Surface-reflected bulk waves could be used in nebulizing inhalers

Categories: Conventional Science

In this far-off galaxy, a ravenous black hole is devouring galactic grub. Its feeding frenzy produces so much energy, it stirs up gas across its entire galaxy.

Categories: Astronomy

The beauty of the descriptive approach is in the fact, that you don't have to "believe" in mass, momentum, pressure etc., you only have to define them proprely: if it gets to e.g. calculating the heat needed to push a piston, you still use the same equation. It is only a meas to describe your experience through mathematics, so whether they are "real" or not doesn't make a difference.

Horace is right, I would like to arrive to the dimensions of mass, energy, momentum, moment of inertia, action or any other quantity that has time with positive exponent *without theoretical assumptions*. All the other relations are based on the definition of concept in question. If we didn't give this concepts names, we could write them down systematically (as Gopi showed). The problem is, if I would argue that mass is some other combination of space and time (e.g. t2/s), there is no way to experimentally disprove that. The only difference between science and pseudoscience is that a scientific theory can be disproven by an experiment. (Note that e.g. string theory is in fact pseudoscience)

Observation and experience are based solely on ** changes in space**. Mass is in time, therefore

Perhaps not for masses and properties of physical objects, but rotations of real physical objects should have the same properties as rotations that make up matter. There are some experiments with forced precession that clearly show loss of weight. I guess the answer could be somewhere there. So there might be a way to show it without theoretical assumptions after all...

Jan

Categories: RS2 Research

Mass units can be derived in a different way from Larson's:

Consider movement - s/t. In the RS where "1" is the datum, the only expression that can *oppose* or *resist* a motion is t/s, because (s/t)*(t/s) = 1. Hence, t/s is geometrically polar to s/t, rotational instead of linear, temporal instead of spatial, indirectly observable instead of directly empirical. Since the resistance is independent of spatial direction, it can hold in all three dimensions, giving (t/s)3 or t3/s3. Hence, it can be considered a sort of "friction" to the movement, that casts a shadow for the light.

1 dimensional "resistance": t/s (ENERGY)

2 dimensional "resistance": t2/s2 (MOMENTUM)

3 dimensional "resistance": t3/s3 (MASS)

Conventional physics does not have unit datum, but only zero datum. So once they had speed s/t, the only "resistance" they could consider was "change in speed magnitude/direction" i.e. ds/dt or *acceleration*. This means they also opened the door to an unlimited series of possible motions:

s/t, s/t2, s/t3, s/t4... s/tn

or: *v, a, a', a'' ... a(n)*

So this lead to an infinite series, which Newton and his followers used as wiggle room to apply to all of mechanics, instead of tackling rotation directly. It also led to an undigestible precipitate, mass, and thereby to F=ma. That is why the force ideas are so vague and non-intuitive, and leaves several paths untouched. One can ask for example, why does no one consider all the possible motions:

m*v*, m*a*, m*a'*, m*a''*, m*a'''*, ... m*a(n)*

Why stop with just P = m*v* and F = m*a*? What about the rest? No answer is given. Besides, what about the opposite series, why isn't the following series popular:

s/t, s2/t, s3/t... etc.?

Because the wiggle room is limited to three dimensions. Besides, no one measures area or volume directly, so you have limited application. But Larson spotted this, and s3/t especially, is nothing but his expanding balloon. Voila! We have the first hint of *Scalar motion*:

s/t, s/t2, s/t3 -> Vectorial Motion

s/t, s2/t, s3/t -> Scalar Motion

This helped him get at the reciprocity of space and time, and their consequences.

Hope that helps.

Categories: RS2 Research

Tunable device could be used for security scanning and medical imaging

Categories: Conventional Science

But the cubed exponents s^3/t^3 are not evident from this relation and cannot be gathered from mere observation. His point is how to arrive at that empirically without making theoretical assumptions.

Jan gave dp as empirical; velocity is also empirical. Mass is just defining the relationship between the two. (You have your ratio inverted.)

In my opinion, mass isn't an empirical quantity, it is one that was invented by scientists as a device to explain *equivalent space*, a rotational space (imaginary numbers) that cannot be described with linear mathematics, but is still there in observation. Space is linear, time (as a clock) is linear, current (speed, the ratio of space to time) is linear--the only non-linear component is mass, which is why it was considered an irreducible unit. In space, you start with 0 dimensions and work up to 3, which is why linear space (1D, first step) is predominant in our thought. It is the baseline from which geometry is built.

Rotation, however, occurs in *time*, which is the reciprocal of space. That means it works backwards--you start with 3 dimensions (*everything*, the inverse of *nothing*), and work down to 0. In the equivalent space represented by time, 3D is analogous to the spatial 0D--unmanifest. Therefore, the first manifestation we see with rotational spaces is a 2D rotation, *momentum *(Larson's magnetic rotation), the most predominant. Then you get a 1D rotation (electric) as the next step. These two rotations occur separately in time, but because we only observe the *net effect *here in space, we see it as a single, 3D rotation that is called "mass."

Observation and experience are based solely on ** changes in space**. Mass is in time, therefore

Categories: RS2 Research

Researchers have discovered the brightest supernova ever seen, and the unusual object powering it could challenge what physicists know about dying stars.

Categories: Astronomy

Although water vapor is the main gas seen flowing from Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko, very few examples of exposed water ice have been found on the surface.

Categories: Astronomy

If I have well understood your problem, you can derive m=t3/s3 from Einstein formula E=mc2.

m=E/c2

[m]=(t/s) / (s2/t2)=t3/s3

Hope it helps

Categories: RS2 Research

From Gustav LeBon, circa 1907, mass is dp/dv, where dp is the change in momentum (called "weight" in those days) and dv is change in velocity.

But the cubed exponents s^3/t^3 are not evident from this relation and cannot be gathered from mere observation. His point is how to arrive at that empirically without making theoretical assumptions.

Categories: RS2 Research

Not sure if this is what you are looking for...

From Gustav LeBon, circa 1907, mass is dp/dv, where dp is the change in momentum (called "weight" in those days) and dv is change in velocity.

In electronics, inductance replaces mass with the same units.

Categories: RS2 Research

Larson somehow (through long series of inductions) arrived to conclusion, that mass is m=t3/s3. I would like to know if there is some way to deduce it from experience, like any other physical laws in the deductive science.

Metric system (not just SI but also cgs and other conventional systems) can be reduced to min. four independend irreducible units of space, time, mass and current (or their combinations). RS reduces the metric system by two more units - mass and current. Current can be got rid of by similarity between voltage and force:

F=dp/dt U=dP/dt

where F is force, dp is change of momentum, dt change of time, U is voltage, dP chage of magnetic flux. In order to have the same units, in the second relation current must be speed times some constant. However for mass I didn't find any such similarity (and I doubt there is one - the playground with relations containing only time and space is quite small).

I wonder - can the relation between space, time and mass be somehow shown without "theory contamination"? (E.g. the relations above describe only the experience, they don't represent any particular theory. On the other hand 'electron' is a result of a theory used to explain certain experience. 'An electron was accelerated by 5V' is a "theory contamined" description. It is not necessarily right or wrong, but you have to use some theory to understand the statement.)

Thanks for answeres

Jan

Forums:
Categories: RS2 Research

Tunable layers shield brain from shear forces

Categories: Conventional Science

Kupalo Crater has bright material exposed on its rim, which could be salts, and its flat floor likely formed from impact melt and debris.

Categories: Astronomy

Hi SoverT

Nice to see that you have put in a good amount of research and are asking the questions...

Given that most playing fields take a few seconds to run across, the playfield must be either far larger, the player far smaller, or something else entirely is going on... Or to put it another way, if the observed bodies are actually extremely close, as RS2 indicates, how can we explain the large amount of time the light took to travel around the various edges of the intervening bodies?

Actually, I suspect that they are looking at the wrong clock. As LoneBear noticed, a lot of the problems are scaling problems. Now in the Reciprocal System, either space OR time can be scaled, which means there are automatically two different interpretations: either things aren't "far" as we think they are or that things do not take as "long" to reach as we think they do. There is a good chance that with the spatial bias of the material sector we can predict only spatial scale changes, but there could actually be temporal shifts as well.

For example, as we go up from 1-x, to 2-x and 3-x, the dimensionality of time entering the linear motion changes. So a t3 will still be measured as a t, giving a high resultant time. Scaling that with unit speed gives "light year" distances. What if time gets warped as we go out farther? It could explain such things as expansion of the Universe and the weird few-hours-time-period of several double planets much better.

Gives a whole new angle of attack to this problem, through *time* instead of through space.

Categories: RS2 Research

Two independent groups reach a milestone in ion-based quantum computing

Categories: Conventional Science

The New Horizons spacecraft shows some intriguing surface activity in the latest picture of Pluto.

Categories: Astronomy

Experiment shows how information can be used to run a refrigerator

Categories: Conventional Science

Astronomers can’t find any sign of the black hole at the center of a quasar. It is still there, of course, but over the past 10 years, it appears to have swallowed all the gas in its vicinity and gone quiet.

Categories: Astronomy

A new study reveals the true origin of puzzling light from nearby galaxies — white dwarfs, not central black holes, explain these observations.

Categories: Astronomy

- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4