Prev: Iarnrod proven correct again: It is physically impossible, of course, for 9/11 to be an "inside job"
Next: "What Galileo Avoided [corresp. w. Kepler]"
From: NoEinstein on 1 Aug 2010 20:08
On Aug 1, 1:31 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote:
>
Dear Igor: Which engineering school did you flunk out of? —
NoEinstein —
>
> glird wrote:
> > In the equation F = ma, F is a vector, denoting a force.  (A
> > "vector" is a line whose length denotes a quantity and whose direction
> > is that in which the quantity is acting.
>
> A vector is not a line.
>
> > A "force" is a net pressure
> > measured independently of the area of application.
>
> Force is not pressure.

From: spudnik on 1 Aug 2010 21:43
isn't it in every beginning text, that
the only transmitted force is the "normal"component?... ah;
depends on "elastic" or "inelastic;" n'est?

> strikes a concrete wall at a 15 degree angle.  The wall experiences a
> pressure, but the force isn't perpendicular.  Quit being a pedant,

thus:
indeed, a massless & momentumless particle is going
to have a hard time observing any thing, but
I thought you meant an actual observer *not* going at c....
four spins of this virtual photon, coould be a dradel.

>     I used electrical engineer language to describe the four
> polarization states of the electromagnetic field inside an antenna.
> Let me use covariant QED language.
>     The two circular polarization states are unchanged in QED
> language. Clockwise and counterclockwise are good words. However, the
> transverse magnetic mode is called the longitudinal spin state. The
> transverse electric mode is called the time-like spin state.
>        To summarize: I described a good heuristic relating QED to
> classical antenna theory. The spin state of the photon relates to the
> polarization state of the radio wave or radio field. There are two
> polarization/spin states in the far field (far from the antennae) and
> four polarization/spin states in the near field (close to the antennae).

thus: the pythagorean theorem is perfectly dimensional, as
he and I both concern ourselves with "circling," instead
of "tatragoning." that is, "Einstein's proof" via similarity,
which he probably found at the gymnasium
in Euclid, is merely diagrammatic as he gave it;
the actual construction *is* the lunes proof
(Hippocrates', I think, but different than the Oath's .-)
> So why are you assuming otherwise?

thus: in spite of his slogan about phase-space,
Minkowski was a fantastic Nd geometer. anyway,
it's downright innumerate to worry about it,
without actually peeking at l'OEuvre de Fermatttt, but
Hipparchus' (or Hippocrates') lunes proof is all
that you need for the dimensionality of the 2d pythag. thm.,
if not the 3d pair of them (quadruplets).
the main thing, though, is that Fermat didn't have
to prove n=3, since his proof apparently applied
to all of the odd primes; only the special case
of n=4 does not fall to teh well-known lemma
for composite exponents, and this he showed,
in one of his rare expositions.

thus: too bad, the unit associated with the pound, had
to be associated with The newton -- the plagiarist,
the spook, the freemason, the corpuscular "theorist" ...

--les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biograph...

--Light, A History!
http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/index.html
From: NoEinstein on 4 Aug 2010 20:08
On Aug 1, 9:43 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
spudnik never lets on who he's talking to. He just talks, but few
bother to read. — NE —
>
> isn't it in every beginning text, that
> the only transmitted force is the "normal"component?...  ah;
> depends on "elastic" or "inelastic;" n'est?
>
> > strikes a concrete wall at a 15 degree angle.  The wall experiences a
> > pressure, but the force isn't perpendicular.  Quit being a pedant,
>
> thus:
> indeed, a massless & momentumless particle is going
> to have a hard time observing any thing, but
> I thought you meant an actual observer *not* going at c....
> four spins of this virtual photon, coould be a dradel.
>
> >     I used electrical engineer language to describe the four
> > polarization states of the electromagnetic field inside an antenna.
> > Let me use covariant QED language.
> >     The two circular polarization states are unchanged in QED
> > language. Clockwise and counterclockwise are good words. However, the
> > transverse magnetic mode is called the longitudinal spin state. The
> > transverse electric mode is called the time-like spin state.
> >        To summarize: I described a good heuristic relating QED to
> > classical antenna theory. The spin state of the photon relates to the
> > polarization state of the radio wave or radio field. There are two
> > polarization/spin states in the far field (far from the antennae) and
> > four polarization/spin states in the near field (close to the antennae)..
>
> thus:  the pythagorean theorem is perfectly dimensional, as
> he and I both concern ourselves with "circling," instead
> of "tatragoning."  that is, "Einstein's proof" via similarity,
> which he probably found at the gymnasium
> in Euclid, is merely diagrammatic as he gave it;
> the actual construction *is* the lunes proof
> (Hippocrates', I think, but different than the Oath's .-)
>
> > So why are you assuming otherwise?
>
> thus:   in spite of his slogan about phase-space,
> Minkowski was a fantastic Nd geometer.  anyway,
> it's downright innumerate to worry about it,
> without actually peeking at l'OEuvre de Fermatttt, but
> Hipparchus' (or Hippocrates') lunes proof is all
> that you need for the dimensionality of the 2d pythag. thm.,
> if not the 3d pair of them (quadruplets).
>     the main thing, though, is that Fermat didn't have
> to prove n=3, since his proof apparently applied
> to all of the odd primes; only the special case
> of n=4 does not fall to teh well-known lemma
> for composite exponents, and this he showed,
> in one of his rare expositions.
>
> thus:  too bad, the unit associated with the pound, had
> to be associated with The newton -- the plagiarist,
> the spook, the freemason, the corpuscular "theorist" ...
>
> --les ducs d'oil!http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biograph...
>
> --Light, A History!http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/index.html

From: spudnik on 4 Aug 2010 21:09
just say, duh!

thus:
incidentally, the perfect box problem is of the same sort,
as le theoreme <<dernier>> de Fermatttt, and obviously
both Diophantine and geometrically dimensional.
> You seem to misunderstand mathematics and to know nothing of what
> mathematics is about.

thus:
that's kind-of a British thing,
to leave commas to the imagination of the reader,
perhaps because that's how Eliz. does it, or some thing.

> If every sentence you
> write has 5 commas in it, then it's guaranteed that your

thus: the perfect box problem missed one of the lengths,
but I couldn't see what you meant by a "4d brick."
http://unsolvedproblems.org/

--les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net

--Light, A History!
http://wlym.com
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Iarnrod proven correct again: It is physically impossible, of course, for 9/11 to be an "inside job"
Next: "What Galileo Avoided [corresp. w. Kepler]"