Moses asks science

[jes-us]

Why are you saying mass is a charge? electrical charge and mass are different properties.
Which current theory talks about conservation of light?

There is no present theory that talks about the conservation of light in the way I am . This is new but very factual . Mass measured in kg is a consequence of the bodies charge .

I understand your ''box'' is full of present science but not all this science is complete .

Here is how bodies move through space and why - The ratio of space-times conservation of light will not allow , by physical law , another ''particle'' of light to settle in a position that already has the conservation max limit of 1:1 satisfied .

 

[ratiocinator]

There is no present theory that talks about the conservation of light in the way I am .

Because light isn't conserved. Photons are created and adsorbed all the time.

This is new but very factual .

No it is not.

Mass measured in kg is a consequence of the bodies charge .

Again this is totally wrong. Mass (more specifically active gravitational mass) is somewhat analogous to electric charge, because it determines the strength of the gravitational field of the body, but just describing it are 'charge is pretty meaningless.

I understand your ''box'' is full of present science but not all this science is complete .

Here is how bodies move through space and why - The ratio of space-times conservation of light will not allow , by physical law , another ''particle'' of light to settle in a position that already has the conservation max limit of 1:1 satisfied .

I can't distinguish this from totally meaningless gibberish.

 

[sayak83]

Do you mean this - ''The moon, the earth and the ocean are always there. Then why do tides happen only at certain times.''

The tides happen at certain times because as the moon orbits the Earth , the distance and ''blind side'' of the Earth starts to have affect . The moon ''lets go'' of the ocean as such when it has passed . Also the tidal affect takes time to arrive and go out because of distance .

For example if I cause a splash in the middle of a pond , it will take time for the waves to arrive at the bankside .

I'm not sure what else you want me to say .

The water is actually flowing across the earth through the oceans as it follows the regions of highest and lowest gravitational force (near the moon and the opposite end). In a small lake the gravitational gradient is too low for this to happen from one side of the lake to the other. That is why there is no flow of water in a lake and no tide. The effective gradient force is too small to overcome friction and surface tension type forces.

 

[ratiocinator]

Gravity or the knowledge of it is useful. Because things fall to the ground. But -- (The Washington Post) "Scientists know gravity exists. They just don’t know how it works." https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...d9cfe6-9786-11e9-830a-21b9b36b64ad_story.html

This seems to be repeated often in pop science, but I have no idea why. General Relativity tells us exactly how it works and has passed every observational and experimental test we have ever devised.

Pop science seems to get stuck on some things, like the universe starting at a singularity, which is something which practically no professional cosmologists agree with.

 

[sayak83]

Do you mean this - ''The moon, the earth and the ocean are always there. Then why do tides happen only at certain times.''

The tides happen at certain times because as the moon orbits the Earth , the distance and ''blind side'' of the Earth starts to have affect . The moon ''lets go'' of the ocean as such when it has passed . Also the tidal affect takes time to arrive and go out because of distance .

For example if I cause a splash in the middle of a pond , it will take time for the waves to arrive at the bankside .

I'm not sure what else you want me to say .

This video gives a reasonable explanation of the tides including why we do not see them in lakes

 

[jes-us]

Because light isn't conserved. Photons are created and adsorbed all the time.

Photons are created and absorbed by matter all the time but I haven't mentioned that . I explained that light is conserved by space with a conservation γmax = 1:1

This is new science and based on the work of Einstein and Higgs .

Would you like to start again ?

 

[sayak83]

No, the Moon affects lakes too. But you might have noticed that lakes are quite a bit smaller than the oceans. As a result the tides are going to be quite a bit smaller too. Lake Superior, which is a rather large lake is still much much smaller than the oceans. It has tides of about 5 cm or 3 inches:

Do the Great Lakes have tides?

Water levels in the Great Lakes change because of weather effects, not tides.

oceanservice.noaa.gov

A smaller lake will have even smaller tides. On an average lake the waves from wind will be larger than the tides.

I am not certain that even the great lakes are big enough to have true tides. In a true tide water must flow from one side of the lake (farther from the moon) to the other (closer to the moon) and no lake on earth is big enough for the radial distance between its sides and the moon would be significantly different in that way. I suspect Great Lakes indiectly feels the oceaning tide due to their connection to the sea through the St Lawrence river. When the river-sea junction has a high tide, the increased oceanic water level causes the river flow rate into the ocean to slow causing a knock up effect of overall increase in lake level upstream. The reverse happens during low tide when river drainage rate increases. That's my scientific intuition. I need to look into it to confirm this however.

 

[ratiocinator]

Photons are created and absorbed by matter all the time but I haven't mentioned that . I explained that light is conserved by space with a conservation γmax = 1:1

Gibberish.

This is new science and based on the work of Einstein and Higgs .

How, exactly? Show the mathematics. If you have no maths in a physics hypothesis, you have literally nothing.

 

[jes-us]

Gibberish.


How, exactly? Show the mathematics. If you have no maths in a physics hypothesis, you have literally nothing.

What do you think this is γmax = 1:1 ?

It is not gibberish , I have the same box as you have , mine is also full of present science . Why so arrogant ?

Do you not understand a photon maximum conservation and ratios ?

Well if you don't , lucky I am here to teach you something new then isn't it .

We can describe any 4 dimensional portion of space-time as been equal in conserved photon energy to the volume using γmax = 1:1

Example : if x=10cm , y=10cm and z=10cm , we can say that x,y,z has 1000cm^3 eV of conserved energy .

 

[Altfish]

This reminds me of this...

 

[ratiocinator]

Would you like to start again ?

The last time you mentioned this, that I can find was:

I've explained enough times how it works to them , I can't force them too hear !

Space-time is a conservation and I even have an equation of how it works

γmax = 1:1

This is equally meaningless. For, example, what is 'γmax' a ratio of?

I also found this:

The mass of the moon and the oceans is the elementary charge of the body , the ''coupling'' between the bodies is simply because the space between the bodies (excluding within the atmosphere ) does not conserve elementary charge .
The reason the moon doesn't collide with the Earth and vice versus is because of the conservation of light of the bodies , which of cause is renewable by the suns energy .
The velocity of the moon and Earth is caused by the bodies conservation of light which allows gravity B to have affect .

Which is also gibberish.

The reason the moon doesn't collide with the earth is because it is in orbit, i.e. in free fall. That is, it is continually accelerating toward the earth but having a large enough tangential velocity that the earth's curvature means that its surface is receding from the 'falling' moon as fast as the moon is accelerating towards it. This has been understood for hundreds of years.

If you do the maths, this explains Kepler's laws.

Orbit - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[jes-us]

This reminds me of this...

I don't know how you have the time for such videos and no idea what you meant by this video .

 

[jes-us]

The last time you mentioned this, that I can find was:

This is equally meaningless. For, example, what is 'γmax' a ratio of?

You don't know that γ is the symbol for photons ?

Or are you referring to my use which is the conserved point energy of space that constructs space time .

 

[Altfish]

One makes time, I ensure I spend time reading, researching and in some cases watching. This video was light relief.

What did I mean? Well, Bill O'Reilly demonstrates elementary school knowledge about tides, I thought it was relevant.

 

[exchemist]

Because my rubber ducky in a beach side pool doesn't move when the tide is coming in or going out . Because specs of dust sitting on the pier don't move when the tide is coming in or going out . Because dry grains of sand on the beach don't move when the tide is coming in or going out . Are we to believe the moon can move an absolute huge mass of water but doesn't affect the mass of what I mentioned ?

As @ratiocinator says, F =GmM/r², basically. If you don't bother to learn the relevant science, you are liable to make silly remarks like yours.

But from your facetious tone, I expect you are just trolling, so I won't waste my time attempting to enlighten you.

 

[jes-us]

F =GmM/r², basically. If you don't bother to learn the relevant science, you are liable to make silly remarks like yours.

But from your facetious tone, I expect you are just trolling, so I won't waste my time attempting to enlighten you.

Tell me the exact distance to the moon or the sun ? The exact mass or components of the moon ? I have the same box of science as you , I know very well the distances are an approximation the same as the mass , not an exact measure. So please don't post , making out your box of science has different contents than mine .
I won't waste my time enlightening you .

 

[ratiocinator]

What do you think this is γmax = 1:1 ?

You posted this while I was composing another reply, which includes asking you this question. It's your formula, how do you expect me to know? It's sloppy science (at best) to post a formula without defining the terms.

I have the same box as you have , mine is also full of present science . Why so arrogant ?

It's not arrogance, I'm not proposing something new but I have observed you making multiple scientifically illiterate claims, so the probability of you actually having something new and correct is practically zero.

Do you not understand a photon maximum conservation and ratios ?

Well if you don't , lucky I am here to teach you something new then isn't it .

We can describe any 4 dimensional portion of space-time as been equal in conserved photon energy to the volume using γmax = 1:1

Example : if x=10cm , y=10cm and z=10cm , we can say that x,y,z has 1000cm^3 eV of conserved energy .

More gibberish.

Your last sentence is obviously wrong - it's absurd to claim some arbitrary volume contains a specific, let alone constant, photon energy - is also obviously wrong purely from dimensional analysis (units). You can't just take a volume and make it equal to an energy. You also said 4-dimensional and then gave an example in only 3.

You don't know that γ is the symbol for photons ?

Yes, but just putting 'max' and then making it equal to a ratio, means the whole thing is meaningless without further clarification.

 

[exchemist]

Tell me the exact distance to the moon or the sun ? The exact mass or components of the moon ? I have the same box of science as you , I know very well the distances are an approximation the same as the mass , not an exact measure. So please don't post , making out your box of science has different contents than mine .
I won't waste my time enlightening you .

Nope. My Theorist/Sustainer/ANewDawn/James Blunt etc etc,[ yawn, snore] detector has just gone off.

So instead, adopting my sinister thought policeman persona, I have to ask, how's your neurological reference frame doing these days ?

Arf arf.

 

[exchemist]

You posted this while I was composing another reply, which includes asking you this question. It's your formula, how do you expect me to know? It's sloppy science (at best) to post a formula without defining the terms.


It's not arrogance, I'm not proposing something new but I have observed you making multiple scientifically illiterate claims, so the probability of you actually having something new and correct is practically zero.


More gibberish.

Your last sentence is obviously wrong - it's absurd to claim some arbitrary volume contains a specific, let alone constant, photon energy - is also obviously wrong purely from dimensional analysis (units). You can't just take a volume and make it equal to an energy. You also said 4-dimensional and then gave an example in only 3.


Yes, but just putting 'max' and then making it equal to a ratio, means the whole thing is meaningless without further clarification.

This is the notorious timewasting troll back again, whose speciality is asking daft questions on scientific topics, to draw you into a pointless and unproductive dialogue for as long as he can. He has certain tics, which I have come to recognise, from both here and various science forums where he occasionally pops up, before being smartly banned again.

I wouldn't bother, if I were you.

 

[jes-us]

Your last sentence is obviously wrong - it's absurd to claim some arbitrary volume contains a specific, let alone constant, photon energy - is also obviously wrong purely from dimensional analysis (units). You can't just take a volume and make it equal to an energy. You also said 4-dimensional and then gave an example in only 3.


Yes, but just putting 'max' and then making it equal to a ratio, means the whole thing is meaningless without further clarification.

''Space-time can be thought of as a 'fabric' in which the objects of the Universe are embedded.''

Space-time as an elastic fabric

The collision of distant black holes generates gravitational waves, or ripples in 'space-time'. Space-time can be thought of as a 'fabric' in which the objects of the Universe are embedded.

www.esa.int

Please stop saying I am talking gibberish when it is your own failure to understand .

Maybe I overestimate other scientists ability to understand , if that is the case , my apologies .


'' it's absurd to claim some arbitrary volume contains a specific, let alone constant, photon energy''

Are you saying space-time is fake and ESA , NASA and Einstein are all lying ?