Scissors Simplified
Moderator: scott
re: Scissors Simplified
Can you give us some background on Stan Byers please Jim.
What goes around, comes around.
re: Scissors Simplified
energy is created.
if Force is not restricted or absorbed? guess what!
No energy
I am not the author Eric...I'm a simple minded insignificant of no importance little piece of Proof reader.
by the way, I never except any thing without researching it first...
Either get Physics to call Energy and Force the Same, or deal with the fact that energy can only exist as a restrictive value to force.
richard
if Force is not restricted or absorbed? guess what!
No energy
I am not the author Eric...I'm a simple minded insignificant of no importance little piece of Proof reader.
by the way, I never except any thing without researching it first...
Either get Physics to call Energy and Force the Same, or deal with the fact that energy can only exist as a restrictive value to force.
richard
where man meets science and god meets man never the twain shall meet...till god and man and science sit at gods great judgement seat..a tribute to Bessler....kipling I think
Hi Jim,
We can agree to disagree. I will say however that there is quite a bit of evidence to support the idea of the Big Bang. Similarly, there is quite a bit of evidence to support the theory of general relativity. Special relativity has been observed. It's only a matter of time before general relativity is proven as well. If it is correct than Einstein's explanation of gravity would be correct.
Just my 2c (as well as the majority of the scientific community)...
E
We can agree to disagree. I will say however that there is quite a bit of evidence to support the idea of the Big Bang. Similarly, there is quite a bit of evidence to support the theory of general relativity. Special relativity has been observed. It's only a matter of time before general relativity is proven as well. If it is correct than Einstein's explanation of gravity would be correct.
Just my 2c (as well as the majority of the scientific community)...
E
- eccentrically1
- Addict
- Posts: 3134
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm
Mass and energy can't be destroyed or created. But matter can. Mass and matter are confused with each other. They aren't the same thing. Matter is a loose term. Mass and weight are confused with each other as well.
When particles of matter are accelerated towards each other, the products of their destruction retain their mass and energy just as they should. But sometimes new particles are created.
I haven't read Byer's writings yet, but I'll bet he doesn't have any way to test his shielding theories.
I'm sticking with the accepted theories on gravity for now.
Here's another theory that sounds plausible:
http://higgs-boson.org/
When particles of matter are accelerated towards each other, the products of their destruction retain their mass and energy just as they should. But sometimes new particles are created.
I haven't read Byer's writings yet, but I'll bet he doesn't have any way to test his shielding theories.
I'm sticking with the accepted theories on gravity for now.
Here's another theory that sounds plausible:
http://higgs-boson.org/
re: Scissors Simplified
eric query's
Gravity is said to coalesce matter to mass..thus mass creation ( from matter) is energy. we know this because of equivalency.
richard
let us reason....mass/ energy equivalencyPlease show me any instance of energy being created.
E
Gravity is said to coalesce matter to mass..thus mass creation ( from matter) is energy. we know this because of equivalency.
richard
where man meets science and god meets man never the twain shall meet...till god and man and science sit at gods great judgement seat..a tribute to Bessler....kipling I think
- eccentrically1
- Addict
- Posts: 3134
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm
Gravity doesn't coalesce matter into mass. It coalesces matter. Mass isn't a property that can be created. It's just a measurement. A universal measurement - 1 kilo on earth is 1 kilo on the moon; the measurement of matter in the object.
Weight is the measurement of gravitational force on an object. Weight is different on the moon and the earth. If you weigh 120 pounds on earth then you'd weigh about 20 pounds on the moon due to its' lower gravity. And density, if anyone cares, is mass divided by the volume of space the object displaces.
Weight is the measurement of gravitational force on an object. Weight is different on the moon and the earth. If you weigh 120 pounds on earth then you'd weigh about 20 pounds on the moon due to its' lower gravity. And density, if anyone cares, is mass divided by the volume of space the object displaces.
- eccentrically1
- Addict
- Posts: 3134
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm
Re: re: Scissors Simplified
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/ReviewLetters.htmdaxwc wrote:Can you give us some background on Stan Byers please Jim.
Here is the page on his website that details his efforts to promote his theory; he contacted the NSF and the Air Force. They politely referred him to each other.
Harold Puthoff, who John Collins has said supports a Bessler wheel principle, obtained a copy of his paper that is at the top of the page; Byers claims he plagiarized him.
re: Scissors Simplified
What is his qualifications, is he a physicist.
What goes around, comes around.
- eccentrically1
- Addict
- Posts: 3134
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm
No. If he was, he would more than likely offer that information on his website. But if he did have a physics degree, would that make his theory seem even less plausible? Or would it give it an air of authority, of believability?
This is the second result from a google search, from 2007:
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Physics-1358 ... essure.htm
This is the second result from a google search, from 2007:
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Physics-1358 ... essure.htm
re: Scissors Simplified
eccetrically1 writes
I am willing to assume, that you reason from "Special Relativity" and not General Relativity..?
let me be blunt, please; rest mass or invariant mass is the measure of individual "particles" of a mass...when particles / matter coalesce, voila! Mass is created and quite frankly this has nothing to do with the "three states of mass"
Isn't it just wonderful how everything happens in threes...Three laws of this and three laws of that and three states of blah blah blah. Do you ever feel eccentrially1, that there is a tendency for science to "jump on the band wagon"?
Some things don't take genius...it only takes honesty to let the emperor know hes still parading around naked.
I understand your reasoning, however the conclusion is wrong. also W=mg is not relative to the subject, so why mention it, like it does?Gravity doesn't coalesce matter into mass. It coalesces matter. Mass isn't a property that can be created. It's just a measurement.
I am willing to assume, that you reason from "Special Relativity" and not General Relativity..?
let me be blunt, please; rest mass or invariant mass is the measure of individual "particles" of a mass...when particles / matter coalesce, voila! Mass is created and quite frankly this has nothing to do with the "three states of mass"
Isn't it just wonderful how everything happens in threes...Three laws of this and three laws of that and three states of blah blah blah. Do you ever feel eccentrially1, that there is a tendency for science to "jump on the band wagon"?
Some things don't take genius...it only takes honesty to let the emperor know hes still parading around naked.
where man meets science and god meets man never the twain shall meet...till god and man and science sit at gods great judgement seat..a tribute to Bessler....kipling I think
Umm no. I never do get the feeling that "science" has a tendency to "jump on the band wagon". The main premise of the scientific method is to test and test again and again to prove or disprove theories. This is the fundamental difference between the scientific method and dogmatic belief.
Theories and ideas that are accepted by the scientific community are accepted because they have been tested time and again with the same results that support them. People who say things like "science jumps on the bandwagon" simply choose to disbelieve based on their own ignorance or unwillingness to accept the results of scientific analysis.
Please tell me what you find so hard to believe about the concept of general relativity and what that means for the origin of the source of gravity.
Oh and BTW there are 4 states of matter :-P
E
Theories and ideas that are accepted by the scientific community are accepted because they have been tested time and again with the same results that support them. People who say things like "science jumps on the bandwagon" simply choose to disbelieve based on their own ignorance or unwillingness to accept the results of scientific analysis.
Please tell me what you find so hard to believe about the concept of general relativity and what that means for the origin of the source of gravity.
Oh and BTW there are 4 states of matter :-P
E
- eccentrically1
- Addict
- Posts: 3134
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm
Re: re: Scissors Simplified
I hate to be picky, but that's the way science is. Mass isn't created. Matter coalesces into planets and stars, not mass.Richard wrote:
let me be blunt, please; rest mass or invariant mass is the measure of individual "particles" of a mass...when particles / matter coalesce, voila! Mass is created and quite frankly this has nothing to do with the "three states of mass"
re: Scissors Simplified
eric ask
have you personally looked for the fineprint in many of these empirical laws; I assure you there are restrictions to frame of reference and conditions that must be imposed for the rule to work.
E=Mc2=F=ma and many scientist can not tell you the difference between Energy and Force..?
Science is as much fragmented and divided and arrogant and obtuse and as blind as any other religion...yes science is a religion seeking the all goddamn mighty empirical.
Rest assured when someone imposes a law on me, you can bet I'll see if it is justifiable....For all that Science gives us, it equally and arrogantly denies us. That, sir; is the law of empericals.
there is nothing in nature that points to gravity..that is what is wrong eric.
richard
edit to add
eric
The scientific method is equally EXclusive eric. If this and this and that equals this, then we may state the empirical as thus...bullshit!Please tell me what you find so hard to believe about the concept of general relativity and what that means for the origin of the source of gravity.
have you personally looked for the fineprint in many of these empirical laws; I assure you there are restrictions to frame of reference and conditions that must be imposed for the rule to work.
E=Mc2=F=ma and many scientist can not tell you the difference between Energy and Force..?
Science is as much fragmented and divided and arrogant and obtuse and as blind as any other religion...yes science is a religion seeking the all goddamn mighty empirical.
Rest assured when someone imposes a law on me, you can bet I'll see if it is justifiable....For all that Science gives us, it equally and arrogantly denies us. That, sir; is the law of empericals.
there is nothing in nature that points to gravity..that is what is wrong eric.
richard
edit to add
eric
I think you misread mass? its ok, I find these mistakes in science all the time :-)Oh and BTW there are 4 states of matter :-P
where man meets science and god meets man never the twain shall meet...till god and man and science sit at gods great judgement seat..a tribute to Bessler....kipling I think