Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #373234 > unrolled thread
| Started by | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-03 14:15 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-01-15 20:27 -0800 |
| Articles | 19 — 5 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Perpetual motion vs. absolute motion John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 14:15 -0800
Re: Perpetual motion vs. absolute motion Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-03 22:52 +0000
Re: Perpetual motion vs. absolute motion John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-08 16:32 -0800
Re: Perpetual motion vs. absolute motion John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-08 17:51 -0800
Re: Perpetual motion vs. absolute motion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-10 14:08 +1100
Re: Perpetual motion vs. absolute motion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-10 14:13 +1100
Re: Perpetual motion vs. absolute motion Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 10:55 +0100
Re: Perpetual motion vs. absolute motion John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-10 09:42 -0800
Re: Perpetual motion vs. absolute motion John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-10 12:31 -0800
Re: Perpetual motion vs. absolute motion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-11 11:37 +1100
Re: Perpetual motion vs. absolute motion John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 20:08 -0800
Re: Perpetual motion vs. absolute motion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-12 22:16 +1100
Re: Perpetual motion vs. absolute motion John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 19:48 -0800
Re: Perpetual motion vs. absolute motion John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 19:50 -0800
Re: Perpetual motion vs. absolute motion John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 19:59 -0800
Re: Perpetual motion vs. absolute motion jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-01-14 20:01 -0800
Re: Perpetual motion vs. absolute motion John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-15 19:06 -0800
Re: Perpetual motion vs. absolute motion John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-15 19:08 -0800
Re: Perpetual motion vs. absolute motion John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-15 20:27 -0800
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 14:15 -0800 |
| Subject | Perpetual motion vs. absolute motion |
| Message-ID | <39ad35c6-168a-45d4-806c-e87c3e7f1c12@googlegroups.com> |
Is there any difference?
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 22:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n6c8o8$1jkg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #373234 |
John Gogo wrote: > Is there any difference? Are you sure you really want to know it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-08 16:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f6879854-0354-49e4-b224-91f42bfbfd91@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373235 |
On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 4:55:02 PM UTC-6, Kathleen Winder wrote: > John Gogo wrote: > > > Is there any difference? > > Are you sure you really want to know it? Sometimes it's just a waking up- but not really waking up because we were never asleep. It is more that we now have decided that we will be less stupid and stubborn. We have to understand when we tell the story of physics- that it is always fluid meaningfully.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-08 17:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <91fd2e34-2187-4b46-8712-45ed3992490e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373550 |
On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 6:32:05 PM UTC-6, John Gogo wrote: > On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 4:55:02 PM UTC-6, Kathleen Winder wrote: > > John Gogo wrote: > > > > > Is there any difference? > > > > Are you sure you really want to know it? > > Sometimes it's just a waking up- but not really waking up because we were never asleep. It is more that we now have decided that we will be less stupid and stubborn. We have to understand when we tell the story of physics- that it is always fluid meaningfully. Whatever model we choose to observe should steer us into an enlightenment not a dark age.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-10 14:08 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dfe0a5Fnnj2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #373234 |
On 4/01/2016 9:15 AM, John Gogo wrote: > Is there any difference? > There's no similarity. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-10 14:13 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dfe0j9Fnp9aU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #373607 |
On 10/01/2016 2:08 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 4/01/2016 9:15 AM, John Gogo wrote: >> Is there any difference? >> > > There's no similarity. > > Sylvia. Oh wait, I was wrong. There is a similarity. Neither of them exist. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-10 10:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n6t9ku$m1i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #373608 |
Dne 10/01/2016 v 04:13 Sylvia Else napsal(a): > On 10/01/2016 2:08 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 4/01/2016 9:15 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>> Is there any difference? >>> >> >> There's no similarity. >> >> Sylvia. > > Oh wait, I was wrong. There is a similarity. > > Neither of them exist. Hmmmm... Considering the uncertainty principle, orbital angular momenta of atomic electrons, and quantum oscillators with non-zero lowest vibration energy, motion can be perpetual. In contrary to linear motion being relative, absolute angular rest and motion can be determined, within accuracy and sensitivity of equipments. E.g. interferometers based on Sagnac effect measure absolute angular velocity. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-10 09:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <abf97a4d-81c1-409f-9b73-441778c300fc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373608 |
On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 9:13:47 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 10/01/2016 2:08 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 4/01/2016 9:15 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >> Is there any difference? > >> > > > > There's no similarity. > > > > Sylvia. > > Oh wait, I was wrong. There is a similarity. > > Neither of them exist. > > Sylvia. In terms of the measuring objects which are observed but where no local clocks exist- are we able to rid ourselves the notion of perpetual motion where there is no beginning or end of measure?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-10 12:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3cfe80be-39f8-4a70-82e5-e5c03f9799a9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373635 |
On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 11:42:50 AM UTC-6, John Gogo wrote: > On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 9:13:47 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 10/01/2016 2:08 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > On 4/01/2016 9:15 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > >> Is there any difference? > > >> > > > > > > There's no similarity. > > > > > > Sylvia. > > > > Oh wait, I was wrong. There is a similarity. > > > > Neither of them exist. > > > > Sylvia. > > In terms of the measuring objects which are observed but where no local clocks exist- are we able to rid ourselves the notion of perpetual motion where there is no beginning or end of measure? Relativity is devoid of absoluteness and perpetuality because these concepts continue to greatly oppress us- and to ignore this is the ONLY way to describe science. Nevertheless, the absolute and perpetual aspects in nature continue to dominate the limits of our science, whether we choose to acknowledge this reality or not. It is not the aspect that nature behaves this way- it is more in terms with mankind's limit of instrumentation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 11:37 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dfgbpjFblk4U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #373635 |
On 11/01/2016 4:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: > On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 9:13:47 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 10/01/2016 2:08 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 4/01/2016 9:15 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>> Is there any difference? >>>> >>> >>> There's no similarity. >>> >>> Sylvia. >> >> Oh wait, I was wrong. There is a similarity. >> >> Neither of them exist. >> >> Sylvia. > > In terms of the measuring objects which are observed but where no > local clocks exist- are we able to rid ourselves the notion of > perpetual motion where there is no beginning or end of measure? > We can rid ourselves of the notion of perpetual motion. There's no need for a caveat. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 20:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c8f4a160-b57b-4613-8485-d450033e1937@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373652 |
On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 6:37:10 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 11/01/2016 4:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 9:13:47 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 10/01/2016 2:08 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>> On 4/01/2016 9:15 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>> Is there any difference? > >>>> > >>> > >>> There's no similarity. > >>> > >>> Sylvia. > >> > >> Oh wait, I was wrong. There is a similarity. > >> > >> Neither of them exist. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > In terms of the measuring objects which are observed but where no > > local clocks exist- are we able to rid ourselves the notion of > > perpetual motion where there is no beginning or end of measure? > > > > We can rid ourselves of the notion of perpetual motion. There's no need > for a caveat. > > Sylvia. Are you saying that our clocks are now evolved enough to rid ourselves of the problem of objects which "show" no beginning or end- yet we have no man-made clock stationed there?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 22:16 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dfk5jpFa5s5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #373732 |
On 12/01/2016 3:08 PM, John Gogo wrote: > On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 6:37:10 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 11/01/2016 4:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>> On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 9:13:47 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else >>> wrote: >>>> On 10/01/2016 2:08 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>> On 4/01/2016 9:15 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>> Is there any difference? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There's no similarity. >>>>> >>>>> Sylvia. >>>> >>>> Oh wait, I was wrong. There is a similarity. >>>> >>>> Neither of them exist. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> In terms of the measuring objects which are observed but where >>> no local clocks exist- are we able to rid ourselves the notion >>> of perpetual motion where there is no beginning or end of >>> measure? >>> >> >> We can rid ourselves of the notion of perpetual motion. There's no >> need for a caveat. >> >> Sylvia. > > Are you saying that our clocks are now evolved enough to rid > ourselves of the problem of objects which "show" no beginning or > end- yet we have no man-made clock stationed there? > I haven't said anything about clocks. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 19:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ca9319ff-8da9-41f6-99e4-37b285efbf03@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373750 |
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 5:16:13 AM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 12/01/2016 3:08 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 6:37:10 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 11/01/2016 4:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>> On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 9:13:47 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else > >>> wrote: > >>>> On 10/01/2016 2:08 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>> On 4/01/2016 9:15 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>> Is there any difference? > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> There's no similarity. > >>>>> > >>>>> Sylvia. > >>>> > >>>> Oh wait, I was wrong. There is a similarity. > >>>> > >>>> Neither of them exist. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> In terms of the measuring objects which are observed but where > >>> no local clocks exist- are we able to rid ourselves the notion > >>> of perpetual motion where there is no beginning or end of > >>> measure? > >>> > >> > >> We can rid ourselves of the notion of perpetual motion. There's no > >> need for a caveat. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > Are you saying that our clocks are now evolved enough to rid > > ourselves of the problem of objects which "show" no beginning or > > end- yet we have no man-made clock stationed there? > > > > I haven't said anything about clocks. > > Sylvia. Feel free to say anything when it comes to perpetual and absolute motion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 19:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e1d34ea7-e43c-4f3e-ae21-9d317a584b10@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #374022 |
On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 9:48:24 PM UTC-6, John Gogo wrote: > On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 5:16:13 AM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 12/01/2016 3:08 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > > On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 6:37:10 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote: > > >> On 11/01/2016 4:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > >>> On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 9:13:47 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else > > >>> wrote: > > >>>> On 10/01/2016 2:08 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > > >>>>> On 4/01/2016 9:15 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > >>>>>> Is there any difference? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> There's no similarity. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Sylvia. > > >>>> > > >>>> Oh wait, I was wrong. There is a similarity. > > >>>> > > >>>> Neither of them exist. > > >>>> > > >>>> Sylvia. > > >>> > > >>> In terms of the measuring objects which are observed but where > > >>> no local clocks exist- are we able to rid ourselves the notion > > >>> of perpetual motion where there is no beginning or end of > > >>> measure? > > >>> > > >> > > >> We can rid ourselves of the notion of perpetual motion. There's no > > >> need for a caveat. > > >> > > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > Are you saying that our clocks are now evolved enough to rid > > > ourselves of the problem of objects which "show" no beginning or > > > end- yet we have no man-made clock stationed there? > > > > > > > I haven't said anything about clocks. > > > > Sylvia. > > Feel free to say anything when it comes to perpetual and absolute motion. The main problem is that nobody ever wants to talk about it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 19:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7fae031b-7553-49ad-bd9e-169b09d788f4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #374023 |
On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 9:50:25 PM UTC-6, John Gogo wrote: > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 9:48:24 PM UTC-6, John Gogo wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 5:16:13 AM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > On 12/01/2016 3:08 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > > > On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 6:37:10 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > >> On 11/01/2016 4:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > > >>> On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 9:13:47 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>>> On 10/01/2016 2:08 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > >>>>> On 4/01/2016 9:15 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > > >>>>>> Is there any difference? > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> There's no similarity. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Sylvia. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Oh wait, I was wrong. There is a similarity. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Neither of them exist. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Sylvia. > > > >>> > > > >>> In terms of the measuring objects which are observed but where > > > >>> no local clocks exist- are we able to rid ourselves the notion > > > >>> of perpetual motion where there is no beginning or end of > > > >>> measure? > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> We can rid ourselves of the notion of perpetual motion. There's no > > > >> need for a caveat. > > > >> > > > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > > > Are you saying that our clocks are now evolved enough to rid > > > > ourselves of the problem of objects which "show" no beginning or > > > > end- yet we have no man-made clock stationed there? > > > > > > > > > > I haven't said anything about clocks. > > > > > > Sylvia. > > > > Feel free to say anything when it comes to perpetual and absolute motion. > > The main problem is that nobody ever wants to talk about it. My main point is this: as long as all of our measurements are made on Earth and near Earth (Hubble) we truly only operate like "little pea shooters"- instruments which are still crude especially when we refer to the concept of time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jamesl51165@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 20:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fda3f42f-6395-486a-aed4-b3d1f2324fe5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #374022 |
On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 7:48:24 PM UTC-8, John Gogo wrote: > On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 5:16:13 AM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 12/01/2016 3:08 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > > On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 6:37:10 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote: > > >> On 11/01/2016 4:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > >>> On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 9:13:47 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else > > >>> wrote: > > >>>> On 10/01/2016 2:08 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > > >>>>> On 4/01/2016 9:15 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > >>>>>> Is there any difference? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> There's no similarity. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Sylvia. > > >>>> > > >>>> Oh wait, I was wrong. There is a similarity. > > >>>> > > >>>> Neither of them exist. > > >>>> > > >>>> Sylvia. > > >>> > > >>> In terms of the measuring objects which are observed but where > > >>> no local clocks exist- are we able to rid ourselves the notion > > >>> of perpetual motion where there is no beginning or end of > > >>> measure? > > >>> > > >> > > >> We can rid ourselves of the notion of perpetual motion. There's no > > >> need for a caveat. > > >> > > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > Are you saying that our clocks are now evolved enough to rid > > > ourselves of the problem of objects which "show" no beginning or > > > end- yet we have no man-made clock stationed there? > > > > > > > I haven't said anything about clocks. > > > > Sylvia. > > Feel free to say anything when it comes to perpetual and absolute motion. What is the example of what is not perpetual motion? Science's "Inertia" doesn't stop without friction. A pendulum swing in the mind is a revealer for what God is doing by His gravity force. "Feel the Force..." A swinging pendulum has an Earth G. There is no conflict scientific for the existence of perpetual motion. It is the norm instead through inertia's definition... but you add friction... and it's the problem. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 19:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <046e733b-8a07-4627-8959-039de59196bb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #374026 |
On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 10:01:04 PM UTC-6, james...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 7:48:24 PM UTC-8, John Gogo wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 5:16:13 AM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > On 12/01/2016 3:08 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > > > On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 6:37:10 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > >> On 11/01/2016 4:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > > >>> On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 9:13:47 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>>> On 10/01/2016 2:08 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > >>>>> On 4/01/2016 9:15 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > > >>>>>> Is there any difference? > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> There's no similarity. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Sylvia. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Oh wait, I was wrong. There is a similarity. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Neither of them exist. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Sylvia. > > > >>> > > > >>> In terms of the measuring objects which are observed but where > > > >>> no local clocks exist- are we able to rid ourselves the notion > > > >>> of perpetual motion where there is no beginning or end of > > > >>> measure? > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> We can rid ourselves of the notion of perpetual motion. There's no > > > >> need for a caveat. > > > >> > > > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > > > Are you saying that our clocks are now evolved enough to rid > > > > ourselves of the problem of objects which "show" no beginning or > > > > end- yet we have no man-made clock stationed there? > > > > > > > > > > I haven't said anything about clocks. > > > > > > Sylvia. > > > > Feel free to say anything when it comes to perpetual and absolute motion. > > What is the example of what is not perpetual motion? > > Science's "Inertia" doesn't stop without friction. > > A pendulum swing in the mind is a revealer for what God is doing by His gravity force. "Feel the Force..." A swinging pendulum has an Earth G. > > There is no conflict scientific for the existence of perpetual motion. It is the norm instead through inertia's definition... but you add friction... and it's the problem. > > > Mitchell Raemsch Yes, it should be the norm. Anything that we can derive through friction, inertia, or energy is man's ability to leverage himself out of this absolution- to manage a relativity of motion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 19:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e1666259-b535-474c-aeec-8836c0c4afdb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #374104 |
On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 9:06:17 PM UTC-6, John Gogo wrote: > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 10:01:04 PM UTC-6, james...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 7:48:24 PM UTC-8, John Gogo wrote: > > > On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 5:16:13 AM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > On 12/01/2016 3:08 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > > > > On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 6:37:10 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > >> On 11/01/2016 4:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > > > >>> On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 9:13:47 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > >>>> On 10/01/2016 2:08 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > >>>>> On 4/01/2016 9:15 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > > > >>>>>> Is there any difference? > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> There's no similarity. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Sylvia. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Oh wait, I was wrong. There is a similarity. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Neither of them exist. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Sylvia. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> In terms of the measuring objects which are observed but where > > > > >>> no local clocks exist- are we able to rid ourselves the notion > > > > >>> of perpetual motion where there is no beginning or end of > > > > >>> measure? > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >> We can rid ourselves of the notion of perpetual motion. There's no > > > > >> need for a caveat. > > > > >> > > > > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > > > > > Are you saying that our clocks are now evolved enough to rid > > > > > ourselves of the problem of objects which "show" no beginning or > > > > > end- yet we have no man-made clock stationed there? > > > > > > > > > > > > > I haven't said anything about clocks. > > > > > > > > Sylvia. > > > > > > Feel free to say anything when it comes to perpetual and absolute motion. > > > > What is the example of what is not perpetual motion? > > > > Science's "Inertia" doesn't stop without friction. > > > > A pendulum swing in the mind is a revealer for what God is doing by His gravity force. "Feel the Force..." A swinging pendulum has an Earth G. > > > > There is no conflict scientific for the existence of perpetual motion. It is the norm instead through inertia's definition... but you add friction... and it's the problem. > > > > > > Mitchell Raemsch > > Yes, it should be the norm. Anything that we can derive through friction, inertia, or energy is man's ability to leverage himself out of this absolution- to manage a relativity of motion. The student should be taught this obvious and most profound obstacle- and consider these limitations seriously when they perform their experiments.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 20:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6d2ff6e6-c30f-4be1-92bf-798d5692061a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #374105 |
On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 9:08:55 PM UTC-6, John Gogo wrote: > On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 9:06:17 PM UTC-6, John Gogo wrote: > > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 10:01:04 PM UTC-6, james...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 7:48:24 PM UTC-8, John Gogo wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 5:16:13 AM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > > On 12/01/2016 3:08 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 6:37:10 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > > >> On 11/01/2016 4:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > > > > >>> On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 9:13:47 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > > >>>> On 10/01/2016 2:08 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > > >>>>> On 4/01/2016 9:15 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > > > > >>>>>> Is there any difference? > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> There's no similarity. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> Sylvia. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Oh wait, I was wrong. There is a similarity. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Neither of them exist. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Sylvia. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> In terms of the measuring objects which are observed but where > > > > > >>> no local clocks exist- are we able to rid ourselves the notion > > > > > >>> of perpetual motion where there is no beginning or end of > > > > > >>> measure? > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> We can rid ourselves of the notion of perpetual motion. There's no > > > > > >> need for a caveat. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you saying that our clocks are now evolved enough to rid > > > > > > ourselves of the problem of objects which "show" no beginning or > > > > > > end- yet we have no man-made clock stationed there? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I haven't said anything about clocks. > > > > > > > > > > Sylvia. > > > > > > > > Feel free to say anything when it comes to perpetual and absolute motion. > > > > > > What is the example of what is not perpetual motion? > > > > > > Science's "Inertia" doesn't stop without friction. > > > > > > A pendulum swing in the mind is a revealer for what God is doing by His gravity force. "Feel the Force..." A swinging pendulum has an Earth G. > > > > > > There is no conflict scientific for the existence of perpetual motion. It is the norm instead through inertia's definition... but you add friction... and it's the problem. > > > > > > > > > Mitchell Raemsch > > > > Yes, it should be the norm. Anything that we can derive through friction, inertia, or energy is man's ability to leverage himself out of this absolution- to manage a relativity of motion. > > The student should be taught this obvious and most profound obstacle- and consider these limitations seriously when they perform their experiments. Coordination is the goal of these unsynched extremely accurate separated clocks.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web