Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Teddy had written earlier, (in protesters occupy wall street thread)

The turnings theory is based upon observable human behavior over many hundreds of years. At best, it gives clues as to what the climate or mood of an era might be. Astrology, on the other hand, makes specific (although just vague enough to be able to claim success) predictions about the future.


And I had written:


Teddy seems to give turnings theory a pass on making vague predictions, but not astrology.

The facts are: astrology is also based on observable behavior, as well as on archetypes and principles; as is turning theory.
Astrology makes rather generalized predictions; so does turning theory.

Why should one be required to make specific predictions in total detail, and the other not, in order to be judged valuable?

Eric, read my passage again. I have bolded the part I'd ask you to read again. I am saying that T4T does NOT make predictions. I never said anything about predictions, I don't believe the theory is prediction-based.

I think we have reached a proper standoff. You believe planets determine our actions, I don't. You think you have proven through your predictions that astrology is real. I think your predictions are vague and could apply to thousands of scenarios. We have an experiment going. We have each made predictions about the future, let's see who has more hits. You have even gone as far as to evaluate my predictions, so we have a ton of material to work with. I will load it all into a unique thread one day, so we can easily access it. Other than that thread, I will veer away from future attempts at debunking.

Now, how about more time on YouTube and less time parsing your favorite skeptic's words!!?

Originally Posted by TeddyR

Eric, read my passage again. I have bolded the part I'd ask you to read again. I am saying that T4T does NOT make predictions. I never said anything about predictions, I don't believe the theory is prediction-based.

But it is; that is its purpose.

I think we have reached a proper standoff. You believe planets determine our actions, I don't. You think you have proven through your predictions that astrology is real. I think your predictions are vague and could apply to thousands of scenarios. We have an experiment going. We have each made predictions about the future, let's see who has more hits. You have even gone as far as to evaluate my predictions, so we have a ton of material to work with. I will load it all into a unique thread one day, so we can easily access it. Other than that thread, I will veer away from future attempts at debunking.

You don't properly understand astrology; most skeptics don't. Planets do not "determine our actions;" I never said that they did, and few astrologers say so. It is a different way of looking at the cosmos than the usual Western mechanistic model. It is not determinist. You also don't understand that it doesn't claim to make predictions any more specific than S&H do; just many more of them, depending on the astrologer of course. I think my predictions are specific enough to be meaningful. My 9-11 prediction was; you just won't acknowledge it. Noone predicted we the USA would go to a holy war in the Summer of 2001, except me and I think a few other astrologers. The USA does not go to war every Summer, and not in a holy war. That was not a vague prediction. We'll see who makes more hits; but meanwhile notice that I will make other predictions than those on the lists.

Skeptics are OK though; they keep me on my toes!

Now, how about more time on YouTube and less time parsing your favorite skeptic's words!!?

I will post my year-2000 lecture soon on you tube (probably tonight); it has a few predictions, but mainly the 9-11 and financial crash ones. They were the biggies that I knew about for decades before they happened.

Here is my new video:
http://youtu.be/WAoeW5fXJYU

Originally Posted by Odin

Um, no. Go take high school physics again, Eric. Weight is simply one aspect of mass, they are NOT the same thing. And volume is irrelevant.

Weight isn't an aspect of mass, Odin. Weight is an aspect of acceleration. It is something a mass experiences, not a property of the mass itself.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Weight isn't an aspect of mass, Odin. Weight is an aspect of acceleration. It is something a mass experiences, not a property of the mass itself.

H-m-m-m. Weight isn't an aspect of mass, nor is it an aspect of acceleration. That would be Force - a more general concept. Weight is the effect of gravity on mass, and applies to all mass, static or moving.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

H-m-m-m. Weight isn't an aspect of mass, nor is it an aspect of acceleration. That would be Force - a more general concept. Weight is the effect of gravity on mass, and applies to all mass, static or moving.

I think Justin was bringing up the Equivalence Principle.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

H-m-m-m. Weight isn't an aspect of mass, nor is it an aspect of acceleration. That would be Force - a more general concept. Weight is the effect of gravity on mass, and applies to all mass, static or moving.

Um. Weight is not the effect of 'gravity' (that is, a force between two masses). Weight can be the effect of the acceleration necessary to resist relative movement between two masses, or the effect of acceleration relative to whatever reference frame in space.

In practice, two objects falling towards each other freely in a vacuum experience no weight. Similarly, an object in hypothetical purely-empty space (that is, no external masses with which to experience gravity) that is being accelerated in a direction at 32 feet per second per second will experience a weight corresponding exactly to 1 earth gravity.

You could even take it down to unit-analysis:

Weight [Newton] = [kg-m/s^2] = [Kilogram] Mass [*] being [m/s^2] accelerated.

This is all high school physics stuff...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Um. Weight is not the effect of 'gravity' (that is, a force between two masses). Weight can be the effect of the acceleration necessary to resist relative movement between two masses, or the effect of acceleration relative to whatever reference frame in space.

In practice, two objects falling towards each other freely in a vacuum experience no weight. Similarly, an object in hypothetical purely-empty space (that is, no external masses with which to experience gravity) that is being accelerated in a direction at 32 feet per second per second will experience a weight corresponding exactly to 1 earth gravity.

You could even take it down to unit-analysis:

Weight [Newton] = [kg-m/s^2] = [Kilogram] Mass [*] being [m/s^2] accelerated.

This is all high school physics stuff...

OK, then pick your definition of choice. I pick 6.b. =>

Definition of WEIGHT

1 a : the amount that a thing weighs

b (1) : the standard or established amount that a thing should weigh

(2) : one of the classes into which contestants in a sports event are divided according to body weight
(3) : poundage required to be carried by a horse in a handicap race

2 a : a quantity or thing weighing a fixed and usually specified amount

b : a heavy object (as a metal ball) thrown, put, or lifted as an athletic exercise or contest

3 a : a unit of weight or mass — see metric system table

b : a piece of material (as metal) of known specified weight for use in weighing articles
c : a system of related units of weight

4 a : something heavy : load

b : a heavy object to hold or press something down or to counterbalance

5 a : burden, pressure <the weight of their responsibilities>

b : the quality or state of being ponderous c : corpulence

6 a : relative heaviness : mass

b : the force with which a body is attracted toward the earth or a celestial body by gravitation and which is equal to the product of the mass and the local gravitational acceleration

7 a : the relative importance or authority accorded something <the weight of her opinions>

b : measurable influence especially on others <throwing his weight behind the proposal>

8 : overpowering force

9 : the quality (as lightness) that makes a fabric or garment suitable for a particular use or season —often used in combination <summer-weight>

10 : a numerical coefficient assigned to an item to express its relative importance in a frequency distribution

11 : the degree of thickness of the strokes of a type character

That's fine, David. 6b is incorrect, though (it's a fair rough colloquial match, to be fair; but that's all you can say for it).

Weight is purely a function of acceleration on a mass. Gravity is but one specific kind of all the various accelerations. Acceleration is not just a kind of gravitational force.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

... Acceleration is not just a kind of gravitational force.

No, but gravity is a very specific kind of acceleration.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

No, but gravity is a very specific kind of acceleration.

I said that.

Justin is quite right. You are accelerating towards the earth and the earth is also accelerating towards you. One needs only to see the equation to understand:

W=mg

W(weight) = m(mass) times g(gravitational acceleration)

This is similar to the argument Eric has over the "meaning" of words as they pertain to science (and is a big reason he has such a problem with science). This is precisely why scientists use math as the chosen language to explain things. There is much less ambiguity in mathematics than spamming an English dictionary entry as a citation for what "weight" actually means.

Originally Posted by Odin

And volume is irrelevant.

That depends. Volume is irrelevant to weight (which I believe was your point to Eric) but very relevant to matter and mass. As an example, a body in space with the mass of the earth and the volume of the earth is just the earth, but a body with the mass of the earth and the volume of a golf ball is a black hole. Big difference.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

So how could it be different? The definition of mass is how much it weighs, and how much "volume" it occupies. Neither one of these definitions have any real content. There was no other "high school physics" definition other than the one I gave.

You are close to the definition of matter (has mass not weight, and volume) but that is most definitely not the definition of mass. Mass is the resistance an object has to a change in velocity. In speeding truck versus pedestrian, the truck will always win not because the truck weighs more but because it has more mass than the pedestrian. Please note that if you want proof of this then imagine both a speeding truck and pedestrian in the middle of space. Both are weightless in space, yet the same speeding truck will have an identical impact (force) on the pedestrian. Why? Because both the truck and pedestrian have the same mass that they do on earth.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Justin is quite right. You are accelerating towards the earth and the earth is also accelerating towards you. One needs only to see the equation to understand:

W=mg

W(weight) = m(mass) times g(gravitational acceleration)

Not quite right. You are accelerating away from the earth (that's why the reaction you feel is towards it). Or rather, you are in contact with a physical thing which is exerting strain energy to accelerate you exactly the amount that counteracts the acceleration you would experience relative to the earth were you to be free to move towards it. We mustn't mix up our vectors, copperhead...

Originally Posted by Copperfield

You are close to the definition of matter (has mass not weight, and volume) but that is most definitely not the definition of mass. Mass is the resistance an object has to a change in velocity.

Hmm... I feel like we've missed something in that definition of mass. Consider where it leads us:

Mass is the property of resistance to acceleration. Weight is an effect of acceleration on mass.

How can acceleration have an effect on the property of resistance to acceleration? Isn't that just tail-chasing? I'm very happy (naturally) with the definition I offered for weight. So even though your statement about mass is true, I can't help but think it inadequately-defining.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

H-m-m-m. Weight isn't an aspect of mass, nor is it an aspect of acceleration. That would be Force - a more general concept. Weight is the effect of gravity on mass, and applies to all mass, static or moving.

The problem being, as Einstein sorta pointed out, all these things are related to and dependent on each other. Bohr called this the principle of complementarity. Physics becomes eastern philosophy at this point.

Without gravity, a mass has no weight. There goes half the traditional definition. The rest is the notion of mutual exclusivity; that no two "things" can occupy the same space. Funny how that word gets around.

This is a false notion. There is no such thing. There is nothing but interacting energy. Gravity of course is just one of the known four kinds of this energy. And what is energy?

Originally Posted by Copperfield

You are close to the definition of matter (has mass not weight, and volume) but that is most definitely not the definition of mass. Mass is the resistance an object has to a change in velocity. In speeding truck versus pedestrian, the truck will always win not because the truck weighs more but because it has more mass than the pedestrian. Please note that if you want proof of this then imagine both a speeding truck and pedestrian in the middle of space. Both are weightless in space, yet the same speeding truck will have an identical impact (force) on the pedestrian. Why? Because both the truck and pedestrian have the same mass that they do on earth.

Yes, as I said above, this is the ancient notion that no two things can occupy the same space. If they try to do so, they collide. But this is only relative. At the atomic level, things can interpenetrate easily. You can't even fix a location for them, but only probable locations en masse. When you get down to the string level, there is nothing but vibration, which is what the spiritual philosophers said all along.

Velocity is a relative concept; velocity in reference to what?

Velocity appears to be some kind of energy involved in the mutual relative position of objects. Collisions happen because of the strong force that holds atoms together, and atoms are just vibrations. All energy, and nothing but energy.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Weight is an effect of acceleration on mass.

How could that be? I and the things around me are sitting here supposedly because of "gravity" exerted on them by the Earth, and they weigh something because of this. I am not accelerating anywhere.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Without gravity, a mass has no weight....

I and the things around me are sitting here supposedly because of "gravity" exerted on them by the Earth, and they weigh something because of this. I am not accelerating anywhere.

A though experiment for you, to demonstrate what you are missing.

Put a thing on a scale (on earth). Observe the weight that it experiences, due to gravity.

Now raise the scale up, quickly, then stop; all the while, continuing to watch the weight of the item. You will see that first, it increases due to the additional acceleration you are imposing on it beyond that being imposed by the act of sitting stationary against the earth. Then you will see a corresponding decrease in the weight of it, as you slow, then stop accelerating.

Mass does not have weight. Mass experiences weight. Weight is not a property of mass; rather it is the effect of an acceleration of that mass.

This is all really, really basic stuff. Not even high school-level, unless you got really shortchanged in middle school.

As to you -- you most indeed are accelerating somewhere. You just don't think you are because you are stuck in an accelerating reference frame. Were you in a closed elevator, shooting "upward" (as far as you are concerned) and increasing your speed by 9.8 meters per second every second through empty space, you would think the exact same thing you do now about weight and the "ground". And lacking a view of the stars or anything else to demonstrate otherwise, you would be just as correct.
(That part is high school level stuff. Unless your high school was piss-poor)

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The problem being, as Einstein sorta pointed out, all these things are related to and dependent on each other. Bohr called this the principle of complementarity. Physics becomes eastern philosophy at this point.

Without gravity, a mass has no weight. There goes half the traditional definition. The rest is the notion of mutual exclusivity; that no two "things" can occupy the same space. Funny how that word gets around.

This is a false notion. There is no such thing. There is nothing but interacting energy. Gravity of course is just one of the known four kinds of this energy. And what is energy?

Essentially, mass is a measure of how much inertia something has, the more mass the stronger the inertia and the more force needed to accelerate. massless particles go at the speed of light and ONLY at the speed of light because they have no inertia.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes, as I said above, this is the ancient notion that no two things can occupy the same space. If they try to do so, they collide. But this is only relative. At the atomic level, things can interpenetrate easily. You can't even fix a location for them, but only probable locations en masse. When you get down to the string level, there is nothing but vibration, which is what the spiritual philosophers said all along.

Velocity is a relative concept; velocity in reference to what?

Velocity appears to be some kind of energy involved in the mutual relative position of objects. Collisions happen because of the strong force that holds atoms together, and atoms are just vibrations. All energy, and nothing but energy.

Fermions, particles with half-spins, must obey the Pauli Exclusion principle, which means that they cannot be in the same quantum state, which is pretty much the same thing as not being able to be in the same place (that's how degeneracy pressure in white dwarf stars and pulsars works) in Classical Mechanics

Originally Posted by Justin '77

A though experiment for you, to demonstrate what you are missing.

Put a thing on a scale (on earth). Observe the weight that it experiences, due to gravity.

Now raise the scale up, quickly, then stop; all the while, continuing to watch the weight of the item. You will see that first, it increases due to the additional acceleration you are imposing on it beyond that being imposed by the act of sitting stationary against the earth. Then you will see a corresponding decrease in the weight of it, as you slow, then stop accelerating.

Mass does not have weight. Mass experiences weight. Weight is not a property of mass; rather it is the effect of an acceleration of that mass.

This is all really, really basic stuff. Not even high school-level, unless you got really shortchanged in middle school.

As to you -- you most indeed are accelerating somewhere. You just don't think you are because you are stuck in an accelerating reference frame. Were you in a closed elevator, shooting "upward" (as far as you are concerned) and increasing your speed by 9.8 meters per second every second through empty space, you would think the exact same thing you do now about weight and the "ground". And lacking a view of the stars or anything else to demonstrate otherwise, you would be just as correct.
(That part is high school level stuff. Unless your high school was piss-poor)

IMO here is the simplest way of putting it:

if you are in a rocket accelerating by 9.8 meters per second every second through empty space it will feel the same as being in 1 G of gravity.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Not quite right. You are accelerating away from the earth (that's why the reaction you feel is towards it). Or rather, you are in contact with a physical thing which is exerting strain energy to accelerate you exactly the amount that counteracts the acceleration you would experience relative to the earth were you to be free to move towards it. We mustn't mix up our vectors, copperhead...

Well if you want to get really technical we are both wrong according to Einstein's Theory of Relativity wherein there is no such thing as gravitational acceleration at all, rather objects in free fall travel in a straight line on a spacetime curved by objects with mass.

But then that is the problem with a science that has no unifying theory (yet).

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Well if you want to get really technical we are both wrong according to Einstein's Theory of Relativity wherein there is no such thing as gravitational acceleration at all, rather objects in free fall travel in a straight line on a spacetime curved by objects with mass.

But then that is the problem with a science that has no unifying theory (yet).

He's working on it ... when he's not snowboarding

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes, as I said above, this is the ancient notion that no two things can occupy the same space. If they try to do so, they collide. But this is only relative. At the atomic level, things can interpenetrate easily. You can't even fix a location for them, but only probable locations en masse. When you get down to the string level, there is nothing but vibration, which is what the spiritual philosophers said all along.

Some atoms move past each other easily, sure. That's called a gas. Liquids have a slightly harder time. With solids it generally won't happen at all. Some particles can move between atoms rather easily like electrons, but then electrons are not atoms themselves and are affected by physics differently. As you can fix a location for atoms I assume you mean that certain particles (like electrons for instance) cannot be observed in a fixed location.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Velocity appears to be some kind of energy involved in the mutual relative position of objects. Collisions happen because of the strong force that holds atoms together, and atoms are just vibrations. All energy, and nothing but energy.

Your misuse of the term "velocity" aside, string theory is a theory, yes. That in and of itself though doesn't prove that planets predict the future or that people have "souls" or that the universe is alive. These are all things that are believed by some people but not proven scientifically. Note that science accepts these sort of beliefs may or may not be true but that you would need to prove them scientifically (belief is not enough). Were you to write a proof regarding astrology (show that it works and more importantly why it works) and present it in a manner that can be reproduced with repeated accuracy in experiments by scientists, then you will have proven astrology to be more than a superstition.

Indeed scientists love new information. Unfortunately you present only superstition.