Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Voluntary Physics

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alan on May 21, 2004 11:09:13 UTC

What I found is that "physics laws" appear voluntary; they only seem binding when you count.

Numbers (which you count with) assume equal divisions, or attraction of opposites (for example: "1 + 1 = 2" places these DIFFERENT "1"s together; kind of forced "attraction" under the label "2".

In that sense the "fuel" of physics laws does appear to be "opposites attract"; but it is up to you whether to bind or loose things.

Mathematics says things like "3 + 8 = 11" without saying 3 what + 8 what = 11 what.

So math involves imaginary objects. Example:
3 apples + 8 oranges = 11 apple-oranges

If you have lots of simultaneous equations in math; without even saying what they are talking about they collectively partly define what they are talking about by self-reference to each other.

Like: 3 + 8 = 11 doesn't say what is being talked about;

but include 11 - 5 = 6 and you can say that these two math "sentences" tell us that "11" is what you get from 3 + 8 and what you can take 5 from to get 6.

Physics apparently is about what maths fudges;
it seems to be about tracking what you COULD be talking about in math but didn't say.

Throw in an "object":

3 towels + 8? = 11? and 11? - 5? = 6? tells you something about "towels":

that you can add 8 somethings to them and get 11 towel/somethings and can take 5 somethings away and get 6 somethings.

I found:

consider a Venn diagram of two sets partly overlapping:

the non-overlap is a generalisation and "electro"
the overlap is a specification and is "magnetic".

The "charge" is "bias" and is negative one because it is so far defined only by the missing other set (and is not noticeable unless you introduce a third set; that makes it "current". But to see "electric current" requires a fourth set so you can define "electric" and "current" as separate concepts.

But third and fourth sets generate a potential difference; as the overlap of the first two sets may be partly occupied by the third and fourth sets. But how can you tell the difference betwen the concept "potential difference" while it is muddled with "electric current"?

Need a fifth element: something that occupies both fourth and fifth sets.

We call this "volt" but it is like "vault" as in gymnastics; as it is literally in this set-approach here like a vault between third and fourth sets that allows one to jump between them without "touching" first and second sets.

How can "electric current" have direction?

It must become "less current"; biased in some direction by a particular potential difference.

To see this "less current" as "not less" but still with direction requires a resistor that generalises the potential difference by providing hurdles (fifth elements) to the current to vault over.

How tell the difference between the concept "resistor" and "constant electric current with direction"?

Requires the hurdles (fifth elements) to be general yet particular; so to form a battery in the circuit.

How to avoid confusing "battery" with "constant electric current with direction"?

Take one fifth element and draw it out (generalise it) as a wire; to give the electric current a conducted tour of the circuit.

How tell difference between "conducted tour" and "wire"?

Make the wire from a conductor (metal)?

Gravity:

See A meets B from D meeting them after they met C
and if count "C meet D" by E; A and B seem to come together in CD detail in E.

If regarded "A meets B" as an electron; and "C meets D" as an electron: each may "spin" towards one item in the other pair.

For gravity you need for example "A meets B" spins to C in D.

Any view of "C meets D" then would require two versions of "A meets B" to allow spin to still occur from A:B to C in D without losing sight of C and D (allowing them to be defined separately to gravity defining them).

The other A meets B is not necessarily opposite spin; it can be neutral.

If it was opposite spin; gravity would have no background to be seen against except negative gravity; to see negative gravity would require a background for each gravity so two more versions of A meets B. This gives four versions of A meets B seen in C meets D.

------Alan

Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    Google
     
    Web www.astronomy.net
    DayNightLine
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2021 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins