The Opposing Law
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is known about this Crothers?
Next: Research supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration finds first-order violation of local Lorentz invariance
From: Inertial on 4 Jan 2010 06:57 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:e0579ef9-ca1c-4785-b984-3cb8e779ea09(a)e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On 4 Jan, 01:58, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "jdawe" <mrjd...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:0be085c2-2b9c-4c3d-9377-286223e84994(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... >> >> > For each opposing operation are 2 opposing operands. >> >> That makes no sense >> >> > Increasing an operand brings a corresponding decrease in its opposing >> > operand. >> >> > or >> >> > Decreasing an operand brings a corresponding increase in its opposing >> > operand. >> >> That makes no sense >> >> > An operand can never be increased\decreased to the point where itself >> > or its opposing operand becomes null. >> >> That makes no sense >> >> > An operand is never the same as its opposing operand it is always the >> > complete inverse. >> >> That makes no sense >> >> All in all, yours was just another post completely devoid of sense > > Then you're aren't very intelligent Inertial. On the contrary .. I recognise his naive classifications and have given him counter examples many times > Any fool can see that > what he is describing You would be that fool then, I take it? > is an inverse relationship between two > quantities, I know exactly what it is. > and further stating that while the balance between these > quantities can grow very large, it can never become such that any > value is absolutely nothing. Why does every operation require a balance between exactly two opposing operands? And why does this need to be such that increasing one decreases the other? > Off the top of my head, this accurately describes the way a weighing- > scale works - No .. a scale remains in balance when the weights on each side are either both increased by the same amount or both decreased by the same amount. The opposite of his claim (that one must increase and the other decrease). > the only point at which one quantity can become zero, > and the other infinite, is at the point where the weighting platforms > are vertically separated, and that is the point at which the origin of > the two quantities become indistinguishable from one another (i.e. one > cannot tell merely from looking at the angle, on which side the weight > was placed, and since the purpose of the scale is to compare the two > quantities, the function of the scale breaks down because one cannot > distinguish what was placed on the scale nor where it was placed). His is an overly broad and naive generalization.
From: Ste on 4 Jan 2010 10:30 On 4 Jan, 11:57, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:e0579ef9-ca1c-4785-b984-3cb8e779ea09(a)e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On 4 Jan, 01:58, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "jdawe" <mrjd...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:0be085c2-2b9c-4c3d-9377-286223e84994(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > For each opposing operation are 2 opposing operands. > > >> That makes no sense > > >> > Increasing an operand brings a corresponding decrease in its opposing > >> > operand. > > >> > or > > >> > Decreasing an operand brings a corresponding increase in its opposing > >> > operand. > > >> That makes no sense > > >> > An operand can never be increased\decreased to the point where itself > >> > or its opposing operand becomes null. > > >> That makes no sense > > >> > An operand is never the same as its opposing operand it is always the > >> > complete inverse. > > >> That makes no sense > > >> All in all, yours was just another post completely devoid of sense > > > Then you're aren't very intelligent Inertial. > > On the contrary .. I recognise his naive classifications and have given him > counter examples many times I don't know about previous occasions, but there was nothing in this post that was "devoid of sense". > > Any fool can see that > > what he is describing > > You would be that fool then, I take it? I must be. > > is an inverse relationship between two > > quantities, > > I know exactly what it is. > > > and further stating that while the balance between these > > quantities can grow very large, it can never become such that any > > value is absolutely nothing. > > Why does every operation require a balance between exactly two opposing > operands? And why does this need to be such that increasing one decreases > the other? It doesn't. I agree the world is not characterised exclusively by inverse relationships. But clearly what is being described on this occasion *is* an inverse relationship. > > Off the top of my head, this accurately describes the way a weighing- > > scale works - > > No .. a scale remains in balance when the weights on each side are either > both increased by the same amount or both decreased by the same amount. The > opposite of his claim (that one must increase and the other decrease). Agreed. But that doesn't negate the inverse relationship of the two sides of the scale. If you load both sides of the scale in equal proportions, then the measurement on the scale remains the same. > > the only point at which one quantity can become zero, > > and the other infinite, is at the point where the weighting platforms > > are vertically separated, and that is the point at which the origin of > > the two quantities become indistinguishable from one another (i.e. one > > cannot tell merely from looking at the angle, on which side the weight > > was placed, and since the purpose of the scale is to compare the two > > quantities, the function of the scale breaks down because one cannot > > distinguish what was placed on the scale nor where it was placed). > > His is an overly broad and naive generalization. It almost certainly is, but an "overly broad generalisation" is not a "post completely devoid of sense".
From: jbriggs444 on 4 Jan 2010 12:30 On Jan 4, 4:42 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 4 Jan, 01:58, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "jdawe" <mrjd...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:0be085c2-2b9c-4c3d-9377-286223e84994(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > > > > For each opposing operation are 2 opposing operands. > > > That makes no sense > > > > Increasing an operand brings a corresponding decrease in its opposing > > > operand. > > > > or > > > > Decreasing an operand brings a corresponding increase in its opposing > > > operand. > > > That makes no sense > > > > An operand can never be increased\decreased to the point where itself > > > or its opposing operand becomes null. > > > That makes no sense > > > > An operand is never the same as its opposing operand it is always the > > > complete inverse. > > > That makes no sense > > > All in all, yours was just another post completely devoid of sense > > Then you're aren't very intelligent Inertial. Any fool can see that > what he is describing is an inverse relationship between two > quantities, and further stating that while the balance between these > quantities can grow very large, it can never become such that any > value is absolutely nothing. You can make sense out of pretty much anything if you squint hard enough. The question is whether you're just making sense out of whole cloth or actually distilling it from something that was originally there. One problem with your reading of the posting is that it implies that there's no such thing the square root of four. "an operand is never the same as its opposing operand" Apply this assertion to the equation: 4 = x * y. If we take your interpretation of OP's words then he's saying, plain as day: "if we have a four sided rectangular with an area of four square inches, the width and height of the window may never be two inches each". > Off the top of my head, this accurately describes the way a weighing- > scale works You're dangerously close to posting nonsense yourself. You haven't identified a way in which a weighing scale demonstrates a multiplicative inverse relationship. > - the only point at which one quantity can become zero, > and the other infinite, is at the point where the weighting platforms > are vertically separated, So what you're talking about is probably an [un-]equal arm pan balance. The quantities you want to talk about are the weights in the respective pans. But you haven't thought the example through. Two mistakes: 1. You haven't paid attention to what invariant you're trying to maintain. A equal arm pan balance has two free input variables. Nothing says that there's ANY required relationship between them. Normally we try to maintain the invariant: "the pans balance". That's the bit that enforces a correlation on the two variables. I'm inclined to forgive this. It's implicit in the way we normally use a pan balance. 2. For such a balance to balance it follows that the quantities in the pans are directly proportional, not inversely proportional. Ooops! We can still make your example work. Put a fixed mass on a fixed moment arm on the left side of the balance. Don't mess further with that side. Put a rail on the right side of the balance extending out horizontally. Optionally put indentations at fixed offsets on this rail. Do not mess further with this rail. Hang a variable mass at a variable distance on the right hand rail so that the scale balances. Assume that the scale is left-heavy without such a mass. The _position_ of the mass is one operand. The _weight_ of the mass is the other operand. For the scale to balance, these two operands will have an inversely proportional relationship. fixed-torque[*k] = weight * distance That's the general form of an equation expressing an inverse proportionality. Put your two correlated variables on one side and a constant of proportionality on the other. The constant of proportionality may have a contribution based on your system of units if that system is not appropriately coherent. > and that is the point at which the origin of > the two quantities become indistinguishable from one another (i.e. one > cannot tell merely from looking at the angle, on which side the weight > was placed, and since the purpose of the scale is to compare the two > quantities, the function of the scale breaks down because one cannot > distinguish what was placed on the scale nor where it was placed). Given the error above, this part is empty babbling.
From: Ste on 4 Jan 2010 14:32 On 4 Jan, 17:30, jbriggs444 <jbriggs...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 4, 4:42 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 4 Jan, 01:58, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > "jdawe" <mrjd...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:0be085c2-2b9c-4c3d-9377-286223e84994(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com.... > > > > > For each opposing operation are 2 opposing operands. > > > > That makes no sense > > > > > Increasing an operand brings a corresponding decrease in its opposing > > > > operand. > > > > > or > > > > > Decreasing an operand brings a corresponding increase in its opposing > > > > operand. > > > > That makes no sense > > > > > An operand can never be increased\decreased to the point where itself > > > > or its opposing operand becomes null. > > > > That makes no sense > > > > > An operand is never the same as its opposing operand it is always the > > > > complete inverse. > > > > That makes no sense > > > > All in all, yours was just another post completely devoid of sense > > > Then you're aren't very intelligent Inertial. Any fool can see that > > what he is describing is an inverse relationship between two > > quantities, and further stating that while the balance between these > > quantities can grow very large, it can never become such that any > > value is absolutely nothing. > > You can make sense out of pretty much anything if you squint hard > enough. The question is whether you're just making sense out of whole > cloth or actually distilling it from something that was originally > there. Indeed. But if someone's assertions are only partially or vaguely correct, then it shouldn't be too hard to refute it, or re-state the argument in more accurate terms, and that would be far more productive than vindictive rants about posts being "completely devoid of sense". > One problem with your reading of the posting is that it implies that > there's no such thing the square root of four. I fail to see how that could be inferred from my post. > "an operand is never the same as its opposing operand" > > Apply this assertion to the equation: 4 = x * y. > > If we take your interpretation of OP's words then he's saying, plain > as day: > > "if we have a four sided rectangular with an area of four square > inches, the width and height of the window may never be two inches > each". I think a better re-statement would be to say that, if by definition a rectangle (as distinct from a square) always has a longer side, then area = longer side * shorter side. Longer side = area / shorter side. Shorter side = area / longer side. By this logic, if area is held constant, then an increase in the longer side must necessarily mean a reduction in the shorter side. At the point at which longer side = shorter side, the ability to distinguish between the sides disappears, and the shape no longer takes the form of a rectangle (and the formula becomes meaningless/ useless). So yes, by that logic if area is held constant, then adjacent sides of a rectangle may never be equal. > > - the only point at which one quantity can become zero, > > and the other infinite, is at the point where the weighting platforms > > are vertically separated, > > So what you're talking about is probably an [un-]equal arm pan > balance. Clearly. > The quantities you want to > talk about are the weights in the respective pans. But you haven't > thought the example through. Nor did I pretend to have done so. > Two mistakes: > > 1. You haven't paid attention to what invariant you're trying to > maintain. A equal arm pan balance has two free input variables. > Nothing says that there's ANY required relationship between them. > Normally we try to maintain the invariant: "the pans balance". That's > the bit that enforces a correlation on the two variables. The whole purpose of the scale is to express a relationship between two weights. The scale will determine whether the weights are unequal and (to a very limited extent) the degree of inequality. Obviously if you know absolutely what weight is on one arm of the scale, then you can determine absolutely what is on the other, and the inverse relationship is used only to determine the arm to which/from which weight should be added/removed. > I'm inclined to forgive this. It's implicit in the way we > normally use a pan balance. > > 2. For such a balance to balance it follows that the quantities in > the pans are directly proportional, not inversely proportional. > > Ooops! But a scale with 10 kilos on each arm cannot distinguish from a scale with 1 kilo on each arm. Indeed, by the scale's measure, 10 kilos on each arm is *equivalent* to 1 kilo on each arm. But that's because the scale is designed to measure only relative weight - it performs its function by reliance on the inverse relationship between the weight placed on each side.
From: Inertial on 4 Jan 2010 18:05
"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4637739f-6039-474d-9479-42338d1afbff(a)c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On 4 Jan, 11:57, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:e0579ef9-ca1c-4785-b984-3cb8e779ea09(a)e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 4 Jan, 01:58, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "jdawe" <mrjd...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:0be085c2-2b9c-4c3d-9377-286223e84994(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > For each opposing operation are 2 opposing operands. >> >> >> That makes no sense >> >> >> > Increasing an operand brings a corresponding decrease in its >> >> > opposing >> >> > operand. >> >> >> > or >> >> >> > Decreasing an operand brings a corresponding increase in its >> >> > opposing >> >> > operand. >> >> >> That makes no sense >> >> >> > An operand can never be increased\decreased to the point where >> >> > itself >> >> > or its opposing operand becomes null. >> >> >> That makes no sense >> >> >> > An operand is never the same as its opposing operand it is always >> >> > the >> >> > complete inverse. >> >> >> That makes no sense >> >> >> All in all, yours was just another post completely devoid of sense >> >> > Then you're aren't very intelligent Inertial. >> >> On the contrary .. I recognise his naive classifications and have given >> him >> counter examples many times > > I don't know about previous occasions, but there was nothing in this > post that was "devoid of sense". > > > >> > Any fool can see that >> > what he is describing >> >> You would be that fool then, I take it? > > I must be. > > > >> > is an inverse relationship between two >> > quantities, >> >> I know exactly what it is. >> >> > and further stating that while the balance between these >> > quantities can grow very large, it can never become such that any >> > value is absolutely nothing. >> >> Why does every operation require a balance between exactly two opposing >> operands? And why does this need to be such that increasing one >> decreases >> the other? > > It doesn't. I agree the world is not characterised exclusively by > inverse relationships. But that is his claim in this and previous posts. Everything is in opposite pairs, according to him. > But clearly what is being described on this > occasion *is* an inverse relationship. In that case, all he is saying is an inverse relation is an inverse relation. But he is saying for each operator .. whatever an 'operator' is. > >> > Off the top of my head, this accurately describes the way a weighing- >> > scale works - >> >> No .. a scale remains in balance when the weights on each side are either >> both increased by the same amount or both decreased by the same amount. >> The >> opposite of his claim (that one must increase and the other decrease). > > Agreed. But that doesn't negate the inverse relationship of the two > sides of the scale. If you load both sides of the scale in equal > proportions, then the measurement on the scale remains the same. So its not an example of opposing forces where you must increase one and decrease the other. Indeed if you have increase one opposing operand, you must increase the other as well to keep things in balance. newton knew that. >> > the only point at which one quantity can become zero, >> > and the other infinite, is at the point where the weighting platforms >> > are vertically separated, and that is the point at which the origin of >> > the two quantities become indistinguishable from one another (i.e. one >> > cannot tell merely from looking at the angle, on which side the weight >> > was placed, and since the purpose of the scale is to compare the two >> > quantities, the function of the scale breaks down because one cannot >> > distinguish what was placed on the scale nor where it was placed). >> >> His is an overly broad and naive generalization. > > It almost certainly is, but an "overly broad generalisation" is not a > "post completely devoid of sense". It is when what he says as an overly broad generalisation is nonsense. |