Aether Displacement is the most correct physical unified theory to date
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Anitmatter in Thunderbolts??
Next: Why Pendulum as a clock do not shows, what General Theory of Relativity predicts?
From: mpc755 on 13 Dec 2009 13:25 On Dec 13, 11:28 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Outside of Earth and its affairs, show me a clock, or "1 second", in > > the universe. > > > > Bending of space is meaningful in physics. > > > Not "of space"; of co-ordinate lines in METRICAL space. > > > <It is more difficult in mathematics because mathematicians are like a > > bunch of lawyers playing a complicated game, and they typically do not > > indulge in the highly "liberalized" models such as using "existential > > indeterminacy". If they did - physics would be unified. But this has > > not happened yet. > > > > Fortunately!! > > I think it is a great misfortune. You have these things which cannot > be explained such as WP Duality etc...and many people (including many > scientists) take that as an opportunity to depart from formality and > appeal to some kind of mysticism. They seem to relish the mystery, the > wonderment of not being able to explain something. It serves as an > intoxicant for the mind of the intellectual, and they are all junkies. > Wave-Particle Duality is explained. The moving particle creates a displacement wave in the substance of space.
From: mpc755 on 13 Dec 2009 13:50 On Dec 13, 11:28 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Outside of Earth and its affairs, show me a clock, or "1 second", in > > the universe. > > > > Bending of space is meaningful in physics. > > > Not "of space"; of co-ordinate lines in METRICAL space. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_space "In MATHEMATICS, a metric space is a set where a notion of distance (called a metric) between elements of the set is defined." > > <It is more difficult in mathematics because mathematicians are like a > > bunch of lawyers playing a complicated game, and they typically do not > > indulge in the highly "liberalized" models such as using "existential > > indeterminacy". If they did - physics would be unified. But this has > > not happened yet. > > > > Fortunately!! > > I think it is a great misfortune. You have these things which cannot > be explained such as WP Duality etc...and many people (including many > scientists) take that as an opportunity to depart from formality and > appeal to some kind of mysticism. They seem to relish the mystery, the > wonderment of not being able to explain something. It serves as an > intoxicant for the mind of the intellectual, and they are all junkies. > Wave-Particle Duality is explained. The moving particle creates a displacement wave in the substance of space.
From: glird on 13 Dec 2009 14:41 On Dec 13, 11:28 am, Huang wrote an excellent reply to my prior note. After awhile he continued thus: > > The elevator example is doubly defective. > > 1. If it is being elevated by a constant applied force and someone in > > it throws a ball across the room, the rate of acceleration of the > > elevator and everything in it will change while the ball is flying. > > Therefore so will the weight of everything in it. > > 2. If a beam of light traversed the elevator at a given angle which is > > a function of the speed of the elevator; and the speed changed for > > reason 1, so would the angle of the beam. > > (If you disagree, please refresh my memory by stating what the > > elevator example actually was. Along the way, please define "QM". If > > it stands for Quantum Mechanics, how "should" a layman understand it? > > {No physicist ever did!}) > > > glird > > I don't know that it can really be defined, but I would say that it [QM?] > is the physical manifestation of zero. The physical manifestation of a > boundary on existence. And I would postulate that there would be a similar > kind of situation for the largest possible scales. Textbooks say: Zero is a cipher not a number. Perhaps they say that about infinity too. (If not, they should.) Perhaps its because 0 times (10^2)^79)^100 times infinity = 0. A better reason may be that there IS not and cannot be any thing that is as small or smaller than zero nor as large or larger than infinity. Accordingly, infinity and zero are "limits". (In calculus, a limit is a quantity things may approach but never reach. (If you push any such equation "to the limit" the answer - as Blastermouth found out - is always "zero".) "Quantity" is the first dimension, and the number "1" is its unit of measure. (All other numbers are multiples of 1, i.e. 5 is 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1.) It is the first dimension because none of the others, such as weight and mass and velocity etc could be meaningfully given without it. > Mathematics has to treat the number zero very carefully, and so too physics > must treat nothingness in very much the same way. Very carefully. They should, but they don't. To them, waves can be conducted by nothing and all the energy in the universe suddenly arose in nothing, and stupidly irrational things such as that, including the notion that matter can be created out of energy. (If and when they realize that the m in e = mc^2 denotes the WEIGHT - in grams - of a quantity of matter, and that energy is an ability possessed by and exerted on matter, they _might_ begin to understand reality.) > That would be enough for the lay explanation, but the technical > details become the subject of much debate, and only now are people > beginning to question these things seriously. The nature of > mathematics, existence, and whether perhaps it is valid to consider > models which incorporate "partial existence", or "potential to exist", > however one may describe it. It may not be mathematics, but if it is > equivalent then it may be useful. It already is!! We the people pay BILLIONS of $$$$ every year, to support those members of the lunatic asylum whose "research" seekS "other worlds that simultaneously exist with ours" AND ARE ALWAYS WILLING TO TRY AN EXPERIMENT EVEN IF IT MIGHT POSSIBLY DESTROY eARTH AND ALL LIFE ON IT, ETC ETC ETC... glird
From: mpc755 on 13 Dec 2009 17:07 On Dec 13, 11:28 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > I think it is a great misfortune. You have these things which cannot > be explained such as WP Duality etc...and many people (including many > scientists) take that as an opportunity to depart from formality and > appeal to some kind of mysticism. They seem to relish the mystery, the > wonderment of not being able to explain something. It serves as an > intoxicant for the mind of the intellectual, and they are all junkies. > I have a correct explanation for Wave-Particle Duality where the moving particle creates a displacement wave in the substance of space. That being said, the above paragraph is excellent and the fact that QM believers are in denial of a correct explanation for Wave-Particle Duality is evidence of their desire to 'relish the mystery'.
From: mpc755 on 13 Dec 2009 17:12
On Dec 13, 11:28 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > I think it is a great misfortune. You have these things which cannot > be explained such as WP Duality etc...and many people (including many > scientists) take that as an opportunity to depart from formality and > appeal to some kind of mysticism. They seem to relish the mystery, the > wonderment of not being able to explain something. It serves as an > intoxicant for the mind of the intellectual, and they are all junkies. > Wave-Particle Duality: A moving particle creates a displacement wave in the substance of space. That being said, the above paragraph is excellent and the fact that QM believers are in denial of a correct explanation for Wave-Particle Duality is evidence of their preferred desire to 'relish the mystery'. |