Prev: Band GAP energy
Next: Physicists Find Way to See Through Paint, Paper, and Other Opaque Materials
From: spudnik on 16 Mar 2010 16:32
it was really an evocation of the Leibnizian method,
than Newton's. anyway, the (local) curvature of space
-- to say nothing of "time, as a dimension" --
was shown be Aristarchus, by comparison
with a correspondent in another town at noon, and
instrumentally by Gauss (theodolite invention,
he used to survey Alsace-Lorraine for France .-)

> First why do mass-energy curve spacetime? What is spacetime except as
> a mathematical construct really made of and how is it different from
> the ether? Why is there no spacetime without mass-energy?

thus:
you mean, God plays dice, when He wants to (or, She) ??

Bell's nonlocality and Aspect's experiment can
be comprehended as "reifying the math of photons,"
sipposedly proven to exist by the photoelectrical effect;
that is to say "rocks o'light," to re-empower Newton's "theory"
of corpuscles, which was completely shattered by Young,
with his words and his two-pinhole experiment etc.

if there is any thing that is more obnoxious than Einsteinmania,
it is the Second (secular) Church of England,
Newtonmania!... why, do you think,
he was awarded with the minding of the mint?

thus:
not if there is no perfect plenum a la Pascal; then,
every thing is "due to quanta."
> Is gravity due to quanta or is space a void?

thus:
since all of the primes are determined by the seive
of Eratosthenes (who also pushed an Egyptian expedition
that made it all the way to Chile, ne'er returned),
why would "correlations" of twin-primes not be related
to "distributions" of all (or just single) primes?
what was Fermat's proof of the so-called last theorem?

thus:
quasars are cool, even if they are not as far,
away as the Hubble assumption'd make them; I mean,
then, they'd be cool-er. phonons & photons:
they are merely the quanta of being-captured-
by-the-device!

thus:
it was only a double-negative, unless
you believe that Fermat's proof of n=4 came,
before his marginal miracle. I mean,
why would he explicitly state n=4, otherwise?
(he did not prove n=3, explicitly.)

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Band GAP energy
Next: Physicists Find Way to See Through Paint, Paper, and Other Opaque Materials