Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [free_energy] Re: Dark ages

Expand Messages
  • Roland Paterson-Jones
    ... I think that can t be right. A frame rotating with respect to another frame can still be an INERTIAL frame, as long as neither frame is accelerating. I am
    Message 1 of 48 , Jun 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Gary S. wrote:
      > Angular momentum is itself a property
      > of non-inertial motion and its value is INDEPENDENT of which INERTIAL
      > frame in which it is measured.

      I think that can't be right. A frame rotating with respect to another
      frame can still be an INERTIAL frame, as long as neither frame is
      accelerating. I am using inertial frame in the sense that a body at rest
      in the frame feels no inertial forces.

      So, angular momentum, depending as it does on rotation speed is
      dependent exactly on the relative rotation of the inertial frame of the
      observer.

      Incidentally the question of whether there is, indeed, a single global
      INERTIAL frame is a deep one. Without a single universal inertial frame,
      you can get pretty much any energy and momentum value you want by
      stepping out of the system far enough into your observer frame.

      If there is a universal inertial frame, it is something like the (Mach?)
      frame of the distant stars. Taking Occam's razor to the observable
      universe, we can define the frame that minimises the energy of remote
      objects (stars, galaxies, et al). In this way it is pretty easy to
      define the global rotational INERTIAL frame (it's the one for which the
      stars stand still), but actually there is no evidence that this really
      is the right frame. We'd really have to be able to get outside all of
      the observable objects to check that they aren't in fact rotating in
      some larger scale.

      It does like this:

      1. The earth beneath our feet is our intuitive inertial frame, but
      that's not accurate, since the earth is spinning by reference to the sun
      (hence day/night).
      2. The earth's position in space (after correcting for it's own
      rotation) is the next guess, but that's not accurate, because the earth
      itself is rotating around the sun by reference to the rest of the solar
      system.
      3. The solar system is the next guess, but that's not accurate, since it
      is rotating around the centre of the milky way, by reference to other
      galaxies).
      4. The milky way is the next guess, but...

      So, by looking further and further out, you can get a better feel for
      what might be the one true inertial field, but there is no way of
      knowing if that is accurate, cos you can never look out infinitely.

      Then, the other question is whether a true universal inertial frame is
      useful. But without it, you can calculate the kinetic energy of a system
      as any value you like.

      It's a difficult philosophical question (for me, at least).

      Roland
    • velakand
      Definitions of homeopathy are like homeopathy itself, confused. Different definitions definitely define it distinctly differently, demonstrating deplorably
      Message 48 of 48 , Jun 21, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Definitions of homeopathy are like homeopathy itself, confused.
        Different definitions definitely define it distinctly differently,
        demonstrating deplorably deficient descriptive delineation. Oh well.
        You can probably tell that I've reached the end of trying to show
        that homeopathy, however defined, is bunk. Anyway, my money's still
        on offer to anyone who can prove homeopathy, or any other paranormal
        thing; www.aske-skeptics.org.uk



        >contrary to what you say, only one of definitions suggests that
        > dilution increases efficacy.


        1. mentions "Potentisation", that process uses dilution to increase
        effectiveness. 2. says "highly diluted", i.e. dilution 3. says
        infinitesimal doses, implying dilution ..


        >The term Homeopathy is wider in scope
        > than you think.
        >

        I already said that people are very confused about it ... many of the
        public think its the same as herbalism ... most haven't a clue about
        anything.


        > If one definition is not enough, try this one from the Encyclopaedia
        > Britannica:
        >
        > "Treatment of disease by the administration of tiny doses of a drug
        > that in healthy persons causes symptoms resembling those of the
        disease."
        >


        That, as a sweeping generalisation, as a general principle that
        applies somehow magically to all diseases and maladies, as I've
        explained, especially in the simplistic ignoring by homeopathy of the
        complexity of different diseases and the giving of silly standardised
        albeit effectively nonexistent doses at c6 or c30 ignoring all
        variations in metabolic processes that in proper medicine lead to
        widely varying effective doses for differently-acting substances in
        different diseases, is a pile of steaming poo.



        > The EB goes further to point out that the true originator of
        > homeopathy was not the 19th C Hahnemann but rather the 16th C
        Aureolus
        > Philippus Theophrastus Bombast of Hohenheim a.k.a. Paracelsus, one
        of
        > the greatest figures in the history of medicine.
        >


        Evidence supersedes reputation, every time.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.