Prev: Unification of the instrument
Next: One word to correct the nonsense of QM
From: Rock Brentwood on 16 Jan 2010 15:40
On Jan 16, 2:26 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > For media with non-trivial indices of refraction (e.g. outer space,
> > particularly in the earliest epochs of the universe) it is not.
>
> Elsewhere I have shown the equivalence of a serpent bite taken from
> Newton's falling apple and the disparity between oscillators at the
> top and bottom of Harvard tower. If  anyone thinks you are
> being overly speculative, I will try to dig up the URL to
> these convincing calculations with some experimental
> support.    :o)
>
> Sue...

Experimental values for deviation from 1 for the index of refraction
in outer space -- other than in the earliest epoch of the universe?

Here's a question worth probing on this issue: if you take the
Einstein-Laub-Minkowski relations for space, with an epsilon mu
product not equal to (1/c)^2, can this be used to better fit cosmic
ray data? In particular, can the cosmic ray anomaly be modeled as an
approach to a non-trivial Cherenkov limit in outer space?
From: Ste on 16 Jan 2010 16:45
On 16 Jan, 14:59, "preedmont" <nos...(a)spamless.com> wrote:
> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1b611c0f-beb2-4b2e-a017-7079c480809f(a)l30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 16 Jan, 04:33, "preedmont" <nos...(a)spamless.com> wrote:
> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:dd68ad12-0046-499a-9391-452eb70953a0(a)a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com....
>
> >> > On 16 Jan, 02:00, jdawe <mrjd...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> force = push + pull.
>
> >> > How do we distinguish push from pull?
>
> >> push = - pull
>
> >> now add pull to both sides
>
> >> push + pull = 0
>
> >> therefore, force = 0
>
> > So I'll ask again, how does one *distinguish* between push and pull?
> > How can one tell when one is measuring push, and how can one tell when
> > one is measuring pull? Or are they really one and the same thing?
>
>  push = pull - ll + sh
>
> push = not pull
>
> not push = pull
>
> pull - ll = push - sh
>
> OR
>
> pull - push = ll - sh-

So how do we know whether something is pu+sh, or whether it is pu+ll?
From: twentydbk on 17 Jan 2010 00:03
On Jan 16, 3:40 pm, Rock Brentwood <markw...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2:26 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > For media with non-trivial indices of refraction (e.g. outer space,
> > > particularly in the earliest epochs of the universe) it is not.
>
> > Elsewhere I have shown the equivalence of a serpent bite taken from
> > Newton's falling apple and the disparity between oscillators at the
> > top and bottom of Harvard tower. If  anyone thinks you are
> > being overly speculative, I will try to dig up the URL to
> > these convincing calculations with some experimental
> > support.    :o)
>
> > Sue...
>
> Experimental values for deviation from 1 for the index of refraction
> in outer space -- other than in the earliest epoch of the universe?
>
> Here's a question worth probing on this issue: if you take the
> Einstein-Laub-Minkowski relations for space, with an epsilon mu
> product not equal to (1/c)^2, can this be used to better fit cosmic
> ray data? In particular, can the cosmic ray anomaly be modeled as an
> approach to a non-trivial Cherenkov limit in outer space?


That makes some well known but not easily testable
assumptions about the source of the radiation. Alan
Guth might find some value in that. There are plenty of
alternatives that don't require a different physics at
a different time that need to be eliminated.

I went through a lot of my childhood wondering how
the laws of physics could be different back in
biblical times. Clearly they were if the best accounts
were credible. Call it a knee jerk reaction if you
will but that is why I singled out part of your otherwise
very thoughtful posting.

I might have asked the ways a school of fish improves
its position in space-time by coming to a common heading
almost instantly. But I would not have asked how the
laws of physics were different at a different time.

I gave that up long ago. :-)

Sue...
From: jdawe on 17 Jan 2010 23:57
On Jan 16, 2:30 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 16 Jan, 02:00, jdawe <mrjd...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > force = push + pull.
>
> How do we distinguish push from pull?

push force accelerates a mass.

or

pull force decelerates a mass.

-Josh.






From: jdawe on 18 Jan 2010 00:06
On Jan 16, 12:00 pm, jdawe <mrjd...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> force = push + pull.
>
> push = solid matter + potential energy
>
> pull = fluid matter + kinetic energy
>
> We have,
>
> a magnet = solid matter.
>
> and
>
> an electric current = kinetic energy.
>
> Therefore,
>
> our opposing operands of electromagnetism are:
>
> solid matter
>
> or
>
> kinetic energy.
>
> In other words,
>
> electromagnetism force = solid matter ( push ) + kinetic energy
> ( pull ).
>
> -Josh.

The opposite of putting solid matter ( push ) with kinetic energy
( pull ) flowing around it is to put potential energy ( push ) and
have fluid like water ( pull ) flowing around it.

In other words this gives us sonar:

sonar = potential energy ( push ) + fluid matter ( pull )

-Josh.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Unification of the instrument
Next: One word to correct the nonsense of QM