yup, he's stoned.
lerts. Please explain your problem slowly and carefully. MAke sure that there is nothing ambiguous. What are the stones doing, where are they rotating around, and are you notations for linear or rotational speed.
I'm 100% sure there is nothing wrong with the momentum model in your problem, just that you don't understand momentum, energy or speed/velocity. But I can't tell you where you are wrong until I understand the problem.
I'm 100% sure there is nothing wrong with the momentum model in your problem, just that you don't understand momentum, energy or speed/velocity. But I can't tell you where you are wrong until I understand the problem.
The problem is that he has mental health issues, and this thread is making it worse by giving him a reason to pursue these often misguided and paranoid thoughts. It may look like he is trying to work out scientific problems, but when his conclusion is almost always that this world is fake and he is being watched and manipulated, it should be clear that this is not healthy.
This thread should be locked for lerts own good, but it's hard for the moderators because he is not breaking any rules. I'm not addressing lerts directly, because it's clear that he ignores any post like this, and only replies to insults.
This thread should be locked for lerts own good, but it's hard for the moderators because he is not breaking any rules. I'm not addressing lerts directly, because it's clear that he ignores any post like this, and only replies to insults.
Yes but is it any more dangerous than having a belief in selected segments from a 2000 year old written story that's been badly translated and taken out of context? If we tolerate those who believe in invisible pink unicorns, then we should tolerate Lerts too.
EDIT: For point of reference this pro-Lerts post isn't real, as Lerts has quite rightly summised, he is just imagining somebody of credence on these forums as proffering him support. Therefore this post did not occur, Lerts' paranoid dellusions are true, and i'm just an invention of Lerts mind.
EDIT: For point of reference this pro-Lerts post isn't real, as Lerts has quite rightly summised, he is just imagining somebody of credence on these forums as proffering him support. Therefore this post did not occur, Lerts' paranoid dellusions are true, and i'm just an invention of Lerts mind.
oh of course im crazy but thats normal last girl i kissed i was 17 now im 34, who wouldnt be crazy like this, now you realize how mean those attacks on a crazy person are
but that im crazy doesnt lessen my arguments:
i have a central stone of 1kg and two outside stones rotating around it of 1kg as well
when the outside stones are at 3 and 9 position their speeds will be 1 m/s each, therefore if the cog is static central one will have an oposite speed of 2 m/s
what speed will have outside stones at 12 o clock position when central stone is still?
your unability to answer this question backs up the stage world theory because the answer to this question proves conservation is a lie, and a bad lie
but that im crazy doesnt lessen my arguments:
i have a central stone of 1kg and two outside stones rotating around it of 1kg as well
when the outside stones are at 3 and 9 position their speeds will be 1 m/s each, therefore if the cog is static central one will have an oposite speed of 2 m/s
what speed will have outside stones at 12 o clock position when central stone is still?
your unability to answer this question backs up the stage world theory because the answer to this question proves conservation is a lie, and a bad lie
So a fixed central mass, with two masses rotating around it? In the same direction, or opposite direction (contrarotation)?
If contrarotating:
Mass 1 has a momentum of Mwr where w is the angular velocity, r is the radius and M is the mass.
Mass 2 has a momentum of Mwr in the opposite direction
Total angular momentum is 0
If rotating in the same direction:
Mass 1 has a momentum of Mwr
Mass 2 has a momentum of Mwr
Total momentum of the system is 2Mwr
I really don't understand the question to be honest!
If contrarotating:
Mass 1 has a momentum of Mwr where w is the angular velocity, r is the radius and M is the mass.
Mass 2 has a momentum of Mwr in the opposite direction
Total angular momentum is 0
If rotating in the same direction:
Mass 1 has a momentum of Mwr
Mass 2 has a momentum of Mwr
Total momentum of the system is 2Mwr
I really don't understand the question to be honest!
im using linear momentums here where it says 3 m/s is actually 2 m/s
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e222/raaaid/momentum.jpg
this drawing is the final prediction from the initial speeds that cons of momentum does but is in contradiction with cons of energy
just use linear momentums and youll see, just try to solve final speeds being initial ones 1 and 2 m/s
btw i admit im crazy but i lack total conviction proper of delusion so my suspicious of the world being a stage not being a conviction is actually sane
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e222/raaaid/momentum.jpg
this drawing is the final prediction from the initial speeds that cons of momentum does but is in contradiction with cons of energy
just use linear momentums and youll see, just try to solve final speeds being initial ones 1 and 2 m/s
btw i admit im crazy but i lack total conviction proper of delusion so my suspicious of the world being a stage not being a conviction is actually sane
yes. it is not probable that you are wrong in your "analysis"
it is more probable that you know physics, the world is fake, we are all in a conspiracy, energy is not conserved, neither is momentum, hundreds of years of science were all in preparation for your life so that we could have a laugh at your expense in half a dozen internet forums.
it is more probable that you know physics, the world is fake, we are all in a conspiracy, energy is not conserved, neither is momentum, hundreds of years of science were all in preparation for your life so that we could have a laugh at your expense in half a dozen internet forums.
you are right tristan momentum1 is 0 not 4
i forgot momentum has sign, final speed is square root of 3
edit:
this i thought it right the way normal i got it wrong but maybe my long standing ideas like the ones for my inertial thruster are rare more cause people doesnt give a dam to find out if he is lied
anyway i admit i was wrong the lie on physics is pretty well constructed but has flaws unestudied like spiral motion of tetherballs
i forgot momentum has sign, final speed is square root of 3
edit:
this i thought it right the way normal i got it wrong but maybe my long standing ideas like the ones for my inertial thruster are rare more cause people doesnt give a dam to find out if he is lied
anyway i admit i was wrong the lie on physics is pretty well constructed but has flaws unestudied like spiral motion of tetherballs
So what's your view on any one of the cyclic universe theories, Lerts?
of course i develope my own theory, why should be hawkings wild theorization be any more valid than mine? maybe even mysel i have better contact with the collective uncouncious
ill recopile my ideas and tell you, interesting i even invented a name for this during my second nervous breakdown the bingbang
ill recopile my ideas and tell you, interesting i even invented a name for this during my second nervous breakdown the bingbang
Hawkins didnt come up with any of the cyclic universe theories that i'm aware of, although from recollection he does believe that time bounces forwards then backwards with a singular universal state, and if I recall right he thinks time is going backwards right now, which could explain why I cant remember being born, but mostly importantly under his own model is completely irrellevent because time would later be moving forward again when he's doing the same calculation.
He's a twat anyway, ignore Hawkins.
He's a twat anyway, ignore Hawkins.
Well, he does sort of have a grasp of physics at a slightly better level than you do.
Becky - can you remember dying (or being on your death bed)? So if you don't, and don't remember being born, then maybe time is static?
Well it does occur to me that 4th dimensional space is not linear, although i've seen no evidence of it reversing I do see evidence of it moving at different speeds (thanks to Einstein 
).
With this in mind, is it possible that time can be plotted to any point, but that my only recollections are consistent with the past. So that in a higher dimension I could point to any point in the 4th dimension (time) and see what the lower 3 dimensions contain at that given point?
With this in mind one must then accept the concept of a destiny, which quantum physics implies is false (fire a light at 2 holes 1 photon wide), save for the alternate dimension theory of the 10 dimension model - where i'm allowed freedom of choice in my own experience of destiny, but all other destinies are played out.
So the mere suggestion that time is not linear is disproven by quantum mechanics unless other, unproveable, circumstances are true. This being the case, there's an alternative dimension where Lerts is right.
).With this in mind, is it possible that time can be plotted to any point, but that my only recollections are consistent with the past. So that in a higher dimension I could point to any point in the 4th dimension (time) and see what the lower 3 dimensions contain at that given point?
With this in mind one must then accept the concept of a destiny, which quantum physics implies is false (fire a light at 2 holes 1 photon wide), save for the alternate dimension theory of the 10 dimension model - where i'm allowed freedom of choice in my own experience of destiny, but all other destinies are played out.
So the mere suggestion that time is not linear is disproven by quantum mechanics unless other, unproveable, circumstances are true. This being the case, there's an alternative dimension where Lerts is right.
But in a reality of infinite dimensions of every possibility, I'd wager only one has Lerts being right!!!
Is that the same one where Intrepid is 10 time F1 champion and you're and actual racing driver superhero?
I think it's safe to say that none of those occur in this reality.
well as i told this guy who read my mind in a chat expansion is love and contraction hate, creation and destruction
in my model 2 particles counterotate in ellipses around each other, just like electrons
this causes a propulsion pulling the particle more in the inwards half of the ellipse than in the outwards
this causes a simultaneous inflation of the particle and translation in opening spiral
eventually it runs the whole universe to find another particle like the 1st and become a new set
so particles will sahpe universes that will be particles of bigger universe in an endless happening
now hate can revert the process and instead of inflation having shrinking which you wouldnt notice since time would reverse
now my intutition is that we live in a micro fantasillionth of a second that goes back and fowardd
sometimes it repeates a lot causing lot of dejavu but sometimes each back and forth are different making a linear sucesion
in other words we are living eternity in a fantasillionth of a second
this was another precognition of mine, as i was trying to understand how would be posible to destroy and inflating contracting particle i realized eternity could happen in an instant
this was 5 years ago this week i heard this song: id love to take a tiny piece of time strech it like chewing gum and make it eternal
cant you see why im suspicous of being in an odd truman show?
in my model 2 particles counterotate in ellipses around each other, just like electrons
this causes a propulsion pulling the particle more in the inwards half of the ellipse than in the outwards
this causes a simultaneous inflation of the particle and translation in opening spiral
eventually it runs the whole universe to find another particle like the 1st and become a new set
so particles will sahpe universes that will be particles of bigger universe in an endless happening
now hate can revert the process and instead of inflation having shrinking which you wouldnt notice since time would reverse
now my intutition is that we live in a micro fantasillionth of a second that goes back and fowardd
sometimes it repeates a lot causing lot of dejavu but sometimes each back and forth are different making a linear sucesion
in other words we are living eternity in a fantasillionth of a second
this was another precognition of mine, as i was trying to understand how would be posible to destroy and inflating contracting particle i realized eternity could happen in an instant
this was 5 years ago this week i heard this song: id love to take a tiny piece of time strech it like chewing gum and make it eternal
cant you see why im suspicous of being in an odd truman show?
I stopped reading there.
To understand dimensional theory we must dissasocciate what we perceive as a decision to that what the universe would deem a decision. Which is a change in state of any of the dimensional spaces.
In real terms this would be something at the quantum level, such as a single atom doing something different (although in space-time the ramifications thereafter could be huge, although that in itself does not pose an infinity of new paths for the universe, simply that a new path is taken with different consequences).
In then going forward to understand the cyclic universe, this is merely a path taken through the dimensional spaces, standard thinking implies the universe is a 2 dimensional brane, although I rather don't see why only 2 dimensions are used, but likely all available dimensional spaces (16? Or 4?). Given that the universe is then little more than a path through the existing dimensions, it occurs to me that other paths could also be taken, probably an infinite number of paths. Indeed, this might throw some hint as to what is contained in the higher dimensional spaces.
The problem then is what is the purpose of all these dimensions, which returns us to the route question: Why? Well, my thinking is that the universe is just a probability, given that everything is possible within dimensional space the possibly that something might have existed is sufficient for it to exist somewhere in dimensional space, the fact that it then does exist is merely that the universe passes through that dimensional state at some point along it's path through the same dimensional space.
And that's the basic premise at which we can then start to understand the cyclic universe, which is a path that loops.
In real terms this would be something at the quantum level, such as a single atom doing something different (although in space-time the ramifications thereafter could be huge, although that in itself does not pose an infinity of new paths for the universe, simply that a new path is taken with different consequences).
In then going forward to understand the cyclic universe, this is merely a path taken through the dimensional spaces, standard thinking implies the universe is a 2 dimensional brane, although I rather don't see why only 2 dimensions are used, but likely all available dimensional spaces (16? Or 4?). Given that the universe is then little more than a path through the existing dimensions, it occurs to me that other paths could also be taken, probably an infinite number of paths. Indeed, this might throw some hint as to what is contained in the higher dimensional spaces.
The problem then is what is the purpose of all these dimensions, which returns us to the route question: Why? Well, my thinking is that the universe is just a probability, given that everything is possible within dimensional space the possibly that something might have existed is sufficient for it to exist somewhere in dimensional space, the fact that it then does exist is merely that the universe passes through that dimensional state at some point along it's path through the same dimensional space.
And that's the basic premise at which we can then start to understand the cyclic universe, which is a path that loops.
We had this discussion about mommentum in the orbit of an ellipse, remember? You had done the maths wrong, velocity does not change.
I'm affraid your theory still fails for the same reason your perpetual motion theory fails (given that these two theories are one and the same this is not suprising). A fundamental missunderstanding of mommentum by confusing velocity [a sum] with range [a result]:
array time( sqrt(distanceX*distanceX)+(distanceY*distanceY) ) != mommentum.
i think maths is confusing i dont like it
imagine you have a spool and at the end of the cable theres a heavy fast stone making a very eccentric ellipse
when would you rather holding the spool when its making the half of ellipse that is an outwards spiral where the slight friction of the spool is doing the job and the stone hardly pulls
or in the other half where the electric powerfull engine of the spool is pulling the stone in an inwards spiral pulling as hell?
now let your intuition a tool developed by trillions of years find the answer not hundred years math
in what half of the ellipse would you rather hold the spool?
now kepler, both halfs of ellipse have the same area therefore they last the same time
theres no need to evercomplicate things with maths
imagine you have a spool and at the end of the cable theres a heavy fast stone making a very eccentric ellipse
when would you rather holding the spool when its making the half of ellipse that is an outwards spiral where the slight friction of the spool is doing the job and the stone hardly pulls
or in the other half where the electric powerfull engine of the spool is pulling the stone in an inwards spiral pulling as hell?
now let your intuition a tool developed by trillions of years find the answer not hundred years math
in what half of the ellipse would you rather hold the spool?
now kepler, both halfs of ellipse have the same area therefore they last the same time
theres no need to evercomplicate things with maths
You are confusing velocity in the travel of the object at the end of the spool to the speed of the change in the range from the point of origin to the object.
Let's assume that the spool is of fixed length and you spin on the spot with your object rotating around you at a fixed distance. The object rotates at a fixed velocity.
Now whilst the object is travelling away from you lets increase the length of the spool so that the objects distance increases, and we'll do the inverse as the object returns.
What happens here is that the velocity of the object remains constant, but the range increases. The rate at which the range increases has it's own velocity which you are confusing for the velocity of the object.
Let's assume that the spool is of fixed length and you spin on the spot with your object rotating around you at a fixed distance. The object rotates at a fixed velocity.
Now whilst the object is travelling away from you lets increase the length of the spool so that the objects distance increases, and we'll do the inverse as the object returns.
What happens here is that the velocity of the object remains constant, but the range increases. The rate at which the range increases has it's own velocity which you are confusing for the velocity of the object.
i think you have secured everlasting wateproof ignorance
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=qleVdbO_jDg
im not saying this guy will be propelled forward im saying hell be propelled upwards
because the inwards spiral there would be a hard working propeller pulling while at the outwards the slight friction of the spool would do the job
the guy would feel a week pull down during 1 second and a strong pull up during one second
if the mecanism is isolated he would be constantly acelerating up
im not saying this guy will be propelled forward im saying hell be propelled upwards
because the inwards spiral there would be a hard working propeller pulling while at the outwards the slight friction of the spool would do the job
the guy would feel a week pull down during 1 second and a strong pull up during one second
if the mecanism is isolated he would be constantly acelerating up
This thread is closed
Lerts' ideas and theories
(921 posts, closed, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG