Constancy of the velocity of light
in [Physics]
|
Prev: TV shows like "Mentalist" is possible only in Brain Locus theory #24 Brain as Radio Receiver Theory
Next: chapt22 questions I have no answer for #230 Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory
From: Androcles on 31 Dec 2009 21:28 "Anti Vigilante" <antivigilante(a)pyrabang.com> wrote in message news:hhjkli$b19$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... > On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 01:20:09 +0000, Anti Vigilante wrote: > >> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 23:45:33 +0000, Androcles wrote: >> >>> "Anti Vigilante" <antivigilante(a)pyrabang.com> wrote in message >>> news:hhjb5q$v9v$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>>> 'Really, this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some >>>>> people who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. >>>>> It is only another way of looking at Time. There is no difference >>>>> between Time and any of the three dimensions of Space except that our >>>>> consciousness moves along with it.' -- Herbert George Wells - "The >>>>> Time Machine" - 1895. >>>> >>>> Ick. I like his skill in fiction, but his shilling for the >>>> establishment, the crown, and proto-eugenics leaves me ill. >>> >>> I was merely pointing out where Einstein stole his ideas from, I'm not >>> interested on your political views. >>> >>> >> Fine. But in that case it's worse than I thought and a little >> suspicious. >> >>>> In almost any formula imaginary numbers can be replaced by t, for >>>> time. >>> >>> For what purpose? >> >> Well take alternating current: V = I * (R + J). Current (I) is charge/ >> time and J we substitute with time so we get V = ch/t * R + ch/t * t or >> V = ch/t * r + charge. >> >> So when we say the Voltage in an AC circuit is 6 + 2j ohms we mean it's >> 6 ohms and changing at a rate of 2 ohms per time interval. The interval >> is probably something divided by the hypotenuse of the triangle formed >> by sides 6 units and 2 units. That's a guess. >> > > UNITS! UNITS! UNITS! > > Sorry need more coffee. But you get the idea. In an equation involving > imaginary values immediate values (position) and rates (velocity) are > combined. The same goes if we take velocity and acceleration in a hybrid > unit. > I need more wine and vodka&coke. It'll be a new year when we get to perihelion on Jan 3rd and then we can celebrate. http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/EarthSeasons.php (Not that I trust the US Naval Observatory to get it right, they think perihelion wanders from year to year, but there has to be some marker) Merry solstice and a happy new perihelion to you. Enjoy the caffeine.
From: Androcles on 31 Dec 2009 23:03 "Anti Vigilante" <antivigilante(a)pyrabang.com> wrote in message news:hhjp84$9j6$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 02:19:14 +0000, Androcles wrote: > >> "Anti Vigilante" <antivigilante(a)pyrabang.com> wrote in message >> news:hhjik8$b19$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 23:45:33 +0000, Androcles wrote: >>> >>>> "Anti Vigilante" <antivigilante(a)pyrabang.com> wrote in message >>>> news:hhjb5q$v9v$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>>>> 'Really, this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some >>>>>> people who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. >>>>>> It is only another way of looking at Time. There is no difference >>>>>> between Time and any of the three dimensions of Space except that >>>>>> our consciousness moves along with it.' -- Herbert George Wells - >>>>>> "The Time Machine" - 1895. >>>>> >>>>> Ick. I like his skill in fiction, but his shilling for the >>>>> establishment, the crown, and proto-eugenics leaves me ill. >>>> >>>> I was merely pointing out where Einstein stole his ideas from, I'm not >>>> interested on your political views. >>>> >>>> >>> Fine. But in that case it's worse than I thought and a little >>> suspicious. >> >> In his own words: >> >> "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." >> --Einstein >> >> We are not concerned with creativity, that's art or fiction. >> >> I'm prosecuting him posthumously in world-wide Usenet for the crime >> against humanity of fraud (not murder, we've already seen that done with >> the Nazis and other political figures more recently taken to the Hague >> -- my concern is with science). >> >> You may be suspicious. I'm convinced he was a huckster. >> > > As per my sig, I consider the enlightenment to be the restoration of a > priesthood over the scientific community. The Renaissance could have > continued another 300 years had the 'proles' been more interested in > knowledge. > Then we are on (almost) the same wavelength... but you knew that already. > So for him to be taking notes from the promoter of several murderous > ideologies makes me really wonder. Ha, Glasshopper... perhaps it is wise to cut off a finger to save a hand -- Master Po. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kung_Fu_(TV_series) > But as I said, figures are irrelevant beyond their aims. Knowledge is > available to all if we can just free it from habits and inflated > language. I for one prefer the term Inverse Tangential/Perpendicular > Pressure Velocity principle to Bernoulli's principle. I'm horrible with > names. > A rose by any other name would still stink. >>>>> In almost any formula imaginary numbers can be replaced by t, for >>>>> time. >>>> >>>> For what purpose? >>> >>> Well take alternating current: V = I * (R + J). Current (I) is charge/ >>> time and J we substitute with time so we get V = ch/t * R + ch/t * t or >>> V = ch/t * r + charge. >>> >>> So when we say the Voltage in an AC circuit is 6 + 2j ohms we mean it's >>> 6 ohms and changing at a rate of 2 ohms per time interval. The interval >>> is probably something divided by the hypotenuse of the triangle formed >>> by sides 6 units and 2 units. That's a guess. >>> >>> >> So mathematics can be used to model physical systems... big whoopee. >> We've known that since Galileo Galilei. > > <snip juicy stuff> > >> His mathematical >> analyses are a further development of a tradition employed by late >> scholastic natural philosophers, which Galileo learned when he studied >> philosophy. > > What I'm saying is something that is presented as odd and weird, complex > numbers, actually have a real meaning. I would even guess (I know you > don't) that the fog over the use of complex numbers in Quantum Mechanics > can be dissolved if we try this idea. > When you can program a computer to use complex numbers then you are their master. Try this on for size, see if you like the colours: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Euler.xls >> Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei >> >> >>> There is only position, change (velocity, acceleration), and structure >>> (forces/interactions). Mass, charge, can only be defined in terms of >>> these. >> >> >> Then define them in the those terms. I still don't know what mass or >> time or charge are, I'm stuck with my own lousy intuition. If you can >> tell me then >> I'll pronounce you a philosopher and great teacher (and I'm not being >> facetious >> as I so often am - I really mean that). Temperature I can visualize as >> kinetics, >> but charge and mass? They are too much for me. > > They call to me. I can't but see them as arbitrary labels on something > far more fundamental. Tell me what it is. I see only force acting over a vacuum, but then... I'm blind. You can lead, I am not yet a god. > >>> So I would bet mass is also just a useful quantity rather than a >>> physical feature. Charge is just a measurement of the tendency for a >>> charged particle to exert electric and magnetic force. >> >> I never guess and I don't bet - except on certainties or for fun on >> horse races - and then only for for small stakes that I can easily >> afford to lose. >> >> The way we measure mass and charge is by force. What does that tell you? >> It may be "just a measurement" but a measurement of what? We all know a >> bigger mass on the bathroom scale pushes the spring further, but what IS >> mass? And what is force? The Earth weighs 180 lbs in my gravitational >> field. It must be huge and needs to go on a diet. And if I go on a diet >> I'll only reduce my gravity. That's a grave thought. >> > > Well I'm trying to formulate what I call Unit Impulse Mechanics. I'll let > you know what I find. > >>> I'm trying to get rid of or at least tame the virtual particle concept >>> because if anything is handwavy, it's virtual photons and all their >>> ephemeral cousins. >>> >> I'm not the one that introduced virtual particles into the discussion. I >> discuss nature the way it is, not theoretical nature or virtual nature. >> I'm a realist. > >> Unfortunately you've added more mud than water. I accept that >> theoretical physicists are insane - most of humanity is. > > Relativism is one step away from sanity and therefore so convincing in > philosophy and apparently science that it is also quite dangerous. > > Nihilism <- Unitarism <- Materialism <- Relativism -> Realism > > Abstractly, > Nihilism, 0, = 1 because it denies differences > Unitarism, 1, = 0 because it denies differences but is dishonest about it > Materialism, 2, devolves into 1 because it does not study the difference > it acknowledges > Relativism, 3, teeters on the edge because it considers all differences > equal in value > Realism, 4, considers context which is why it can stabilize and be > consistent > >> Reality is for escaping from. > > From dreams? That's almost an encouraging thought. > > In another sense, dreams are fine. Fantasies are of the Devil. > Fantasizers are channel surfers who don't stick around when dreams start > to take hard work. You think this is easy: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Orbit/Orbit.xls ? Try it. All the questions are easy when you know the answers. The really hard part is knowing what questions to ask.
From: Nightcrawler on 31 Dec 2009 23:39 On 12/31/2009 8:28 PM, Androcles wrote: > (Not that I trust the US Naval Observatory to get it right, they think > perihelion wanders from year to year, but there has to be some marker) This might help a bit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession Scroll down to the bottom of the page.
From: Androcles on 1 Jan 2010 03:09
"Nightcrawler" <Dirtydeeds(a)dirtcheap.net> wrote in message news:v9Gdnb38yrMN4aDWnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > On 12/31/2009 8:28 PM, Androcles wrote: > >> (Not that I trust the US Naval Observatory to get it right, they think >> perihelion wanders from year to year, but there has to be some marker) > > This might help a bit: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession > > Scroll down to the bottom of the page. It says: This page was last modified on 31 December 2009 at 05:44. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details. Wikipedia� is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Contact us Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Not that I trust wackypedia to get it right, they think Nature is a democracy and behaves according to popular opinion. |