1. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

    Like everyone else here, I like to think of myself as “smart”… at least on a few issues I take the time to study.

    SCIENCE always leaves me feeling a bit deficient. Maybe more theoretical physics…. as I got AGW down pretty well for an average joe.

    Newtonian physics makes sense to me. So does Einsteins warping space. I had not recognized before that the ball on a rubber sheet still didn’t explain the gravity “pulling” aspect of it.

    So now…. does this explanation explain anything more deeply, or just put another analogy on the table.

    …………… I don’t know. Like trying to compose music… I just can’t do it, can’t conceptualize/visualize the key recognition here. I get in on some certain simple level, but think I’m missing what it really means so as to apply it to some other aspect of physics.

    Well…… life goes on.

    • Marc Perkel says:

      I have the same problem. Just can’t quite wrap my brain around it.

      He’s another way of looking at it. Me and the Earth are two objects moving at the same speed through space. So we should be floating next to each other. But because of mass the Earth is moving through time slower so because of that it’s moving slightly slower than me. Because it’s slower I’m pushing into it, and that’s gravity.

      • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

        I’m not going to even try to understand that analogy…. mostly because I don’t understand why mass would increase as you approach the speed of light. Why would the two concepts even be related? They are represented by two different symbols just to start with.

        E=mc2

        Why would energy be related to the speed of light…. and then why the speed of light squared??

        Makes no sense at all to me. I did take a few days a while back to read up on how this formula came to be and was getting close to some insight…. but then I slept overnight and lost it all.

        Seems to me you would be pushing into Mother Earth only if you were behind it? If you are only next to it, then you should slowly separate? No… on this analogy, the ball on a rubber sheet makes more sense to me.

        To what degree do we need to “see” an idea in our minds in order to understand it? I’ve read that Einstein could actually “see” his mind experiments..in the same way I can see that ball on a rubber sheet. Its the magic of insight.

        One of my top 10 songs for many reasons:

        https://youtube.com/watch?v=FhmeroR20lc

        • Tim says:

          “”Why would energy be related to the speed of light

          It’s right there in the ‘emck’ equation you quoted… just look. Acquired kinetic energy. derp;.

          btw, I was asked why the feather and the nigger-egg dropped at the same rate in vaccuo by a particularly bitter envoy of satan who just also happened to be an 8’th grade physics teacher. I got it wrong so she told me to go to the white room and not draw eyes on dollar bills — then we had sex {not really}…… My reasoning was based on the observable nature of acceleration and the newtonian derivation of force/work thereof — The force is more on the bowling ball but there is just an equivalent amount of more of it to move…

          The reality is that even though bobbo is not moving in space he is still pretty fucking heavy just sitting there because he is still moving in TIME along the same space-time warp.

          • Clotho says:

            and *weave* sister. don’t you go forgetting weave. derpess.

          • Atropos says:

            Ohh, shut up, CC. That’s not how any of this works…

          • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

            Thanks Timmy……. I have “so many” questions but no one as qualified as you to answer them.

            I thought kinetic energy only existed within a gravity field, and as such only addresses attraction or force of gravity rather than energy itself? I must be wrong on that. Please explain.

            Yes, I can “see” the relationship of E to m to c to squared==when I read the formula. I’m talking about understanding the relationships before, during and after reading the formula. Why is it the aqure of the speed of light rather than say directly proportional to the Avragodo number or number of quarkes? Why is it squared instead o doubled or cubed? My spidey sense of right and wrong leaves me without a clue.

            Energy isn’t about the speed of things as that is only one expression of energy.

            Thinking about my ignorance, I see many of my remaining questions are about Black Holes. How come light aka photons can’t escape but radiation can? Why can’t the photons without mass escape or is that a commonly understood synonym for the Hawkin Radiation that does leak out?

            How can anyone propose that as you get spaghettified that you may not even be aware you are in a black hole and that we may be in one now? aka==I think these so called physicists are BS artists.

            ….. but I don’t understand what that means either. Even the BS is mysterious. Talking to these theorists is like listening to a Theist. All totally convinced of what they are saying, making no sense at all, and I can only accept or reject on faith.

            I do tend toward rejecting….. I’m just an electron kind of guy.

          • Tim says:

            you need a more fleshed out equation to see very much. EMC is the ‘rest mass’ energy equivalent which is useful for explaining that a little bit of bomb can go a long way.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation

            ———————————-

            The massless photons are trapped because of that curve in spacetime again… closed upon itself or lining the walls of a bottomless pit…

            ———————

            The Hawking radiation

            “”A slightly more precise, but still much simplified, view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle-antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy

            “”A slightly more precise, but still much simplified, view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle-antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy…

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation#Overview

            ——————————–

            silly kinetic energy. it’s what you have after accellerating something. it’s the one that depends as the square of the velocity. it’s what you have lots of after converting gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy when you’re pushed out of windows. It’s why bullets hurt and bits of asteroid blow up worlds… It’s why your brakes get hot when you take it back out of your car.
            ——————-

            Science. only good for carbon taxes and how proprietary cleaning molecules are stuffed to the brim in the bright red box moms have trusted for generations.

          • Tim says:

            “”How can anyone propose that as you get spaghettified that you may not even be aware you are in a black hole and that we may be in one now?

            It would appear that you have found yourself in a very dense place for a long time. Forever, actually; because time has apparently stopped in and around your locality somewhat.

            Hmm. Still-sentient spagetti?? We’d probably all be better off just leaving that thing in there… nothing to be done about it now, anyways…

            —————–

            p.s. to feel a little less dirty about the relativistic equations of motion then don’t forget to let v<<c to see they converge on the classical forms…

          • bobbo, the AGW hair on fire single issue advocat who long ago would have doused himself in plant based ethanol and lit himself aflame to bring light and heat to this subject if it were not for my love of beer says:

            Tim–thanks for Hawkin radiation. I’ve read that before, imagine I understand that…. as much as one can understand + and – particles springing into existence in the vacuum of space and within a black hole where we can observe.

            e = mc2.

            In my own simple way, I look at the formula and when you take away the speed of light which does seem like something other than energy or mass then what our universe actually is is all energy? It somehow bundles together or vibrates and creates the perceived effect of mass…. but as we cut reality into smaller and smaller pieces, all we find is empty space and energy?

            My spidey sense tells me there is no such thing as a thing or stuff or matter…. its all energy…. “♫ the magic length of god….”

            I’m sure on a theoretical level, its as useful as any other idea much more than a “required” 17 dimensions to make string theory work. Talk about hip wader territory.

            I agree its the expanded forumal where any real understanding of e=mc2 will come from…. if at all.

            joules. “the work done on a body….” simple words….. don’t understand them. What “work” is being done on an uranium atom otherwise at rest?

            blah, blah.

          • Tim says:

            IDK, bobbo. Nodes and antinodes, it is a zero-sum game — Somehow, music still comes out of a guitar…

            all i know is you don’t know shit about the relationship between AGW and CO2… Niether does Earth, apparently…

          • Tim says:

            “”particles springing into existence in the vacuum of space and within a black hole where we can observe.

            Oh, that reminds me; append to the list of everyday observances of aquired kinetic energy…. how to create black holes at LHC where a lead atom used to be by putting lots of kinetic energy into little bits of good stuff and then driving like you respect the law…

      • pedro says:

        The weight difference is why gravity works. The video did a pretty nice job showing how that weight difference affects objects (how it works).

      • NewFormatSux says:

        No one will ever believe you have the same problem as bobbo.

    • Says says:

      ‘What goes up..Must come down!”

      • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

        Not if it has escape velocity.

        ………but ……..good effort.

    • Tim says:

      “”SCIENCE always leaves me feeling a bit deficient.…. as I got AGW down pretty well for an average joe.

      Umm, Would it be considered to be sweet sweet irony that the champion of the SCIENCE of AGW has no concept of kinetic energy thus most likely a weak concept of temperature????

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory
      http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/kintem.html

      Kinetic Energy — the energy of motion. and the beat goes on…

      • bobbo, the AGW hair on fire single issue advocat who long ago would have doused himself in plant based ethanol and lit himself aflame to bring light and heat to this subject if it were not for my love of beer says:

        I don’t think so……rather a concrete example that each “fact” of science has the duality of standing on its own WHILE being interconnected and woven into the fabric of knowing what the f*ck you are talking about.

        Kinetic Energy…everything eventually turns into heat which ultimately cools to zero.

        Entropy.

        Seems to me the burden of believing in magic, aka=not understanding the science of it, AKA=not knowing the formula most directly points to those who understand photons hit the atmosphere turning their kinetic energy into heat. And that heat ….. heats up the Earth.

        How can you avoid the physics of only two dots and the heavy line of causation between them?

        • Tim says:

          the ‘science’ is being perverted. The goal is the continued enslavement and eventual destruction of humans which threaten the final transhuman elite.

          However, *scientists* used to think heat was a fluid. They didn’t know about kinetic energy either.

          “”The caloric theory is an obsolete scientific theory that heat consists of a self-repellent fluid called caloric that flows from hotter bodies to colder bodies. Caloric was also thought of as a weightless gas that could pass in and out of pores in solids and liquids.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caloric_theory

          The funny thing was, it worked for whatever they wanted to model and had nice little analogies with fluid dynamics… until it didn’t…

          • bobbo, the AGW hair on fire single issue advocat who long ago would have doused himself in plant based ethanol and lit himself aflame to bring light and heat to this subject if it were not for my love of beer says:

            Science? Of the type that annouced its practice with a red and white stripe pole?

            Silly conflation of history, metaphor, and willful stupidity.

            With the earth heating 2 Degrees a century up due to co2 concentration in the atmosphere…. what do you surmise will be “the eventual destruction of humans .”

            I mean……..just take a wild guess?

            Hint: its not paying more than 34% in taxes.

          • Tim says:

            bobbo, now you’re acting like a lame duck trying to sacrifice a rook in an attempt to distract me from having pinned your queen and king with mate in two. I’m not THAT arrogant as to miss that {well, sometimes i am. i tend to be able to get pregnant on those days}.

            Ohh… You’ll appreciate the high quality producion value on this one — because, you know…

            We Want Your Soul..
            http://youtube.com/watch?v=_WTBkj8gFfI

            and something not quite theologically correct… just to piss alphie off…
            http://youtube.com/watch?v=4WBK3U4f4ao

  2. Ted says:

    And I’m eve more confused than before, yet understood the whole thing.

  3. What? The moth is always drawn to the flame? says:

    Truth is, they don’t know.

    The observed effect does not constitute an understanding of the physical process, but merely the reaction of the physical world to it.

    Just as observing fire erupt from a match does constitute an understanding of the chemistry of ignition.

    Are there gravitons? Does gravity move at the speed of light, or faster? Can gravity exhibit wave propagation? These basic physical properties are unobserved, unmeasured, or unconfirmed.

    Physics is about the physical world, however fleeting or lasting. Theory is useful in attempting to interpret the data, as theory can be tested against new data.

    When you don’t have measurements, or data, the theory is useful in identifying where to look for data. But theory doesn’t provide data, much to the chagrin of science charlatans.

    In the macro world, theory does a good job of predicting physical outcomes. Dig too deep, and there are a lot of ideas supported tenuously, if at all.

    • Test Tube says:

      Not that I read the rest of the posting but there’s a good question you brought up What.

      Why doesn’t gravity affect fire? No matter where the fuel is, the actual flame always seems to go against gravity and burn upwards (the opposite direction of gravity).

      I wonder if any of out third grade theologians can answer that one.

      • bobbo, the AGW hair on fire single issue advocat who long ago would have doused himself in plant based ethanol and lit himself aflame to bring light and heat to this subject if it were not for my love of beer says:

        Huh? Fire weighs less than the “air” it is burning in. In a very real sense, it is still gravity that is making fire go in the opposite direction. Its the heavier air moving in gravity’s direction.

        • What? The moth is always drawn to the flame? says:

          The density of air, heated by fire, is lower than the surrounding air not heated.

          Because the column1 of air, heated by fire, is less dense, that column exerts less pressure on the area at the bottom of the column.

          The pressure, at the bottom of the column, is equal to heated-air density*height of the column*acceleration of gravity.

          The pressure of the adjacent, unheated, air, at a height equal to the bottom of the column is unheated-air density*height of the column*acceleration of gravity.

          Note: unheated air density is greater than heated air density, and hence unheated air pressure is greater than heated air pressure.

          As the surrounding air, at a height equal to the bottom of the column of heated air, has a higher pressure than the column of heated air, the surrounding air exerts an upward force on the column of heated air. QED.

          1, We make the simplifying assumption that the heated air is in a column. In fact, the principle would hold for any shape experiencing an acceleration. http://youtu.be/y8mzDvpKzfY

      • Tim says:

        I don’t know how you burned up your ship but in real microgravity, the convection is not so much present.

        microgravity combustion.
        http://youtube.com/watch?v=SZTl7oi05dQ

        the ‘tip’ or tendancy for a pointy top part is as a result of charged plasma — electrical effect.

        • Tim says:

          that ‘tip’ is also the result of higher velocity plasma in that thin channel because direction as it kicked straight off the stick-shaped combustible in an asymetric fashion as it was the end of the rod and not in the ‘diffuse’ radial direction equally.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            Timmmmmmay===we should both affirm that we are not third grade theologians but rather ungraded …… something else? Unless by the very nature of the label…. we are all theologians when commenting on magic and the unknown…or the misunderstood…. or the paid to state the opposite?

            I forgot about plasma. I had the great joy of attending a cocktail party. Priest on one side of the room, plasma flux engineers and theoreticians on the other side of the room. As the only wallflower in the joint, I enjoyed telling both sides they were wrong.

            Was there any meeting of the minds in agreement or disagreement? Everyone did agree that molesting kiddies and covering the crime up was not a very good thing to do…. very chrisitain, but not good. Very little other agreement, but the beer was cold. The scientists and myself enjoyed that.

          • Tim says:

            WTF are you prattling on about, bobbo? What Test Tube has done is demonstrate giving us metanalysis of basement-tape scifi spacefail flames.

            You kinda demonstrated it yourself… without even pointing out that he blew the whole premise out of his ass… you answer him with more IPCC-like admonisions out yours.

            fire in space
            http://youtube.com/watch?v=9zdD7lfB0Fs

          • Tim says:

            anyways, as this is kind of about fire, I thought you might enjoy these examples of ‘clean’ pyrolysis reactions I just now happened to have stumbled upon…

            http://youtube.com/watch?v=jEdK4BQCr_8

          • bobbo, space is cool says:

            Timmmmmmmmay–I was going to apologize for stepping on your fire in microgravity link…. but then looking at it, its not very good.

            Mine is better, at the bottom/newest posting. I’ll wait for your apology for trying to steal my thunder by posting the same link.

            I didn’t take the time to find the very best example either. That match flame in its umbrella shape is totally cool.

            What am I prattling on about? Certainly not anything IPCC related. I was equating plasma physics with the abhorrence of child molestation.

            Just look.

          • Tim says:

            I’m sorry. consider it a retweet.

          • Tim says:

            Compare and contrast —

            fire in microgravity
            http://youtube.com/watch?v=SZTl7oi05dQ

            The end of Silent Running {~ 1 min in…}
            http://youtube.com/watch?v=Rt_fQvavqEA&feature=player_detailpage#t=62

            It’s…. something…

          • Dewey says:

            the Valley Forge was bigger?

          • Tim says:

            ‘clean’ pyrolysis

            What is it good for? Consider the case where a customer has requested a chemical but through regulation, either the manufacure or transport of that product from A to B is prohibitavely expensive.

            But, what if a perfectly legal ‘precursure’ is used as a fuel in a self-contained transport system such as a submarine.

            The desired product is refined as it is being delivered — talk about JIT!

            The refining process is not carried out in the place with the regulations and the very act of refining fuels its’ transport instead of pure it up then push it out…

            I know my views are not popular consensus-quoteable; Fuck you, I’m going green.

    • bobbo, the AGW hair on fire single issue advocat who long ago would have doused himself in plant based ethanol and lit himself aflame to bring light and heat to this subject if it were not for my love of beer says:

      “The observed effect does not constitute an understanding of the physical process, but merely the reaction of the physical world to it. ” /// I like this. Don’t understand it, but thats my reaction to it.

      • What? The moth is always drawn to the flame? says:

        I wrote that just for you.

        • pedro says:

          Best
          Reply
          Ever

          • bobbo, a student of the dismal science who who does not understand Macro Economics once you get off an island with 12 coconuts, 3 canoes, and 6 paddles says:

            Oh Pedro…… so many of my posts are written just for you.

            Clue: look for those posts where shit and brains are not separated by too many words.

          • pedro says:

            Of course, your deflection makes the answer he gave you even better whilst you dig yourself deeper into your self-dug ignorance hole of which I know you’re quite proud of

    • What? The moth is always drawn to the flame? says:

      Just as observing fire erupt from a match does not constitute an understanding of the chemistry of ignition.

  4. Please give Obama a golden parachute so everything doesn't turn to shit says:

    Only works for macro perspective, not micro:

    http://scientificamerican.com/article/the-illusion-of-gravity/

    The Illusion of Gravity
    The force of gravity and one of the dimensions of space might be generated out of the peculiar interactions of particles and fields existing in a lower-dimensional realm
    By Juan Maldacena

    Three spatial dimensions are visible all around us–up/down, left/right, forward/backward. Add time to the mix, and the result is a four-dimensional blending of space and time known as spacetime. Thus, we live in a four-dimensional universe. Or do we?

    Amazingly, some new theories of physics predict that one of the three dimensions of space could be a kind of an illusion–that in actuality all the particles and fields that make up reality are moving about in a two-dimensional realm like the Flatland of Edwin A. Abbott. Gravity, too, would be part of the illusion: a force that is not present in the two-dimensional world but that materializes along with the emergence of the illusory third dimension.

    It is written:

    15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
    16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.
    17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. (Col 1:15-17 NKJ)

    As the Word of God, God the Eternal Son renders God’s thought into our matrix, so by His concurrence the first cause of all events is within the matrix, by God’s power.

    That is a mind blower, particle physics is providing the best irrefutable proof God exists, for without God’s Infinite Mind rendering it, our matrix would not exist.

    • Let Obama Fundraise lest the exploading world turn to shit like everything else he touched says:

      Gravitons have not been found to be actual, they are theoretical only. Virtual particles have no actual mass, their properties are similar to what would exist in something real, tangible, having actual mass.

      Like bobbo, he appears human, but some wonder what happened during his abduction, what was changed….

    • Test Tube says:

      STFU! Anyone who uses a FAIRY TALE like the Holly Bible (more like, bullet ridden “hole-ly”) has no idea what science even IS!

      … And to use scripture that was written by some drunken crazy prehistoric dope smokers as evidence only proves it.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Well TT–I was all set to disagree with you in support of Alfie because………….. well ……………. odds are he can’t be wrong all the time?

        ………..I’ll just keep waiting for that day.

      • Let Obama Fundraise lest the exploading world turn to shit like everything else he touched says:

        Typical leftist, distorting statements because you cannot treat the argument, and win.

        I didn’t quote the Bible to prove the point, I cited Scientific American, and a very common theory among theoretical physicists that gravity does not exist as we suppose.

        I cited the Bible to prove it wasn’t a fairy tale, that the very sensible notion we exist in a matrix (which fits observed reality), is a natural conclusion from the Colossians text.

    • What? The moth is always drawn to the flame? says:

      Gravity is not a force, it is an acceleration.

      Once a mass experiences gravitational acceleration, it, the mass, exerts a force.

      • Let Obama Fundraise lest the exploading world turn to shit like everything else he touched says:

        Does mass exist? So far, no one has found mass, only particles that seem to act as if they have mass, but otherwise do not, hence the Higgs Field to explain it.

        • What? The moth is always drawn to the flame? says:

          What I like to ponder is inertia. Could inertia-less nonzero-mass matter exist? Probably not, but I find that thought fascinating.

          • Tim says:

            Hmm. A more fundamental interaction/intrinsic state like charge/spin? —

            as per your exploding meth-match head…

            “”Newton originally viewed the phenomenon he described in his First Law of Motion as being caused by “innate forces” inherent in matter, which resisted any acceleration…”the innate force possessed by an object which resists changes in motion”; thus Newton defined “inertia” to mean the cause of the phenomenon, rather than the phenomenon itself. However, Newton’s original ideas of “innate resistive force” were ultimately problematic for a variety of reasons, and thus most physicists no longer think in these terms. As no alternate mechanism has been readily accepted, and it is now generally accepted that there may not be one which we can know, the term “inertia” has come to mean simply the phenomenon itself, rather than any inherent mechanism

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia#Classical_inertia

            I wonder what fire does in an inertial dampening field…??

  5. Let Obama Fundraise lest the exploading world turn to shit like everything else he touched says:

    It was such a severe probing of his cavities

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      Hey Alfie–my parents never punished me and I have never punished my kiddies. (Physical… time outs, withdrawal of privileges, having to explain themselves …. all used. watch Alfie demonstrate he’s never experienced such modalities.)

      How come God made hell?

      • Let Obama Fundraise lest the exploading world turn to shit like everything else he touched says:

        Love, hell is an expression of God’s love. Not the hell you believe exists, which is found in Dante’s inferno and pagan beliefs, but the one taught by Christ.

        Yes, there are punishments for sins done, but there is hope for a change of heart, on judgement Day. Its Gehenna, or the lake of fire we should fear, there is no resurrection from it, no judgment that might rescue from it. The physical torment of Gehenna is best illustrated by what it causes, weeping and gnashing of teeth.

        The good news, one must really be committed to evil to end up there. Hell is meant to disabuse everyone of the wisdom of that.

        But Satan, his angels and all who accept the mark of the beast, and all like them, their part is in the lake which burns the physical abomination their souls or spirits are imprisoned in, until they pay back every penny for they owe for their crimes.

        • bobbo, a student of the dismal science who who does not understand Macro Economics once you get off an island with 12 coconuts, 3 canoes, and 6 paddles says:

          Does child protective services know about this?

  6. bobbo, space is cool says:

    Fire in space:

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=9zdD7lfB0Fs

  7. jpfitz says:

    Explain this inertia in a coffee cup. Maybe just the surfaces and weight plus mounting point. I would not have guessed the proper length of time of motion.

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=28GKUdkOeQk

    • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

      You mean you are not a good guesser of outcomes for things outside your normal experience?

      I would have guessed 2-3 minutes as the friction is quite low as is the air resistance.

      If you had bet my life for over/under, I would have said under 6…. I have no such experience other than obviously too different as in spinning tops and quarters. Different issues involved for both of those too…..although…. I have to admit I’ve never actually waited for a spinning bike wheel to actually stop.

      Lots of everyday physics is fun. Show the value of testing and measuring as opposed to being told and believing.

      • jpfitz says:

        Here is a vid about mass. In my field of work measurement was key. Even finger print grease from handling a gauge block would be a nuisance. Enough to almost scrap a Sikorsky helicopter titanium threaded ring with a tolerance of +.0000/-.0002 of an inch at 6 inches or so, i can’t remember the exact diameter. I put the gauge blocks together myself, instead of the inspector. I hadn’t wiped the blocks and about 80 parts were just out of tolerance on the I.D., but Sikorsky checked and bought off the parts. I had to change my underwear at final inspection.

        I think you’ll like this video bobbo.
        https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZMByI4s-D-Y&list=PLrADA23TWqFOpEei9l_lPzP2O5faEAU8A&index=2

      • jpfitz says:

        You never played with a dreidel or a gyroscope toy. How bout taking a large bearing and blow compressed air thru the bearing. Let the bearing go out the shop door when at top speed. That sucker would travel out the door thru the parking lot and down the street. Grown men playing with toys.

        • bobbo, the Climate Change ALARMIST who doesn't want his kiddies boiled to death as the Oilgarchs are currently Hell Bent on doing, and the Science Denying Far Right are ignorantly supporting says:

          That is a nice video… thanks.

          Reconceptualizing anew…I wonder if the basic unit of weight shouldn’t be the gram? It would be cheaper to make as being smaller and it would remove the anomaly of having a prefix in its name. Or–one could just call the kilogram a gram and solve half that issue.

          In high school, I marveled at the Metric System that it was so coherent==based on a measurement of water which was available to everyone. Just as it should be… not some esoteric material. Basing it on a number of atom of some pure material is also good….. but I wonder what all the ramifications are that I don’tunderstand. Its just an arbitrary number/measurement/selection after all. And everyone will still have their thumbs on the scale per their own personal investments.

          So… “top” is not generic enough to include a dreidel and a bike wheel is not specific enough to include as a gryroscope in your buttoned down world? How anal retentive…. yes, I believe you are a machinist.

          Just for coincidence sake: Mom was “friends” with Sikorsky’s son in a special military unit in Germany after the end of WW2, and the chick in the video is remarkably similar to wifey when she was of the same age. Looking good in my view.

          • jpfitz says:

            anal retentive was not the phrase I would have chosen. Being a perfectionist and having a brain that doesn’t know when to shut down after the days work or whatever transpired that day, has made me very good at machining but not with people. Anal, no but I thought myself lazy cause I kept thinking of ways to make whatever work or project I’m involved with take less steps and effort.

          • jpfitz says:

            Yeah, I guess a bike wheel would fit for spinning fun. As a kid I probably did invert my bicycle and spin the tire but with a close pin and playing or baseball card attached.

            I absolutely love the metric system of measurement. So simple, everything is in tens and multiples of ten. Try explaining 7/64″ or 11/16″, I know from years of memorization, but a youngster off the top of their head without any calculator, makes no sense to me why we are the only industrialized nation not using the metric system.

            You’re welcome, I knew the video would be enjoyable to you.

          • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

            That is exactly what anal retentive means. We all have assholes and we all retain. Both are good things considering their alternatives. Its not a bad word or idea except by weirdly retained standards Victorian Prudery and whatever keeps Tits off film while dozens get beheaded.

            Of course, I used clothes pins in the same manner.

            What do you take me for?

  8. jpfitz says:

    Ha, close pin. Clothespin, haven’t used one in decades.

  9. mickray says:

    Before one defines gravity, one must define time. Now shut up slave.

    • bobbo, Big Brained Apes with Lizard Emotions is an Evolutionary Dead End says:

      There is a space time continuum/concept. Gravity one of the four primary forces of the Universe.

      Time for you to…….refresh your basic physics.

      • Tim says:

        Perhaps it is time for us all to refresh our basic physics…

        “”Others have argued that gravity, instead of being a fundamental force of the Universe, is instead an emergent phenomenon. A good deal of this thinking comes from the fact that the equations that describe gravity (in the Newtonian limit, at least) are mathematically similar to those that describe other emergent phenomena, such as fluid mechanics or thermodynamics. Where Dr. Verlinde goes the next step forward is by arguing for a definite mechanism behind gravity: differences in entropy.

        http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/04/is-gravity-a-result-of-thermodynamics/

        Bohmmmm!!!!!!!!

        http://youtube.com/watch?v=Mst3fOl5vH0

        • bobbo, Big Brained Apes with Lizard Emotions is an Evolutionary Dead End says:

          Oh Yeah????

          Doesn’t matter “what” gravity “really” is…fundamental or emerging…the relevant point, the point being addressed is that gravity is not related to the space/time continuum….except as everything is related to everything else.

          Timmmmmmmy==your grounding in physics is admirable. I hope to see you actually apply it to one or more issues of our time.

          • Tim says:

            “”I hope to see you actually apply it to one or more issues of our time.

            Sometimes, bobbo; You really piss me off…

          • bobbo, I'm no math guy says:

            The reply button is back for what I take will be a brief appearance? ((given posts supposedly are frozen after 10 days by Admin)).

            Well Timmmmmmay, glad you see the point.

            Use it as motivation.

        • Tim says:

          “”For nearly a century, “reality” has been a murky concept. The laws of quantum physics seem to suggest that particles spend much of their time in a ghostly state, lacking even basic properties such as a definite location and instead existing everywhere and nowhere at once. Only when a particle is measured does it suddenly materialize, appearing to pick its position as if by a roll of the dice.

          “”More than 30 years would pass before von Neumann’s proof was shown to be false, but by then the damage was done. The physicist David Bohm resurrected pilot-wave theory in a modified form in 1952, with Einstein’s encouragement, and made clear that it did work, but it never caught on. (The theory is also known as de Broglie-Bohm theory, or Bohmian mechanics.)

          http://wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality/

          Bohmmmm!!!!

  10. Cgpnz says:

    Well done, I always had problems with the stretched fabric
    Demonstration. This bending graph shows the tracks.
    I think a similar demo could be done with the fabric, ie draw
    Straight lines on the fabric without the ball. Maybe use some balloon fabric and really stretch it to see if orbits can be more expressed.

  11. Sometimes the man leading from behind isn't pointing with his hand says:

    Unfortunately, it all begs the question, the hand should also move downward with the apple, as both as traveling in warped space time.

    Such an elementary mistake.

    • Sometimes the man leading from behind isn't pointing with his hand says:

      The focus on theories of men, rather than reality, blinded him.

      Fools are similarly blinded:

      The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” (Psa 14:1 NKJ)

      Our matrix requires infinite Mind to exist, to cohere:

      17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. (Col 1:17 NKJ)

      27 “so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;
      28 “for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said,`For we are also His offspring.’
      (Act 17:27-28 NKJ)

      That is elementary. Without divine will, the very fabric of our existence, would be loosed, each particle repel the other so all passes in a fervent heat:

      But the Day of the Lord will come like a thief; on that day (( ἡ οἱ οὐρανοὶ ῥοιζηδὸν παρελεύσονται στοιχεῖα δὲ καυσούμενα λυθήσονται—) the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, the elements will burn and be dissolved, and the earth and the works on it will be disclosed. (2Pe 3:10 CSB)

      None of you have any idea Whom it is you rail against:

      14 Then the sky receded as a scroll when it is rolled up, and every mountain and island was moved out of its place.
      15 And the kings of the earth, the great men, the rich men, the commanders, the mighty men, every slave and every free man, hid themselves in the caves and in the rocks of the mountains,
      16 and said to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb!
      17 “For the great day of His wrath has come, and who is able to stand?”
      (Rev 6:14-17 NKJ)

      Our top of our reality shielding God from our sight will be pealed back, like a banana peal, like a lid rolled up lid in a can of sardines.

    • Tim says:

      The hand is experiencing accelleration and a force is required to hold it there…

      The apple is in freefall. There are no forces on it.

      Such an elementary mistake.

      • Tim says:

        “”Principle of Equivalence, but one of the simplest is Einstein’s original insight: he suddenly realized, while sitting in his office in Bern, Switzerland, in 1907, that if he were to fall freely in a gravitational field (think of a sky diver before she opens her parachute, or an unfortunate elevator if its cable breaks), he would be unable to feel his own weight. Einstein later recounted that this realization was the “happiest moment in his life”, for he understood that this idea was the key to how to extend the Special Theory of Relativity to include the effect of gravitation. We are used to seeing astrononauts in free fall as their spacecraft circles the Earth these days, but we should appreciate that in 1907 this was a rather remarkable insight.

        http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/equivalence.html

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle#Einstein.27s_statement_of_the_equivalence_principle

        • Leave our Fundraiser in Chief alone, lest more turn to shit than already has! says:

          Critically speaking, Inertia and Gravity are not equivalent, they have incompatible properties.

          Neither inertia or gravity create weight, an opposing force is required for weight to come into existence.

          A person in free fall feels sudden weight when they crash onto the surface of the earth. No surface, no weight.

          A force acting against inertia, creates a similar effect, but its not gravity. One could head in the direction of gravitational pull, faster than gravity pulls, and weight will be felt when faster than gravity descending rocket overcomes inertia.

          While gravity can overcome inertia, so can other forces, the resulting “weight felt” in both cases isn’t equivalent to gravity.

          So the principle of equivalence seems suspect to me, but it truly would be in a matrix, where forces mimic what we would expect, if mass and therefore inertia, actually existed. Being virtual, none of it is real, its only following the code.

          A code that exists in the infinite mind of God, whom you really should get to know. If you know Jesus, then you know the Father.

          Inertial acceleration as in a rocket requires the floor the astronaut stands upon, to create weight.

          • Leave our Fundraiser in Chief alone, lest more turn to shit than already has! says:

            In other words, Inertia doesn’t act upon other objects, but gravity does, hence gravity has an incompatible property ruling out these are equivalent. Otherwise, apples are oranges too.

      • Sometimes the man leading from behind isn't pointing with his hand says:

        Still begs the question, if space time is warping, then the hand (which isn’t being raised), should remain with the apple.

        But if gravity is the force the hand is resisting, but the apple is not, and that accounts for the separation from each other, then its not due due to warping of space time.

        • Tim says:

          Hmm. A great Falling Away?? To those that leave, the group that stayed appear to have ‘fallen away’…

          • Leave our Fundraiser in Chief alone, lest more turn to shit than already has! says:

            I reserve the right to change my mind, if my objections are answered, the incompatible properties shown to be compatible.

            But seems to me, the Equivalence being wrong predicts “special relativity” would fail at some level, which it seems to do at the micro level.

            However, none of this it my forte, just an interest. Its scripture I love, and have learned.

            And it seems to apply at every level, therefore is sound.

          • Leave our Fundraiser in Chief alone, lest more turn to shit than already has! says:

            While listening to Led’s Gallows Pole, under the influence of a silver bullet, the monkey selfie caused a revelation.

            If a rocket accelerated toward the center of gravity, faster than it attracts, Einstein is now crushed on the floor, in the opposite direction of gravity….

            So, how can it be equivalent, when its causing weight in opposite directions, precisely in reverse directions?

            Just one of the thought experiments Bobbo must have experienced, while his cavities were probed…with that awful prod…

          • Leave our Fundraiser in Chief alone, lest more turn to shit than already has! says:

            In other words, one is gravity, the other caused by inertia reacting against acceleration, that clearly is not gravity.

            Gravity acts upon all, weight caused by accelerating to the center of gravity, acts only upon Einstein and his rocket, as he plumets downward.

            The latter certainly is due to any curving of space time. Is a function of inertia.

            A matrix resolves the apparent paradox, everything follows the code in the final analysis, but seems to mimic what mass would do, because its generated by Infinite Mind, Perfect in all His ways…

            YHWH is His name, The incarnate Word of God Jesus, His eternal Son, the very expression of God, made sensible so we could learn and see.

            God became flesh and dwelt among us, full of Grace and truth.

            In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
            2 He was in the beginning with God.
            3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
            4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
            5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

            (Joh 1:1-5 NKJ)

            15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
            16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.
            17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.
            18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.
            19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell,
            20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross. (Col 1:15-20 NKJ) 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
            16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.
            17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.
            18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.
            19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell,
            20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.
            (Col 1:15-20 NKJ)

            Unlike theoretical physics, this is substantial.

          • Leave our Fundraiser in Chief alone, lest more turn to shit than already has! says:

            The latter certainly is NOT due to any curving of space time. Is a function of inertia.

          • Tim says:

            “”…while his cavities were probed…with that awful prod…

            Are those NTOs still doing that?? They have been doing that for 40,000 years and the only thing that they have *discovered* is that 1 in 10 don’t seem to mind.

  12. Tim says:

    As the nature of open comments on this thread seems to be multiplied by an imaginary number and somewhat periodic, I’ll approach bobbo’s spaghetti recipe from a different franchise…

    “”How can anyone propose that as you get spaghettified that you may not even be aware you are in a black hole and that we may be in one now?

    Well. You are still in freefall so no forces on your overall body. However, the ‘field’ is so intense that, unlike the constant accelleration due to gravity on earth, there is a *tidal* pull because of the inverse square relationship with distance and gravitational attraction — the head feels much less than the ass, unless you went in tits-up…

    Now. You’re in freefall but getting very close where tidal forces come into play. But the closer you get the more time *stops*…

    ^^ I’m about 3% confident this analogy works… I’m vegan. So, don’t quote me on it….

    • bobbo, a new Nom de Flame: the hair on fire CACC who understands why first fermentation stops at 13%, and so will Hoomans says:

      Oh…… I tell everyone who will listen (aka–still no one knows) that you are a Vegan.

      But with Schrodinger’s Cat in my lap: you are either BEING spagettified or your are not. The frame of reference is “you” from head to toe.

      All to the point: S’s Cat was a demonstration meant to show uncertainty theory didn’t make any sense. Turns out…Uncretanism won the day and its the Cat Anology that makes no sense. Amusing I think.

      I eat vegatables…….. so like everything else…… I’m part spaghetti.

    • Tim {sort of} says:

      you lie.

      I hail from arcturus. shill.

    • Tim {Sara Palin.. no 'h'} says:

      you tell inflammatory retoric…

      There are no stars, but I can see my back porch from here