Re: [Vo]:Mechanical OU update

[Vibrator !]

Thank you - but sorry, what's "MEP"?

Last night i fully resolved the gain principle - it WASN'T caused by the
spin and brake cycles sinking counter-momentum to gravity as intended.

The basis of the system is an interaction that moves a pair of masses
across the diameter of a rotating axis, whilst controlling the distance
between them such that the system's moment of inertia is held constant
throughout;  this accommodated the asynchronous nature of the spin and
brake cycles in relation to the GPE cycles sinking their counter-momenta,
however it also turned out to be the cause of the energy gains when the
spin'n'brake cycles were disabled for a control run..

Over the last week, i established that this constant-MoI radial translation
was creating AND destroying energy on every full radial translation; it had
been consistently creating slightly more energy than that destroyed,
yielding the net gains being measured..  however the other night i finally
realised what was going on, and that the destruction phase is entirely
optional and unneccesary - we can just perform the gain phase and have done
with it!

In the high-res sim below, gravity is disabled (nothing whatsoever to do
with it!):

https://i.ibb.co/XszMzSM/v3.gif

Here's the digits for that run:

actuator = 0.378631362

solenoid = -0.320586999

motor = 0.499796942

net input = 0.557841305

KE rise = 0.75190

diff = +0.194058695

0.75190 / 0.557841305 = 1.35x unity


Again, the inverse, 'destruction' phase is entirely optional and voluntary
- there's simply no reason to incur it; the gain there is free and clear.


The free energy term is '2nd-derivative centrifugal-PE' from a constant-MoI
radial translation under angular acceleration.

Normally, an output of centrifugal potential energy causes a proportionate
increase in radius and thus MoI, causing angular velocity to decrease to
conserve net angular momentum (the 'ice skater effect'); the drop in
rotational KE from that angular deceleration being precisely equal to the
CF-PE harnessed.  So, if we take out 1 J of CF-PE, we expect a 1 J drop in
rotational KE of the system..

..but here, CF-PE is being output WITHOUT causing any MoI change.  Hence,
no deceleration, no rotKE drop, no inertial torque induced, and no
mechanical transference of loads between the output CF work integral and
the input motor work driving the angular acceleration - so the motor simply
sees a constant 1 kg-m² MoI, being smoothly accelerated up to 1 rad/s, for
a cost of ½ J, exactly per the KE equation ½Iw²...   the increasing gap
between the masses as they cross the diameter has netted an output of PE
from the increasing CF force (due to the motor acceleration), even though
no change in system MoI has occurred!

Clear-cut mechanical OU.  135% in one smooth action..

Basically...

Grimer: 1

Everyone else: 0

(incl. me)


Nothing to do with gravity.  Nothing to do with the efficiency of
accumulating reactionless momentum.

Apparently, thus, having no discernible adverse effects on the planet's
resting momentum state, as feared from the intended scheme (phew, but am i
pure evil or what?)..


I've taken the day off work, just to try to take all this in...  i'm
thinking a long soak in the tub with a tall scotch..  but beyond that..?



You currently have front row seats on the maddest game in town, guys..

Like i say, safe to read the thread backwards just to get up to speed on
the current state of affairs.. only need to read it forwards for context.

Any suggestions need to take reasonable account of my circumstances - i
still depend on the day job, for now, so have a few hours a night at most,
for this..

What next?  Try to get funded (how)?  Crank email someone - (Royal Society,
Puthoff, Tajmar or etc.?)

What does one do, generally, upon discovering mech OU?  Besides the scotch,
and maybe a stale cigar out the fridge?


On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 2:11 AM Terry Blanton  wrote:

> I sent it to a friend and co-worker who is a MEP whiz.  I'll post his
> response here.
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: A good model makes accurate predictions

[mixent]

In reply to  Frank Znidarsic's message of Sun, 1 Mar 2020 17:25:15 + (UTC):
Hi Frank,
[snip]
>I put in a ventless heater that does not require electric power. 

What does it burn?
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

[Vo]:Veritasium video on CPT

[H LV]

Charge, Parity and Time symmetry were at one time each regarded as
fundamental to physics but over time each one has been broken.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yArprk0q9eE

(At the end of the video is a plug for a physics book with the interesting
title
of "We Have No idea")

Harry

RE: [Vo]:More on the WuFlu conspiracy theory

[JonesBeene]

From: Blaze Spinnaker

➢ Communism/Fascism is great for quarantining.   Not sure it's that great for 
sharing critical information broadly, coming up with vaccines, medical tests 
and and treatments.


There is no doubt about that first part (quarantining is greatly facilitated) … 
except NOT the other items - such as the vaccines. China already has many  
vaccines in hospital testing stage ( 4 of them are for a US invented vaccine). 
Would we ever test one of theirs?

https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/generex-covid-19-vaccine/

And there are many other treatments in testing from  their own R&D. The irony 
is that if any of them works, we in the USA could be forced to buy vaccine  
from them, to cure an outbreak that came from there 0  since testing in the USA 
can take a year at best to guarantee “safety” of the test subjects. In Asia, it 
is sad but true that “ life is cheap” and only the group matters, not the 
individual.

But the real advantage of the Chinese hybrid system (part capitalism part 
state-control – but not muvh actual communism) could be the in future of AI.

They have four time more students enrolled in engineering and science than the 
USA does and many of ours came from over there anyway. Sure, they also have 
four times more population but it can be argued that the first country to 
install widespread AI will dominate the World economy for years – and getting 
AI in place depends on the number of engineers with little  regard to the 
general population. Look at the incredible speed that Tesla took advantage of 
to build a new manufacturing plant in China. That took centralized planning, 
not political bickering. Here the plan would have been shelved in committee.

This political season and the over-the-top  sensitivity of the NYSE to anything 
negative has made a lot of people wonder if we should not think about the ways 
to restructure capitalism as a first priority … and then ditch party politics 
as an anachronism . Do we really need it?

RE: [Vo]:More on the WuFlu conspiracy theory

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

The video did not address how domestic animals and  wildlife (vague) spreads 
the virus  . Can dogs and cats spread the virus.  Are they immune to ill 
effects, but can still spread the virus to those persons not immune and thereby 
cause illness and death to those whose immune systems do not respond quick 
enough to save them?

Are birds in the group of spreaders of the virus along with bats?

Are civet cats in Asia (pets for many there) immune but spreaders?

Do wild civet cats get the virus from bats—they are both nocturnal and may eat 
the same stuff and trade saliva?

Is the ACE2 hormone that regulates capillaries and hence blood pressure and 
especially lung capillary mechanics the carrier of the virus in the body of 
humans and other mammals?

How are blood banks checking for ACE2  in blood, waiting to be transfused, for 
virus contamination?

Are donators blood getting tested for virus contamination?

Should dogs and cats be tested and quarantined and/or  eliminated  as might be 
warranted?

Is ingestion (eating) contaminated blood samples or animal flesh a mode for 
spreading the virus to humans?

What is the best way to improve response of an individual/s immune system to 
the virus?---Doessutherlandia plant help?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutherlandia_frutescens

I hope WHO knows the answers to these questions.  If not, they should ask the 
Chinese who may know about civet cats as pets, their capture from the wild for 
the pet market, etc.

Bob Cook
---
From: Blaze Spinnaker
Sent: Sunday, March 1, 2020 3:42 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:More on the WuFlu conspiracy theory

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/01/health/coronvirus-patient-research-cdc/index.html

Though, if our capitalist system works like this maybe we would be better off 
with communism.  At the very least the CDC should issue a press release and say 
they are tabulating data and when the information will  arrive.   Stuff like 
this breeds very very nasty conspiracy theories.

On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 8:46 PM Blaze Spinnaker 
mailto:blazespinna...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Communism/Fascism is great for quarantining.   Not sure it's that great for 
sharing critical information broadly, coming up with vaccines, medical tests 
and and treatments.



On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 6:52 AM Jed Rothwell 
mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>> wrote:
That was a superb presentation by Bruce Aylward. Jones: thanks for pointing it 
out.

I must ruefully admit that Chinese communism does seem well suited for dealing 
with this. But, more than that, what Aylward emphasized is the scientific, 
rational, pragmatic, data-driven approach. That's as much part of U.S., 
European and Japanese culture as it is Chinese. I'd like to think so, anyway.

It is unfortunate that the U.S. effort will be headed up by nitwits who don't 
even believe in the Theory of Evolution. This is like assigning energy policy 
to someone who has no idea where electricity comes from.

It is unfortunate, but I hope not disastrous. I hope they stay out of the way 
and let qualified people do their jobs. I fear that even the qualified people 
will ignore the lessons from China.

Re: [Vo]:More on the WuFlu conspiracy theory

[Jed Rothwell]

Video: "New York City doctor says he has to ‘plead to test people’ for
coronavirus"

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/02/coronavirus-new-york-city-doctor-has-to-plead-to-test-people.html


Lots of interesting technical comments in the video portion. This doctor
thinks there are thousands of undiagnosed cases in the U.S. He seems to be
an expert who knows what he is talking about. He think the S. Korean data
is the best indication of the actual mortality rate for a first world
country, and I suppose for China now that they have a handle on it. S.
Korea has done a lot of testing. Their numbers are: 28 deaths / 4335 cases
= 0.6% mortality. They do not list many critical cases:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

QUOTES from text portion:

“Before I came here this morning, I was in the emergency room seeing
patients,” he said on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.” “I still do not have a rapid
diagnostic test available to me.”

“I’m here to tell you, right now, at one of the busiest hospitals in the
country, I don’t have it at my fingertips,” he said. “I still have to make
my case, plead to test people. This is not good. We know that there are 88
cases in the United States. There are going to be hundreds by the middle of
the week. There’s going to be thousands by next week. And this is a testing
issue.”

The team at New York-Presbyterian Hospital is isolating suspected
coronavirus patients and taking proper precautions to prevent the spread,
McCarthy said, but “they’re hamstrung.” . . .

“They’re testing 10,000 a day in some countries, and we can’t get this off
the ground,” McCarthy said. “I’m a practitioner on the firing line, and I
don’t have the tools to properly care for patients today.” . . .

[Vo]:well project

[Frank Znidarsic]

The well in my basement floor was dry and in impermeable soil.I moved on with 
this project and angered in 20 feet into a soft drippy spot along a bank. I hit 
water.  I may have found my emergency water source.  It is 20 feet up and 
willhave some natural delivery pressure.  It is cool water and is capable of 
providing emergencyfood cooling.  I am getting ready for the corona disruption. 

http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/temp/water_ground.mov

Frank Znidarsic

Re: [Vo]:More on the WuFlu conspiracy theory

[Terry Blanton]

If you haven't had your fill here, there's lots of info on reddit

 https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/

Re: [Vo]:Galilean relativity and a tree.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

as earth rotates, top of tower is rotating at different speed to bottom of tower






On Tuesday, 3 March 2020, 17:03:16 GMT, H LV  wrote: 







On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 10:23 AM H LV  wrote:
> At the time of Galileo it was argued the Earth could not be spinning because 
> this motion would result in an observable effect on the trajectory falling 
> bodies. For example if the Earth were turning eastward at hundreds of miles 
> per hour then a cannon ball dropped from a tower would not fall vertically 
> but would hit the ground west of the tower. In otherwords the ball would not 
> be able to keep up with the motion of the Earth. To counter this argument 
> Galileo formulated a thought involving a ship in his  Dialogue Concerning the 
> Two Chief World Systems :  
> 
> < large ship, and have with you there some flies, butterflies, and other small 
> flying animals. Have a large bowl of water with some fish in it; hang up a 
> bottle that empties drop by drop into a wide vessel beneath it. With the ship 
> standing still, observe carefully how the little animals fly with equal speed 
> to all sides of the cabin. The fish swim indifferently in all directions; the 
> drops fall into the vessel beneath; and, in throwing something to your 
> friend, you need throw it no more strongly in one direction than another, the 
> distances being equal; jumping with your feet together, you pass equal spaces 
> in every direction. When you have observed all these things carefully (though 
> doubtless when the ship is standing still everything must happen in this 
> way), have the ship proceed with any speed you like, so long as the motion is 
> uniform and not fluctuating this way and that. You will discover not the 
> least change in all the effects named, nor could you tell from any of them 
> whether the ship was moving or standing still. In jumping, you will pass on 
> the floor the same spaces as before, nor will you make larger jumps toward 
> the stern than toward the prow even though the ship is moving quite rapidly, 
> despite the fact that during the time that you are in the air the floor under 
> you will be going in a direction opposite to your jump. In throwing something 
> to your companion, you will need no more force to get it to him whether he is 
> in the direction of the bow or the stern, with yourself situated opposite. 
> The droplets will fall as before into the vessel beneath without dropping 
> toward the stern, although while the drops are in the air the ship runs many 
> spans. The fish in their water will swim toward the front of their bowl with 
> no more effort than toward the back, and will go with equal ease to bait 
> placed anywhere around the edges of the bowl. Finally the butterflies and 
> flies will continue their flights indifferently toward every side, nor will 
> it ever happen that they are concentrated toward the stern, as if tired out 
> from keeping up with the course of the ship, from which they will have been 
> separated during long intervals by keeping themselves in the air. And if 
> smoke is made by burning some incense, it will be seen going up in the form 
> of a little cloud, remaining still and moving no more toward one side than 
> the other. The cause of all these correspondences of effects is the fact that 
> the ship's motion is common to all the things contained in it, and to the air 
> also. That is why I said you should be below decks; for if this took place 
> above in the open air, which would not follow the course of the ship, more or 
> less noticeable differences would be seen in some of the effects noted.>>
> 
> This is a good argument that a spinning Earth won't result in falling bodies 
> being left behind but should it also be enshrined as a fundamentally true 
> principle of motion?
> 
> Harry
 
I mean it is one thing to argue that a revolving Earth and all bodies resting 
on the ground or in free fall share the same velocity as the ground.
It is quite another to teach that all motion is relative.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Galilean relativity and a tree.

[H LV]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 10:23 AM H LV  wrote:

> At the time of Galileo it was argued the Earth could not be spinning
> because this motion would result in an observable effect on the trajectory
> falling bodies. For example if the Earth were turning eastward at hundreds
> of miles per hour then a cannon ball dropped from a tower would not fall
> vertically but would hit the ground west of the tower. In otherwords the
> ball would not be able to keep up with the motion of the Earth. To counter
> this argument Galileo formulated a thought involving a ship in his
>  Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems :
>
> < large ship, and have with you there some flies, butterflies, and other
> small flying animals. Have a large bowl of water with some fish in it; hang
> up a bottle that empties drop by drop into a wide vessel beneath it. With
> the ship standing still, observe carefully how the little animals fly with
> equal speed to all sides of the cabin. The fish swim indifferently in all
> directions; the drops fall into the vessel beneath; and, in throwing
> something to your friend, you need throw it no more strongly in one
> direction than another, the distances being equal; jumping with your feet
> together, you pass equal spaces in every direction. When you have observed
> all these things carefully (though doubtless when the ship is standing
> still everything must happen in this way), have the ship proceed with any
> speed you like, so long as the motion is uniform and not fluctuating this
> way and that. You will discover not the least change in all the effects
> named, nor could you tell from any of them whether the ship was moving or
> standing still. In jumping, you will pass on the floor the same spaces as
> before, nor will you make larger jumps toward the stern than toward the
> prow even though the ship is moving quite rapidly, despite the fact that
> during the time that you are in the air the floor under you will be going
> in a direction opposite to your jump. In throwing something to your
> companion, you will need no more force to get it to him whether he is in
> the direction of the bow or the stern, with yourself situated opposite. The
> droplets will fall as before into the vessel beneath without dropping
> toward the stern, although while the drops are in the air the ship runs
> many spans. The fish in their water will swim toward the front of their
> bowl with no more effort than toward the back, and will go with equal ease
> to bait placed anywhere around the edges of the bowl. Finally the
> butterflies and flies will continue their flights indifferently toward
> every side, nor will it ever happen that they are concentrated toward the
> stern, as if tired out from keeping up with the course of the ship, from
> which they will have been separated during long intervals by keeping
> themselves in the air. And if smoke is made by burning some incense, it
> will be seen going up in the form of a little cloud, remaining still and
> moving no more toward one side than the other. The cause of all these
> correspondences of effects is the fact that the ship's motion is common to
> all the things contained in it, and to the air also. That is why I said you
> should be below decks; for if this took place above in the open air, which
> would not follow the course of the ship, more or less noticeable
> differences would be seen in some of the effects noted.>>
>
> This is a good argument that a spinning Earth won't result in falling
> bodies being left behind but should it also be enshrined as a fundamentally
> true principle of motion?
>
> Harry
>

I mean it is one thing to argue that a revolving Earth and all bodies
resting on the ground or in free fall share the same velocity as the ground.
It is quite another to teach that all motion is relative.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Galilean relativity and a tree.

[H LV]

The reason why many people thought the ball would fall to the west was
because the concept of "inertia" did not exist.
The common science of motion at the time was based on the concept of
"impetus". A projectile could be given an impetus
but the impetus was not a conserved quantity so the impetus would become
exhausted and it would fall to ground.

Harry


On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 10:50 AM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> Of course this is wrong. But shooting the cannon north south is quite
> different - the effect is tiny ...
>
> J.W.
>
>
> Am 03.03.20 um 16:23 schrieb H LV:
>
> At the time of Galileo it was argued the Earth could not be spinning
> because this motion would result in an observable effect on the trajectory
> falling bodies. For example if the Earth were turning eastward at hundreds
> of miles per hour then a cannon ball dropped from a tower would not fall
> vertically but would hit the ground west of the tower. In otherwords the
> ball would not be able to keep up with the motion of the Earth. To counter
> this argument Galileo formulated a thought involving a ship in his
>  Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems :
>
> < large ship, and have with you there some flies, butterflies, and other
> small flying animals. Have a large bowl of water with some fish in it; hang
> up a bottle that empties drop by drop into a wide vessel beneath it. With
> the ship standing still, observe carefully how the little animals fly with
> equal speed to all sides of the cabin. The fish swim indifferently in all
> directions; the drops fall into the vessel beneath; and, in throwing
> something to your friend, you need throw it no more strongly in one
> direction than another, the distances being equal; jumping with your feet
> together, you pass equal spaces in every direction. When you have observed
> all these things carefully (though doubtless when the ship is standing
> still everything must happen in this way), have the ship proceed with any
> speed you like, so long as the motion is uniform and not fluctuating this
> way and that. You will discover not the least change in all the effects
> named, nor could you tell from any of them whether the ship was moving or
> standing still. In jumping, you will pass on the floor the same spaces as
> before, nor will you make larger jumps toward the stern than toward the
> prow even though the ship is moving quite rapidly, despite the fact that
> during the time that you are in the air the floor under you will be going
> in a direction opposite to your jump. In throwing something to your
> companion, you will need no more force to get it to him whether he is in
> the direction of the bow or the stern, with yourself situated opposite. The
> droplets will fall as before into the vessel beneath without dropping
> toward the stern, although while the drops are in the air the ship runs
> many spans. The fish in their water will swim toward the front of their
> bowl with no more effort than toward the back, and will go with equal ease
> to bait placed anywhere around the edges of the bowl. Finally the
> butterflies and flies will continue their flights indifferently toward
> every side, nor will it ever happen that they are concentrated toward the
> stern, as if tired out from keeping up with the course of the ship, from
> which they will have been separated during long intervals by keeping
> themselves in the air. And if smoke is made by burning some incense, it
> will be seen going up in the form of a little cloud, remaining still and
> moving no more toward one side than the other. The cause of all these
> correspondences of effects is the fact that the ship's motion is common to
> all the things contained in it, and to the air also. That is why I said you
> should be below decks; for if this took place above in the open air, which
> would not follow the course of the ship, more or less noticeable
> differences would be seen in some of the effects noted.>>
>
> This is a good argument that a spinning Earth won't result in falling
> bodies being left behind but should it also be enshrined as a fundamentally
> true principle of motion?
>
> Harry
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 10:24 PM H LV  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 9:59 AM Vibrator !  wrote:
>>
>>> The answer is N3 - and the same reason crashing a car into a concrete
>>> wall is twice as severe as a head-on collision of equal relative velocity,
>>> since it's the vehicles' speeds relative to the ground that enumerates and
>>> underwrites the value of 'velocity' in the KE equation, not their speed
>>> relative to one another.
>>>
>>
>>
>> In terms of an anticipated collision doesn`t matter if the car is
>> considered stationary or if the wall along with the Earth - on which the
>> wall is built - is considered moving. How the car is affected by the
>> collision will depend on the structural characteristics of both the car and
>> the wall and how well the wall is connected to the ground.
>>
>> The issue I am ra

Re: [Vo]:Galilean relativity and a tree.

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Of course this is wrong. But shooting the cannon north south is quite 
different - the effect is tiny ...


J.W.


Am 03.03.20 um 16:23 schrieb H LV:
At the time of Galileo it was argued the Earth could not be spinning 
because this motion would result in an observable effect on the 
trajectory falling bodies. For example if the Earth were turning 
eastward at hundreds of miles per hour then a cannon ball dropped from 
a tower would not fall vertically but would hit the ground west of the 
tower. In otherwords the ball would not be able to keep up with the 
motion of the Earth. To counter this argument Galileo formulated a 
thought involving a ship in his  Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief 
World Systems :


>


This is a good argument that a spinning Earth won't result in falling 
bodies being left behind but should it also be enshrined as a 
fundamentally true principle of motion?


Harry

On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 10:24 PM H LV > wrote:




On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 9:59 AM Vibrator ! mailto:mrvibrat...@gmail.com>> wrote:

The answer is N3 - and the same reason crashing a car into a
concrete wall is twice as severe as a head-on collision of
equal relative velocity, since it's the vehicles' speeds
relative to the ground that enumerates and underwrites the
value of 'velocity' in the KE equation, not their speed
relative to one another.



In terms of an anticipated collision doesn`t matter if the car is
considered stationary or if the wall along with the Earth - on
which the wall is built - is considered moving. How the car is
affected by the collision will depend on the structural
characteristics of both the car and the wall and how well the wall
is connected to the ground.

The issue I am raising is that Galilean relativity is underwritten
by a conception of motion as something which involves the
anticipation of a collision.  The development of motion concepts
like inertia and momentum were inspired by this philosophical view
of motion so whenever they are employed they will always affirm
relativity.

Harry


In short, KE is relative, because mo

Re: [Vo]:Galilean relativity and a tree.

[H LV]

At the time of Galileo it was argued the Earth could not be spinning
because this motion would result in an observable effect on the trajectory
falling bodies. For example if the Earth were turning eastward at hundreds
of miles per hour then a cannon ball dropped from a tower would not fall
vertically but would hit the ground west of the tower. In otherwords the
ball would not be able to keep up with the motion of the Earth. To counter
this argument Galileo formulated a thought involving a ship in his
 Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems :

<>

This is a good argument that a spinning Earth won't result in falling
bodies being left behind but should it also be enshrined as a fundamentally
true principle of motion?

Harry

On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 10:24 PM H LV  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 9:59 AM Vibrator !  wrote:
>
>> The answer is N3 - and the same reason crashing a car into a concrete
>> wall is twice as severe as a head-on collision of equal relative velocity,
>> since it's the vehicles' speeds relative to the ground that enumerates and
>> underwrites the value of 'velocity' in the KE equation, not their speed
>> relative to one another.
>>
>
>
> In terms of an anticipated collision doesn`t matter if the car is
> considered stationary or if the wall along with the Earth - on which the
> wall is built - is considered moving. How the car is affected by the
> collision will depend on the structural characteristics of both the car and
> the wall and how well the wall is connected to the ground.
>
> The issue I am raising is that Galilean relativity is underwritten by a
> conception of motion as something which involves the anticipation of a
> collision.  The development of motion concepts like inertia and momentum
> were inspired by this philosophical view of motion so whenever they are
> employed they will always affirm relativity.
>
> Harry
>
>>
>> In short, KE is relative, because motion is relative.. but what is that
>> motion relative to?  The zero-momentum frame; that is, the FoR from which
>> the net change in momentum in each direction is equal and opposite.
>>
>> The bottom line is that when you accelerate towards or away from the
>> tree, you cause an equal opposite counter-acceleration of the
>> tree-plus-planet, the net mass of which divided by your momentum change
>> gives the infinitesimal but non-trivial counter acceleration of the tree +
>> planet... hence an external observer sees that the net system momentum is
>> constant, and correctly calculates that your motion has virtually all of
>> the kinetic energy of this particular inertial interaction.
>>
>
>> The property of matter enforcing N3 (and thus, N1) is mass constancy - 1
>> kg is always 1 kg, regardless of when, or at what speed, it is measured.
>> More specifically, it is the time-invariance of inertia, since this is what
>> we're really dealing with in all the equations of motion and mechanical
>> energy.
>>
>> Doesn't necessarily apply to time-asymmetric gravitational interactions
>> tho (ie. the kiiking principle), wherein momentum can be gained or lost to
>> the inbound vs outboud gravity * time delta..
>>
>>
>>
> Harry
>
>
>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:21 PM H LV  wrote:
>>
>>> In Galilean relativity if I walk eastward towards a tree with uniform
>>> velocity this is equivalent to saying the tree is moving westward towards
>>> me with the same uniform velocity. As a fundamental proposition of modern
>>> physics this is eminently useful but it is also absurd. It is useful if
>>> what is deemed important about the motion of bodies is the possibility of
>>> past or future collisions (In the absence of  such obvious possibilities
>>> the notion of a force was devised to explain changes in uniform velocity).
>>> It is absurd because it is detached from what we actually know about the
>>> world on a personal level. The tree is at rest because it is rooted in the
>>> Earth and I am moving towards it. I cannot get the tree and the Earth to
>>> move towards me by simply declaring I am at rest. There has to be a
>>> property of matter that expresses this non-relative quality of "rootedness"
>>> which has been ignored by physics since the 1600's.
>>>
>>> Harry
>>>
>>

[Vo]:test

[H LV]

testing

Harry