Electron’s puzzles.
in [Math]
|
Prev: converting data points from linear to log
Next: prime triple and Sophie Germain above 1580187000, - middle prime divides (10^9)^(10^9)+3.
From: glird on 25 May 2010 18:40 On May 21, 1:59 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > < I wrote a book, "The Nature of Matter and Energy", and published it in 1965. It contains quantitative models of things that had no comparable models in any other existing theories. Since then, almost every such "prediction" has been experimentally confirmed by data produced by experimental physicists who never heard of my book. Furthermore, the physicists were surprised and amazed in almost every case, at the data they found. In 2008, after writing several other books that condensed and then extended the things set forth in my prior ones, I decided to apply my general comprehension of the structure of the real world to a study of quantum theory. To do that I followed my usual procedure; which is to go to the original papers written by the person or people who created the given theory. In this case it was Max Planck. Rather than read what other people said about his theory I got a copy of his original paper and studied that. As usual, I found in it things that no one else seems to have noticed. Wrt one such detail I found that by doing thus and so - which he never did, I came up with the exact experimental value of h. Within a few days of that, I came up with an explanation of every detail of what his quantum of action (h) physically is and also what his quantum of energy (e_0 = hf) is, both physically and mathematically. > That was posted about two weeks ago and again a few days ago. As usual, NO ONE has replied. Evidently no physicists are interested in *understanding* the things they only know how to measure. Too bad for them. glird
From: spudnik on 27 May 2010 22:17 dood, is it OK if I call you, Th'orbert -- Dorb for short?... wel, you have a knack for short neologisms (gloss contains both "density" and "dinsity," as well as words that seem new, whether entymologically related to any thing. however, apart from one equation on the glide-through, didn't see no predictions xor hypotheses; just a *lot* of verbiage. also, some of what appeared to be 'Sixtiesisms, like, if that's a word, beside of Wow. I mean, REALLY, wow. thusNso: you are relying on rationals, that are decimals (in the base of ten, although some authors will call rationals "decimals," in any integral base, which is one class of solutions (what ever it's called, in what ever we're talking about)). in any case, it is almost a standard, that one use the base that is associated with the prime exponent ... which is really the meaning of some of Fermat's theorems & challenges [*]. and that makes me very happy, then very sad ... because you're probably trying to find some guru/god/guy or some goddess, who already wrote this up in the hither & yon of Vedic psychorama ... which reminds me of A.C.Clarke and the Satellevator Daytrippers, ba-doom/yeah. thusNso: Shell is about half British, but Netherlands is the big port o'call (also, the place to call when the windmill feathers, inapproprietly). why should I believe in your kind of free energy, and how could I measure it (sik) ??... maybe, it really is "free trade." > Then introduce free energy technology [ellipsis]. ------- * anyway, for those of you/us/them in need of "skills," I want to suggest Fermat's "reconstruction of Euclid's porisms;" they seem rather a r b i t r a r y , but that's just me, "you, idiota!" --Light: A History! http://wlym.com
From: spudnik on 27 May 2010 22:26
.... and, one only needs to do prime exponents/bases, "because of the easy lemma for composite bases, except for n=4, where Fermatttt said, 'Oops, c'ette une case especially -- need an other proof!'" heh-heh; not in my book. thusNso: dood, is it OK if I call you, Th'orbert -- Dorb for short?... wel, you have a knack for short neologisms (gloss contains both "density" and "dinsity," as well as words that seem new, whether entymologically related to any thing. however, apart from one equation on the glide-through, didn't see no predictions xor hypotheses; just a *lot* of verbiage. also, some of what appeared to be 'Sixtiesisms, like, if that's a word, beside of Wow. I mean, REALLY, wow. thusNso: you are relying on rationals, that are decimals (in the base of ten, although some authors will call rationals "decimals," in any integral base, which is one class of solutions (what ever it's called, in what ever we're talking about)). in any case, it is almost a standard, that one use the base that is associated with the prime exponent ... which is really the meaning of some of Fermat's theorems & challenges [*]. and that makes me very happy, then very sad ... because you're probably trying to find some guru/god/guy or some goddess, who already wrote this up in the hither & yon of Vedic psychorama ... which reminds me of A.C.Clarke and the Satellevator Daytrippers, ba-doom/yeah. thusNso: Shell is about half British, but Netherlands is the big port o'call (also, the place to call when the windmill feathers, inapproprietly). why should I believe in your kind of free energy, and how could I measure it (sik) ??... maybe, it really is "free trade." > Then introduce free energy technology [ellipsis]. ------- * anyway, for those of you/us/them in need of "skills," I want to suggest Fermat's "reconstruction of Euclid's porisms;" they seem rather a r b i t r a r y , but that's just me, "you, idiota!" --Light: A History! http://wlym.com |