From: Arindam Banerjee on
On Jul 27, 1:55 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> friction is a loss to heat.

No, friction is a force.

> there is always an opposing force,

True, but as Schroeder's experiment with linear motors show, the
reaction is orthogonal.

or
> at least there is no vacuum that is too good to be true.  I mean,
> why do you think that light could have a speed (as opposed
> to a velocity, for a rock o'light) ??

Light is a travelling electromagnetic wave motion, and its velocity
depends upon the medium through which it travels, and the speed of its
emitter. The former is proved in any microwave device with
dielectric, and the latter is proved by the null result of the MMI
experiment. The Doppler effect, where the frequency apparently varies
for a moving source or receiver, is a further indication.

Thus f = (c(mu, ep, v)/wavelength;
where c(mu, ep, v) = c(mu, ep) + v

Add e=0.5mvvN(N-k) and we have a spanking new theoretical physics.
Will take off, when all those in power are not such abominable racists
and bigots, cowards and liars, suck-ups, thieves and frauds. ie,
einsteinians.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee


Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
From: spudnik on
waves don't have velocity; only (undirected) speed. although,
a "photon" or other corpuscle could have a direction. I guess that
Fizeau showed that the speed of light could depend
upon the velocity of the *medium*, though -- some thing
that eluded me til this moment. (however,
I am not saying that the cosmical redshift is doppleroid .-)

I already gave the cite of M&M, where they give their "velocity
of or w.r.t. the aether" or not-null resultage.

> Light is a travelling electromagnetic wave motion, and its velocity
> depends upon the medium through which it travels, and the speed of its
> emitter.  The former is proved in any microwave device with
> dielectric, and the latter is proved by the null result of the MMI
> experiment.  The Doppler effect, where the frequency apparently varies
> for a moving source or receiver, is a further indication.
>
> Thus f = (c(mu, ep, v)/wavelength;
> where c(mu, ep, v) = c(mu, ep) + v

> einsteinians.

thus:
I do recommend tripolars, to set-up the problem.
> UTM is not needed here. No geodesics required at this time.
> I'm just trying to find a coord system or method that allows me to
> position my view at each station to determine alt/az from the two
> stations of two points on the path of an event, start and end.

thus:
although one is primary, is it ever considered, a proper divisor?
> A number is prime if and only if it have two divisors.

--les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/chapter-8-the-permian-basin-gang/

--Light, A History!
http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/index.html
From: spudnik on
c/lambda is meters/seconds divided by meters; frequency
of the lightwaves?

> > Thus f = (c(mu, ep, v)/wavelength;

--les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/chapter-8-the-permian-basin-gang/

--Light, A History!
http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/index.html
From: Arindam Banerjee on
On Jul 28, 4:33 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> waves don't have velocity;

Wave motion has velocity. Since you know nothing about basic physics,
I won't bother any more with you.
What fools we have these days! This is what comes, of leaving proper
science and technology and following careers leading to quick money!
No wonder China and India are going to thrash you lawyers etc. hollow
in the next few decades.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
From: spudnik on
don't be silly. waves are generally spherical, thence only have a
speed,
sans direction. it is true, that you might see one small part
of a wave breaking upon the beach, but what
about the diametrically opposite beach?

probably, you were considering a rock o'light.

> Wave motion has velocity.

--les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biograph...
--Light, A History!
http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/index.html