Re: [free_energy] Re: Dark ages
- Gary S. wrote:
> Angular momentum is itself a propertyI think that can't be right. A frame rotating with respect to another
> of non-inertial motion and its value is INDEPENDENT of which INERTIAL
> frame in which it is measured.
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
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
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
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
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).
- 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
>contrary to what you say, only one of definitions suggests that1. mentions "Potentisation", that process uses dilution to increase
> dilution increases efficacy.
effectiveness. 2. says "highly diluted", i.e. dilution 3. says
infinitesimal doses, implying dilution ..
>The term Homeopathy is wider in scopeI already said that people are very confused about it ... many of the
> than you think.
public think its the same as herbalism ... most haven't a clue about
> If one definition is not enough, try this one from the Encyclopaediadisease."
> "Treatment of disease by the administration of tiny doses of a drug
> that in healthy persons causes symptoms resembling those of the
>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 ofAureolus
> homeopathy was not the 19th C Hahnemann but rather the 16th C
> Philippus Theophrastus Bombast of Hohenheim a.k.a. Paracelsus, oneof
> the greatest figures in the history of medicine.Evidence supersedes reputation, every time.