd, but not impossible. They didn't violate any laws of physics, not even by their standards.

Travelling at the speed of light does violate the laws of physics, and it is impossible.

If you went back 400 years and said "hey, in the future, humans will be able to morph into crocodiles" then they'd say that was ridiculous and crazy. If you said that to people today.. they'd say that was ridiculous and crazy.

Just because something isn't 'possible' now it doesn't mean it will be possible in the future. And travelling at or beyond the speed of light is more than just 'not possible', it's physically impossible.