From: BURT on
On May 20, 12:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 20, 2:49 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 20, 7:10 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 19, 8:11 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Unless you can scan from side to side, I don't think you can determine
> > > > > the spatial extent of an object.
>
> > > > It's simply not true, Franklin. There are in fact *children's museum*
> > > > exhibits that have kids shoot BBs (without scanning) at objects of
> > > > unknown shape and size that are veiled under a screen, and the
> > > > exhibit
> > > > lets them choose several unknown objects, such as triangles,
> > > > cylinders, hexagons, disks, etc. By mapping where the scattered BBs
> > > > land, the *children* can deduce both the size and shape of the
> > > > object.
>
> > > > Historically, you may also want to look at the work of Rosalind
> > > > Franklin, who did much of the scattering work with Watson and Crick
> > > > that let them figure out the intricate shape and size of the DNA
> > > > molecule.
>
> > > > -You are effectively scanning if you are allowed to alter the incoming
> > > > trajectory and can discern the pattern of what passes through or is
> > > > deflected off to the side. This is nothing like what Rutherford did
> > > > with a beam of only straight flying alpha particles. Let's compare
> > > > apples to apples.
>
> > > I'm sorry, but that's also not true. The alphas all had different
> > > impact parameters with respect to the nucleus, and this is what in
> > > fact produces the *distribution* of the scattered alphas. It's EXACTLY
> > > the same thing, which is precisely why the children's museum exhibit
> > > is so instructive.
>
> > > > > Well of course, in "ionziation" experiments, the electron has been
> > > > > ionized or ejected from the nucleus and is of course flying around in
> > > > > such experiments and must have a measurable KE - what else would one
> > > > > expect?
>
> > > > But the *amount* of KE they have includes the KE they started with in
> > > > the orbital, not just what was given to them. You see? This is how we
> > > > know how much kinetic energy they have in the atom. And it's not
> > > > zero.
>
> > > > -How interesting. I looked this up and this assumes beforehand that
> > > > the electron is orbiting
>
> > > No, not orbiting. In an orbital. With kinetic energy. Different thing,
> > > subtle but crucial.
>
> > > > and there is a strict relationship between
> > > > the KE and PE which allows you to calculate this.
>
> > > You can do more than calculate it. You can MEASURE it. You MEASURE the
> > > kinetic energy of the ejected electrons, and you compare it to the
> > > energy you injected to eject it. The difference will give you
> > > information about the kinetic energy it had inside the atom.
>
> > > Of course it helps that atomic theory also accurately predicts that
> > > number. This comparison between the theoretical prediction and the
> > > measurement is how you know the theory is right.
>
> > > > Of course, if the
> > > > electron is not orbiting as I assert, you cannot do this calculation
> > > > to determine KE. You cannot assert beforehand what you are trying to
> > > > prove.
>
> > > See above. The essence of physics is that it is not just a dispute
> > > between theories. Your model and the prevailing model make different
> > > assumptions, and so of course there are different claims about what
> > > you can calculate and what you can't. If all physics did was to put
> > > those two models up against each other, then there would be no way to
> > > resolve which one was right except by some argument about which one
> > > makes more sense. But this is not how science resolves which one is
> > > right. Science makes the resolution between two theories by comparing
> > > the two models against experimental measurement to see which one gets
> > > the NUMBERS right, relative to the measured values -- and doing this
> > > especially in the places where the two models make different
> > > predictions.
>
> > > Physics isn't about building explanations that make intuitive sense.
> > > It's about building models that make the best and most comprehensive
> > > set of accurate experimental predictions.
>
> > > > > How do electrons take on these epicycle like electron shells?
>
> > > > This is in fact clearly explained by quantum mechanics. You just
> > > > haven't studied it.
>
> > > > - It is explained in the sense that it is described just like
> > > > epicycles were described. Mathematically and measurably accurate, but
> > > > totally insane.
>
> > > I don't know what you think is insane about it.
>
> > > > In what way could you say that the electron shell
> > > > explanation is any better than the epicycle explanation - it has the
> > > > same fatal problems.
>
> > > It is better because -- unlike planetary epicycles -- it makes
> > > accurate experimental PREdictions, not POSTdictions.
>
> > > > Physics is fond of saying that common sense
> > > > doesn't matter, but I think in most matters, when you come to the
> > > > truth, like how the earth isn't the center of the universe and how
> > > > electrons do not orbit around the nucleus, you will find common sense
> > > > does reign.
>
> > > No, I'm sorry, but common sense is a liar and a cheat.
>
> > > > > I, on the other hand, do have answers to all of these questions and in
> > > > > a way which has the same kind of beauty as the Copernican revolution
> > > > > of removing the Earth centered universe.
>
> > > > The proof of the pudding is in the eating. How does your model allow
> > > > us to have control over inertia, gravity, charge, mass? Where is a
> > > > patent application for a device that operates on your principles and
> > > > exploits them for control of any of these quantities?
>
> > > > -Well, inertia and mass are governed by the interaction of matter with
> > > > the poselectron aether. If you could eliminate that electrostatic
> > > > interaction, you could eliminate inertia or reduce your mass. Or, if
> > > > you could create a "bottle" for the aether and put yourself inside it,
> > > > you would be immune to inertial effects.
>
> > > That's a broad, vague and useless statement. Where is the patent
> > > application that shows your principles at work?
>
> > > > Gravity is merely an electrostatic effect. As such, it should be
> > > > possible to engineer ways to defeat gravity using electrical means.
> > > > But you would have to figure out how to concentrate enough charge
> > > > without having it immediately discharge to the nearest object. This is
> > > > probably why we've not figured it out yet.
>
> > > > Charge is merely the result of the phased interaction of the resonant
> > > > frequency of the positron and electron. It is a normal (but very high
> > > > frequency) EM wave. If we were able to generate such a wave like we do
> > > > microwaves, we could create virtual charge waves without using a
> > > > charge displacement. This may ultimately also be the way to control
> > > > gravity.
>
> > > > See, all of these things have a physical reality in the aether which
> > > > you can work with. If we assume that space is made up of 'nothing',
> > > > then there is nothing to work with.
>
> > > Sorry, Franklin, but you don't need matter to "work" with it.
> > > Physicists have been working with nonmatter physical entities for
> > > decades.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > What do you mean by nonmatter physical?
>
> Just what it sounds like. There are lots of physical entities that do
> not consist of matter.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

A better term for that is the "immaterial."

Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on
On May 21, 7:40 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 20, 12:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 20, 2:49 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 20, 7:10 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 19, 8:11 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Unless you can scan from side to side, I don't think you can determine
> > > > > > the spatial extent of an object.
>
> > > > > It's simply not true, Franklin. There are in fact *children's museum*
> > > > > exhibits that have kids shoot BBs (without scanning) at objects of
> > > > > unknown shape and size that are veiled under a screen, and the
> > > > > exhibit
> > > > > lets them choose several unknown objects, such as triangles,
> > > > > cylinders, hexagons, disks, etc. By mapping where the scattered BBs
> > > > > land, the *children* can deduce both the size and shape of the
> > > > > object.
>
> > > > > Historically, you may also want to look at the work of Rosalind
> > > > > Franklin, who did much of the scattering work with Watson and Crick
> > > > > that let them figure out the intricate shape and size of the DNA
> > > > > molecule.
>
> > > > > -You are effectively scanning if you are allowed to alter the incoming
> > > > > trajectory and can discern the pattern of what passes through or is
> > > > > deflected off to the side. This is nothing like what Rutherford did
> > > > > with a beam of only straight flying alpha particles. Let's compare
> > > > > apples to apples.
>
> > > > I'm sorry, but that's also not true. The alphas all had different
> > > > impact parameters with respect to the nucleus, and this is what in
> > > > fact produces the *distribution* of the scattered alphas. It's EXACTLY
> > > > the same thing, which is precisely why the children's museum exhibit
> > > > is so instructive.
>
> > > > > > Well of course, in "ionziation" experiments, the electron has been
> > > > > > ionized or ejected from the nucleus and is of course flying around in
> > > > > > such experiments and must have a measurable KE - what else would one
> > > > > > expect?
>
> > > > > But the *amount* of KE they have includes the KE they started with in
> > > > > the orbital, not just what was given to them. You see? This is how we
> > > > > know how much kinetic energy they have in the atom. And it's not
> > > > > zero.
>
> > > > > -How interesting. I looked this up and this assumes beforehand that
> > > > > the electron is orbiting
>
> > > > No, not orbiting. In an orbital. With kinetic energy. Different thing,
> > > > subtle but crucial.
>
> > > > > and there is a strict relationship between
> > > > > the KE and PE which allows you to calculate this.
>
> > > > You can do more than calculate it. You can MEASURE it. You MEASURE the
> > > > kinetic energy of the ejected electrons, and you compare it to the
> > > > energy you injected to eject it. The difference will give you
> > > > information about the kinetic energy it had inside the atom.
>
> > > > Of course it helps that atomic theory also accurately predicts that
> > > > number. This comparison between the theoretical prediction and the
> > > > measurement is how you know the theory is right.
>
> > > > > Of course, if the
> > > > > electron is not orbiting as I assert, you cannot do this calculation
> > > > > to determine KE. You cannot assert beforehand what you are trying to
> > > > > prove.
>
> > > > See above. The essence of physics is that it is not just a dispute
> > > > between theories. Your model and the prevailing model make different
> > > > assumptions, and so of course there are different claims about what
> > > > you can calculate and what you can't. If all physics did was to put
> > > > those two models up against each other, then there would be no way to
> > > > resolve which one was right except by some argument about which one
> > > > makes more sense. But this is not how science resolves which one is
> > > > right. Science makes the resolution between two theories by comparing
> > > > the two models against experimental measurement to see which one gets
> > > > the NUMBERS right, relative to the measured values -- and doing this
> > > > especially in the places where the two models make different
> > > > predictions.
>
> > > > Physics isn't about building explanations that make intuitive sense..
> > > > It's about building models that make the best and most comprehensive
> > > > set of accurate experimental predictions.
>
> > > > > > How do electrons take on these epicycle like electron shells?
>
> > > > > This is in fact clearly explained by quantum mechanics. You just
> > > > > haven't studied it.
>
> > > > > - It is explained in the sense that it is described just like
> > > > > epicycles were described. Mathematically and measurably accurate, but
> > > > > totally insane.
>
> > > > I don't know what you think is insane about it.
>
> > > > > In what way could you say that the electron shell
> > > > > explanation is any better than the epicycle explanation - it has the
> > > > > same fatal problems.
>
> > > > It is better because -- unlike planetary epicycles -- it makes
> > > > accurate experimental PREdictions, not POSTdictions.
>
> > > > > Physics is fond of saying that common sense
> > > > > doesn't matter, but I think in most matters, when you come to the
> > > > > truth, like how the earth isn't the center of the universe and how
> > > > > electrons do not orbit around the nucleus, you will find common sense
> > > > > does reign.
>
> > > > No, I'm sorry, but common sense is a liar and a cheat.
>
> > > > > > I, on the other hand, do have answers to all of these questions and in
> > > > > > a way which has the same kind of beauty as the Copernican revolution
> > > > > > of removing the Earth centered universe.
>
> > > > > The proof of the pudding is in the eating. How does your model allow
> > > > > us to have control over inertia, gravity, charge, mass? Where is a
> > > > > patent application for a device that operates on your principles and
> > > > > exploits them for control of any of these quantities?
>
> > > > > -Well, inertia and mass are governed by the interaction of matter with
> > > > > the poselectron aether. If you could eliminate that electrostatic
> > > > > interaction, you could eliminate inertia or reduce your mass. Or, if
> > > > > you could create a "bottle" for the aether and put yourself inside it,
> > > > > you would be immune to inertial effects.
>
> > > > That's a broad, vague and useless statement. Where is the patent
> > > > application that shows your principles at work?
>
> > > > > Gravity is merely an electrostatic effect. As such, it should be
> > > > > possible to engineer ways to defeat gravity using electrical means.
> > > > > But you would have to figure out how to concentrate enough charge
> > > > > without having it immediately discharge to the nearest object. This is
> > > > > probably why we've not figured it out yet.
>
> > > > > Charge is merely the result of the phased interaction of the resonant
> > > > > frequency of the positron and electron. It is a normal (but very high
> > > > > frequency) EM wave. If we were able to generate such a wave like we do
> > > > > microwaves, we could create virtual charge waves without using a
> > > > > charge displacement. This may ultimately also be the way to control
> > > > > gravity.
>
> > > > > See, all of these things have a physical reality in the aether which
> > > > > you can work with. If we assume that space is made up of 'nothing',
> > > > > then there is nothing to work with.
>
> > > > Sorry, Franklin, but you don't need matter to "work" with it.
> > > > Physicists have been working with nonmatter physical entities for
> > > > decades.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > What do you mean by nonmatter physical?
>
> > Just what it sounds like. There are lots of physical entities that do
> > not consist of matter.
>
> > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> A better term for that is the "immaterial."
>
> Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If an electron and a proton are attractive then why must you force
them together?

Mitch Raemsch
From: spudnik on
don't
top-
post!

> > > > > > > > "If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the
> > > > > > > > system
> > > > > > > > k
> > > > > > > > must
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

thusNso:
look up Dayton C. Miller's refinements of M&M's work,
to see that there are no "null results," as is oft said. not,
however, that it rquires any aether,
than the medium of space, itself -- it ain't Pascal's vacuum,
nor is it any other theoretical physicists absolute vacuum. (also,
"surfer" has a nice graph of osme of these non-null results,
inter-compared .-)

> > Again, the ballistic theory of light satisfies the Galilean transform
> > and the principle of relativity. It also explains the null results of
> > the MMX. You need to get over with that as well. <shrug>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_double_star_experiment

thusNso:
there are lots of folks on the nets (sik),
who apparently are second-generation Americans, and
who are not really literate in two languages. what I'm saying is,
you'll never grok English, til you *try* to read Shakespeare --
which is all anyone can do, especially the God-am British.

(see, "Why the British Hate Shakespeare,"
http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf ... of course,
probably, one'd also have to "get classical"
in one's mother tongue, two, ultimately .-)

thusNso:
there is no problem with using four dimensions,
in two ways: a)
a 3D movie; b)
homogenous coordinates for ordinary space.

unforunately, the British Psychological Society muddied the waters
with monsieur A.A. Skwared -- as if
the pythagorean theorem had anything to do with skwares, or
even with 2D shapes, alas.

thusNso:
there was once a thing, actually a decade or two ago,
called the U.S. Climate Reference Network, that was just a dataset
of the 28 continental weather stations that had not been
"incorporated"
by the urban heat island effect -- then understood only
in terms of manmade changes of albedo & evapotraspiration.

when I tried to search it online, a while ago, I found that
it had mysteriously been allowed to, well, not be just a dataset, and
there were plans for starting a new one, some time.

> Here's some data from Iowa State University
> http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/faculty/takle/presentations.html

thusNso:
"case" is every thing, in this context, and
I stand by what I mean by it (a little calculation
of a long time ago, inspired by Bucky saith .-)

anyway, your say-so is rather nonsensical, since
everyone else comprehends them to be two forms
of the *same* thing, only one of which "has" mass.

you pretty-much tossed your whole cookie,
by "transforming the equation into maether."

> Your 'm' refers to mass. That is inaccurate. Both aether and matter
> have mass. Both aether and matter are different states of mæther.
> A=Mc^2, where A is aether and M is matter, or: M=A/c^2.
> Change your lowercase 'm' to an upper case 'M' and you've got it.

thusNso:
there are lots of effects that are not neccesarily taken
into account by the UNIPCC, such as subsidence of land
due to erosion from agriculture & deforestation (even though
there really is no discernible world-around "rise
of sea level," excepting in computerized simulacra, as
with so much else).

thusNso:
there are plenty of questions, probably most of which've
been answered in the literature. like, given the redshifting
of light through the medium of space (sik), are those shifts
continuous with distance, or just very subtle?
the whole idea of a rock o'light, aimed at your eye from a star,
doesn't seem absurd if those rocks are aimed everywhere; still,
the particle is not needed, if one accepts that a (spherical) wave
can be a quantum. certainly, it would get rid of the conundrum
of a massless/momentumless & volumeless "point of light"
a la Dubya.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/see_a_photon.html
> Secondly, the sensitivity of a patch on your retina goes down if there
> is stray light coming in from another source. That's how,
> We didn't really go to Moon!

thusNso:
you have slightly misconstrued. the wave-energy seems
to be adequately tuned to the electromagnetic property
of the atom, and *that* is the "particle"
into which it "collapses," not the quantum-called-photon.
the photon is nothing but a coinage for a unit of light-energy,
as-and-when "detected" by a device or cone of the eye
(the rods & cones are "log-spiral antennae" .-)
nothing in Planck's analysis requires a rock o'light, and
probably not really in Einstein's; so, there.
> > > > > > > Decide a photon propagates as a wave and is detected as a particle.
> > > > > > > That is what you are suggesting in all of your quotes above,
> > > > > > > "Light collapsing into a particle" e.g..

--Pi, the surfer's canonical value -- accept no other!
http://wlym.com
From: BURT on

How can protons and electrons be attractive if they have to be forced
together?

No. This doesn't make any sense. The electric field has no charge and
is always repulsive. The electric field is the same for protons as for
electrons. It is always repulsive.

Mitch Raemsch
From: ben6993 on
On May 28, 10:55 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z>
wrote:
> "ben6993" <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message

> You are entitled to your own crazy assumptions. I can only pity
> you. I cannot help you, I have no qualifications in psychiatry.

That was a very sad comment. I don't know why, but I expected more
decency from you.
Bye.