What will be the changes if we move from 3rd dimension level to 4rth dimension level

[Tormod]

Freethinker's little experiment here is to see whether we get the joke that TOE is actually short for "Theory of everything".

 

Unc, there is no "center of gravity" in the strict sense. It will always be a point between the center of two (strictly speaking, infinitely many) objects. so the center of gravity between the Earth and the Sun, for example, lies within the Sun.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

Freethinker,

 

I enjoyed your geocentric thought experiment, very interesting. Doesn't Newtonian physics refute it however. Am I incorrect in assuming that the most massive body of a system will be the center of gravity and hence,...rotation? Or is the center of gravity actually a point in space located in the system, similar to the Lagrange points?

 

What I was showing (besides how clever I can be, lol) is that things are always relative to the POR. Do we live in a Heliocentric solar system? That may be the POR that provides the easiest calculations for ALL movement of ALL bodies in our "Solar System". But if we wanted to plot the course of the moon, it would be less complicated if we use the Earth as our POR. And if we wanted to calculate how far I need to travel to get to a bar, my Big Toe!

 

You will note that in my posts on this subject, I never used "Universe", but at most "Galaxy". This is because the concept of "Center" is erroneous RE the Universe. Which perhaps is why my big toe is as valid a POR as the sun, or the center of the Milky Way. It is just a matter of ease of prediction.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tormod

Unc, there is no "center of gravity" in the strict sense. It will always be a point between the center of two (strictly speaking, infinitely many) objects. so the center of gravity between the Earth and the Sun, for example, lies within the Sun.

 

Tormod, have you checked out :

 

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

Or is the center of gravity actually a point in space located in the system, similar to the Lagrange points?

 

I did a search on Lagrange Points. Very interesting. It was not the cords or lyrics for the song Lagrange by ZZ Top.

 

See:

http://www.physics.montana.edu/faculty/cornish/lagrange.html

 

Thanks Unc!

[Tormod]

Lagrange points are not centers of gravity, but points in space where the gravity pull from two rotating bodies cancel each other out (or more precisely - a spot where we can put something like a satellite and it will stay in a fixed location relative to the two bodies). There are 5 of them - 1 between the Sun and the Earth (which is where the SOHO observatory is located), one on the "far side" of the Moon (seen from the Earth), two along our orbit around the Sun, and one on the opposite side of the Sun.

 

But now I can't say I knew this, of course, since you already posted the link.

 

Tormod

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tormod

Lagrange points are not centers of gravity, but points in space where the gravity pull from two rotating bodies cancel each other out (or more precisely - a spot where we can put something like a satellite and it will stay in a fixed location relative to the two bodies).

Originally posted by: Tormod

Unc, there is no "center of gravity" in the strict sense. It will always be a point between the center of two (strictly speaking, infinitely many) objects. so the center of gravity between the Earth and the Sun, for example, lies within the Sun.

We are back at semantics.

 

The geometric center of a circle is an easy thing to agree on.

 

Per WWWebster "1 a : the point around which a circle or sphere is described; broadly : a point that is related to a geometrical figure in such a way that for any point on the figure there is another point on the figure such that a straight line joining the two points is bisected by the original point -- called also center of symmetry b : the center of the circle inscribed in a regular polygon"

 

OK, but then we move to FORCES instead of MASS. Such as the "Center of Gravity" for a mass. Not the Mass' geometric center, but a "balance point" for the gravitational forces

 

center of gravity - "the point at which the entire weight of a body may be considered as concentrated so that if supported at this point the body would remain in equilibrium in any position"

 

So with two objects, as you describe in the sun/earth arrangement, what you are saying is that the sun is so massive, has so much more gravitational attraction, that taking an area that encompasses both the sun and the earth, the point that "the body would remain in equilibrium in any position" would

lie() within the Sun

.

 

However, any point that fits the defintion of "the body would remain in equilibrium in any position" would work. and the

two along our orbit around the Sun

are perfect matches for that definition.

[GAHD]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

...if we wanted to plot the course of the moon, it would be less complicated if we use the Earth as our POR.

Simpler, but not accurate.

 

Originally posted by: FreethinkerYou will note that in my posts on this subject, I never used "Universe", but at most "Galaxy". This is because the concept of "Center" is erroneous RE the Universe. Which perhaps is why my big toe is as valid a POR as the sun, or the center of the Milky Way. It is just a matter of ease of prediction.

True enough, but 'center' has little to do with the way things really work. I'd challenge you to find a center to time or a minimum length to it if time really does qualify as a dimension.

Originally posted by: Freethinker

How about showing where my proof is WRONG instead of just saying it is "ridiculous".

Otherwise we can only assume that I was right.

You're using spatial PoR to try and proove time exists as a dimension, a rediculous concept.

How about you proove Christians' Faith in 'God' is wrong, that 'He' doesn't exist; Otherwise I suppose we can only assume they are/were right. The forums are Hypography, not Hippocracy; get it right man.

 

 

Originally posted by: Freethinkere.g. an anti-particle (or particle) that has an event (perhaps collision) that has a resultant negative time vector is not "rewinding" or "undoing" an event. It is PRODUCING an event that has a negative time vector.

References? How do we 'see' this 'negative time vector', and it's results? Why havn't there been apples from the future popping out of thin air to feed the starving? Maby because 'matter' is limited to following it's own (forward) progression of time? I'd really like to have you actually make a statement that isn't a bunch of half guised double-talk about this.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: GAHD

Originally posted by: Freethinker

...if we wanted to plot the course of the moon, it would be less complicated if we use the Earth as our POR.

Simpler, but not accurate.

The ACCURACY of the calculations would be IDENTICAL as long as all of the same variables were included.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: GAHD

Originally posted by: Freethinker

You will note that in my posts on this subject, I never used "Universe", but at most "Galaxy". This is because the concept of "Center" is erroneous RE the Universe. Which perhaps is why my big toe is as valid a POR as the sun, or the center of the Milky Way. It is just a matter of ease of prediction.

True enough, but 'center' has little to do with the way things really work. I'd challenge you to find a center to time or a minimum length to it if time really does qualify as a dimension.

You asked me to show proof of my claim that the galaxy rotates around my big toe. I did that. If you want to change the subject to something else that is ok. But don't try to use it to refute my proof. Stay on the topic, or change it. One or the other.

Originally posted by: GAHD

Originally posted by: Freethinkere.g.

an anti-particle (or particle) that has an event (perhaps collision) that has a resultant negative time vector is not "rewinding" or "undoing" an event. It is PRODUCING an event that has a negative time vector.

References? How do we 'see' this 'negative time vector', and it's results?

I've explained it to you, a number of times I think. But maybe if you see the exact same concept explained by others you will catch on. Here is one source:

 

"From our daily experience we would all agree that time moves in one direction only. We can easily distinguish a film played backwards or forwards: things do not naturally run backwards in time, like a smashed plate reassembling itself. Physicists describe this by saying that the entropy of a system, which is a measurement of the chaos inside that system, always increases.

 

However, the situation is different if we look at elementary particles. There, it is difficult to see if times moves forwards or backwards. In fact, the mathematical equations which describe the behaviour of the elementary particles normally do not distinguish between forwards and backwards in time...except, that is, for the part which describes the weak interaction, where other physical symmetries, like 'CP', are known to be broken.

 

http://lhcb-public.web.cern.ch/lhcb-public/html/timetravel.htm

 

" Time reversal and CPT symmetry

 

There is a fundamental reason why CP symmetry plays a crucial role. It is indeed linked to the Time Reversal transformation (T).

 

This transformation consists in "looking'' at an experiment backwards in time, like playing a movie backwards. Although, at the macroscopic level, one can immediately distinguish which is the real experiment and which is the reversed movie, this is not a priori the case at the microscopic level. Indeed, the laws of classical mechanics remain valid after Time Reversal. "

 

http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/03/article1/debu.html

Why havn't there been apples from the future popping out of thin air to feed the starving? Maby because 'matter' is limited to following it's own (forward) progression of time? I'd really like to have you actually make a statement that isn't a bunch of half guised double-talk about this.

 

Richard Feynman gave one description of a positron (anti-electron). He suggested it is like an electron (with negative energy) travelling backwards in time (all its behaviours agree with this description).

 

So, if there is an anti-matter version of you, at least you will not see it coming. This is because, according to Feynman

[GAHD]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Richard Feynman gave one description of a positron (anti-electron). He suggested it is like an electron (with negative energy) travelling backwards in time (all its behaviours agree with this description).

 

 

 

So, if there is an anti-matter version of you, at least you will not see it coming. This is because, according to Feynman, it is in the future coming back towards you. When you meet, you will not know a thing about it (although anyone standing nearby will not be so fortunate, as the collision between you and your anti-you will release more energy than an atomic bomb).

 

 

 

http://www.schoolscience.co.uk/content/4/physics/particles/particlesmodel4a.html

</a>

 

You completely misinterprit Proof Freethinker. Are you claiming that in "the 1930s, Wolfgang Pauli" could see the future coming right at him? He saw into the future where these particles suppsosedly come from?

No, by that paper you linked he "suggested that the anti-neutrino was given out as well" which says nothing about it coming from the future. WHat page is that little itallic bit from? Not '<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.schoolscience.co.uk/content/4/physics/particles/particlesmodel4a.html'

">http://www.schoolscience.co.uk/content/4/physics/particles/particlesmodel4a.html'

</a>

 

Are you saying Richard Feynman is the one that claimed clairvoyancy?

I realize that you are trying desperately to cling to your anthropomorphic prejudice. This inability to understand that things your size do not work the same as particles do. If these references can;t help you understand it, there is nothing else we here can do for you.

 

I also can't find a single bit in there reffering to anything about the "So, if there is...an atomic bomb)." part of the ittalics in there. Is that pure contrivence? Why doesn't this website cite sources of experiments confirming these things? Am I to take the Digital word of somebody that can hack together Hyper-Text code? Screen your sources more carefully freethinker, as theses are all still old ideas that don't really explain anything as there is no practial meas of confirming their existenca.

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

I did a search on Lagrange Points. Very interesting. It was not the cords or lyrics for the song Lagrange by ZZ Top.

See:

 

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.physics.montana.edu/faculty/cornish/lagrange.html

">http://www.physics.montana.edu/faculty/cornish/lagrange.html

</a>

Thanks Unc!

L 1, L 4 and L 5 make perfect logical sense to me. I just don't see where L 2 and L 3 are points where gravitational forces are cancelling each other out. These two seem more like the gravity would be increased. Could someone help me to understand this better?

[Uncle Martin]

Knock-knock??? I would truly appreciate a reply to the above ?, I would rather not start a new thread since it has already been brought up.

[GAHD]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

Knock-knock??? I would truly appreciate a reply to the above ?, I would rather not start a new thread since it has already been brought up.

 

I would tend to agree unc, so I will venture my interpritation;

-linked from http://www.physics.montana.edu/faculty/cornish/lagrange.html

L2 is a point where Earth's and Sol's gravity have a combined and stable effect, an object at this point could move in it's orbit and keep the Earth between the Sol and it's self because the earth pulls it closer to the 'center' of the sun.

 

Think of it like the space shuttle in orbit about 50' away from the ISS; if it fires it's rear thrusters and 'accelerates' another 30'/s it climbs in it's orbit and the distance to the ISS begins constantly increasing because the shuttle now travels a longer path (it might have more velocity in relation to the ISS but it has increased the distance it must travel exponentially in comparison). The inverse is also true; if the shuttle 'slows' by 30'/s it will gain ground on the ISS.

 

The combinded gravity of Earth and Sol 'pull' an object at L2 close enough so that it's higher velocity holds it in a complementary orbit to Earth rather than allowing it to 'climb' to a higher orbit and thus 'fall behind'; it would have a 364.25 day orbit just like the earth dispite having a higher base velocity and being a greater distance away.

 

Moving clockwise or counterclockwise along this map 180 degrees leads to a point(L3) where the earth's gravity has no real effect on the orbiting body, allowing something with the same base velocity to stay in a stable orbit. The point is farther outside the circle because it is assumed to be much smaller than a planet and thus not pull on the Sol as much as Earth does.

 

That help?

 

on a side note;

Originally posted by: GAHD

Originally posted by: Freethinker

How about showing where my proof is WRONG instead of just saying it is "ridiculous".

Otherwise we can only assume that I was right.

You're using spatial PoR to try and proove time exists as a dimension, a rediculous concept.

How about you proove Christians' Faith in 'God' is wrong, that 'He' doesn't exist; Otherwise I suppose we can only assume they are/were right. The forums are Hypography, not Hippocracy; get it right man.

 

Gotta love how FT chose not to respond to this little tidbit, eh?

[Uncle Martin]

Thanks GAHD, that was helpful. I'm still a bit fuzzy but should be able to make sense of this when I have more time.

 

Thanks also for correcting my very poor French in another thread. Business used to take me to Quebec on a regular basis several years ago, and you know how they feel about the English language there. But as I said,... it's been awhile since I've needed my French/English dictionary.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: GAHD

Gotta love how FT chose not to respond to this little tidbit, eh?

I "Chose not to respond" because I did not see your reply. Not because it had anything of value in the discussion. But I will go back and try to make some sense of it.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: GAHD

You completely misinterprit Proof Freethinker. Are you claiming that in "the 1930s, Wolfgang Pauli"

What an incredible QUOTE you state *I* am "claiming". However "Wolfgang Pauli" does not appear in a single post in this entire thread prior to your posting it here! I did a seacrhc of every page back to page one! Not ONCE did I or anyone else even mention "Wolfgang Pauli".

 

Where do you come up with this stuff?

 

And you are on my case for not responding to your lying about what I (did NOT) say?

could see the future coming right at him? He saw into the future where these particles suppsosedly come from?

YOU INVENTED the statement. YOU justify it.

 

Why should I justify claims YOU invent?

 

While you LIE about what is ACTUALLY published.

No, by that paper you linked he "suggested that the anti-neutrino was given out as well" which says nothing about it coming from the future. WHat page is that little itallic bit from? Not (link clipped because the parser is driving me crazy Tormod! See original post for URL)

Ah, I just checked it again. It is there the same as when I copied it the last time. Your browser ability seems on a par with your quote reference ability, utterly lacking.

Are you saying Richard Feynman is the one that claimed clairvoyancy?

Again, until you get over your inability to deal with things smaller than the human body (particles) you will never grasp the subject. Like I stated

I realize that you are trying desperately to cling to your anthropomorphic prejudice. This inability to understand that things your size do not work the same as particles do. If these references can;t help you understand it, there is nothing else we here can do for you.

So I guess I can;t help you. You can't even follow a URL that's posted!

I also can't find a single bit in there reffering to anything about the "So, if there is...an atomic bomb)." part of the ittalics in there. Is that pure contrivence?

Obviously they have put a cookie on my PC which provides a competely different page than anyone else that will ever go to that page will get.... Ya right!

 

Learn to use your browser!

Am I to take the Digital word of somebody that can hack together Hyper-Text code? Screen your sources more carefully freethinker,

Ya, why should we accept information from a site that is:

"In assocaiation with: ABPI, BAMA, British Energy, CDA, Corus, ExxonMobil, GSK, ICI, The Energy Institute, Institute of Physics, MRC, Nirex, PPARC, SGM, Sony, SPE, Unilever."?

When we could instead follow the lead of someone that can't even get their web broswer to go to the right page?

[matrixscarface]

obviously, noone can actually say that one way or another is correct because it is impossible for anyone to pass them. sure there is an extreme way to find out but never forget it is based on theory.

[Tormod]

Welcome, matrixscarface.

 

This topic is rather old and has died out now...but I am still intriguied as to what the "extreme way" is! :D